Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

1. That isn't even close to being analogous. The tax code does not catalog events that happened--it establishes guidelines for classifying and taxing transactions. 

The tax code is great evidence for the fact that taxes exist.

You're getting closer--I can see where you are going with this: The tax code NT is great evidence for the fact that taxes the supernatural exists. 

2. Since the 'Bible' is a collection of 66 books written by 40 some authors over 1500 years, your reasoning goes flying out the window. You see, there is no justification you can use to treat the Bible or the NT as one thing. It wasn't and never will be one thing. Let me re-write your sentence so that it reflects the reality of the situation:

"Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation which asserts that JC was divine?"

To which I would say that scholars believe there was also Q and possibly M and L. In addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement and more the 12 others that did not make the "canon cut" that were still written in the lifetime of witnesses (before 100AD). 

But Christians treat it as one story. I'm certainly entitled to hold those that do to their own standard.

And if you don't think that all those books tell one story, then aren't you justifying cherry-picking?

You asked "Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible which asserts that JC was divine?" I pointed out that your question was malformed. 

Now you pivot to "one story". Wouldn't it be cause for concern if all these books told us more than "one story"? I think it's more convincing that it is "one story". 

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events? Admit it, your problem isn't with eyewitness, its the content of the claim. And if that's the case, you are the one engaged in question begging/circular reasoning: the NT can't be true because miracles don't happen.

No, my problem is that eyewitness testimony is largely unreliable. The fact that the content of the claim is so absurd only raises the bar for evidence, meaning that eyewitness claims which have suffered many translation, edits, insertions, and forgeries are only that much more unreliable.

If you have eyewitness testimony stating that on Tuesday morning Joe, the baker at the local breadshop, baked seventeen loaves of bread, hey, I'm good with it. Bakers bake bread. We can probably find an inventory sheet showing that, too.

But if you claim that Joe the Baker walked on water, raised the dead, and turned two loaves and five fish into a feast feeding 5,000, I'm going to need a little more than eyewitness testimony two thousand years old that has suffered all the indignities I've listed above. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you are here trying to convince me. You'll need to set aside your own obviously paltry requirements for evidence and play rational ball.

You cannot do that, and you know it.

Not accepting the eyewitness claims in the NT is fine--I don't find that an unreasonable position. However, your misconceptions and fringe theories that I marked above is just that--misconceptions and fringe theories with no real evidence.

[Cyberman]

Copycat. Telling a joke twice doesn't make it twice as funny.

No; but as Barry Cryer said, when Pavarotti starts to sing Nessun Dorma the audience doesn't shout out "heard it!"

[LadyForCamus]

I usually stop reading a thread after a while, but once in a while I'll pop in just to mainly see what the theists are saying and if I have anything to contribute to counter their nonsense.

We're at the point where Steve is merely restating over and over his position.  It's the same schtick he's had for years on here... same argument, same 'evidence', etc.  It's fun to poke him every once in a while.

Also, Steve: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence due to the burden of proof.  The more unlikely/improbable the claim, the more proof is required to verify that the claim happened, and wasn't due to any other known/ordinary cause.

I'm sure you have me on ignore, but this is what it is.  Logic 101.  You would've failed any freshman logic course with what you've written in this thread.

It's really just as simple and straightforward as this, isn't it?  But it's quite amusing to watch our resident theists desperately try to make the concept seem more complicated than it really is in order to wiggle out of having to actually demonstrate anything relating to their religious claims.  40 some odd pages, and still, all we're hearing from Steve and Co. is: I don't have to do better because the Bible is good enough, because it is.  And, alleged biblical testimony is reliable and truthful because it is, and I say so.  Nice work guys.  

[Neo-Scholastic]

Neo-Scholastic, out of curiosity and with all due respect, regardless of all the labels and thought processes that people put into interpreting reality, is it possible that no one is right? In other words, is it possible that nobody is correct about the truth and that people are all deluded in their own unique ways? Is the human mind evolved enough to separate delusion from objective experience?

The issue is much deeper than whether or not any particular religion is true or if is closer to the truth than others. Debates about the historical reliability of the NT are way down the road for me. I accept Christianity the same way that most lay people accept the theory of evolution. I’m not deep in the weed* of NT studies the way Steve and RoadRunner are, but what I have studied points me in the direction of accepting the more mainstream opinions rather than the speculation of the fringe. I was raised in a Christian culture. It is familiar to me, conforms to my more certain understanding about reality, and the tradition provides adequate moral guidance and hope. If I had never heard the gospel or if geo-political events had quashed the nascent Christian tradition, then I would probably be a pagan neo-Platonist or Stoic.

Instead, I think it is pretty clear to everyone who knows me, personally and on the forums, that my interests are more basic, having to do with what is real, how we know what we know, and degrees of certainty. With this in mind, I think your question could be restated like this. Is the human mind evolved enough to have true justified beliefs (knowledge), where ‘true’ means correspondence with reality as-it-is and ‘justified’ means warranted by a rational inquiry.

In reply I would say that there appear to be two epistemological limits: 1) whether reality, at the most fundamental level, is orderly or chaotic; and 2) whether knowledge about the world can actually be attained by means of reason. The first is a necessary precondition for ‘truth’ The second is a precondition for ‘justified’. Because of those hard limits, each person must choose without any appeal to reason or experience what stance they will take with respect to both of those existential limits. Beyond those limits people can only guess. Either you believe that the world is intelligible or you don’t. Either you believe that reason is effective or you don’t.

I think if you dig deeply into nearly every debate you will find that people on opposite sides of every issue come down their existential stances, their worldview if you will. For example, the 5W of Aquinas are only valid for people who affirm that the world is intelligible and reason is effective. If you look closely at the most serious objections presented against the 5W they will ultimately involve an attack on either one or both of those pre-commitments. Likewise, in debates about moral realism (objective vs. subjective morality) people are talking past each other because the skeptical stance implicitly includes denial of the world’s intelligibility. Ultimately we’re all just guessing. At the same time, each guess, or existential choice as I call them, comes with a price. IMO people should recognize the implications of those fundamental choices with respect to important values, such as human rights, personal autonomy, meaning & purpose, and their obligations to others.

Personally, I feel that atheism is a symptom of an underlying, corrosive, and insidious skepticism, that I truly believe only leads to nihilism. I don’t mean this in a pejorative sense as if atheists are bad people. I just don’t think very many see the conceptual foundations on which many of their beliefs rest. At the same time, I recognize that I just have to accept that because their skepticism follows from very different existential choices we have no common ground for debating issues at less basic levels. The situation is entirely different with other Christians. I see all the crazy doctrines and twisted apologetics to which atheists rightly object. But at least with them, I share a basic world view and can at least hope to have nuanced and productive conversations.

*I was going to edit this for spelling but didn't because I found the typo kind of funny

[Mister Agenda]

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.

The problem there is that "most scholars" grasp onto 70 because they are smart enough not to put any credence in the absurd concept of "prophecy."  This is designed to make them seem less stupid than the three shits who think that miracles are real in this thread.  The problem is whoever wrote what later came to be called the gospel of mark did not address the situation in 70.  Josephus recounts that the city was a burned out, sacked, pillaged, un populated shithole.  But it was not leveled.  In Mark 13 he has his godboy say that not one stone will remain upon another.  So 70 is the terminus a quo, the earliest possible date for the city being burned out by Titus' assault.  But that condition remained valid for 65 years.  In 135 Emperor Hadrian did, in fact, level the site and build the new city of Aelia Capitolina on the site of the former Jerusalem. 

So "mark" is recording an actual historical event.  Jerusalem was in fact leveled.  But you will wait a long time for any xtian shitwit to admit that their gospel bullshit did not begin ( and remember that 'mark' was first ) until after the Romans suppressed the bar Kokhba revolt.

I suppose they could suggest that mark was too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a burned-out set of ruins and a leveled site suitable for reconstruction.  I can't see them rushing to that, either.

I read in some news that a paper mache mummy's mask contained a significant fragment of Mark and was tentatively dated to around 70 AD. It's not a claim I'm well-qualified to evaluate, but for what it's worth.

---

If there is an entity out there that wishes me (and everyone else) to acknowledge its existence, then it should show itself to me (and everyone else)... I guess it could do it again and again, in every age... and all over the World. Certainly not beyond its claimed ability.

Not only not beyond its ability, it would be less than trivial requiring zero effort on the part of an omnipotent being, by definition.

[Amarok]

Indeed the case for 70 is well supported as Carrier beats into the head of professional idiot John Tor. who tries pulling the same fundie nonsense . As well as some other classic apologist crap.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10064

---

In the end all anti mythicists have is bluster, threats , And straw men

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794#16

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/...micfreedom

[Harry Nevis]

The tax code is great evidence for the fact that taxes exist.

You're getting closer--I can see where you are going with this: The tax code NT is great evidence for the fact that taxes the supernatural exists. 

No, it isn't. Why you can't see this is beyond me.  It is only evidence that it was believed.

---

You asked "Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible which asserts that JC was divine?" I pointed out that your question was malformed. 

Can you answer the question?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The tax code is great evidence for the fact that taxes exist.

You're getting closer--I can see where you are going with this: The tax code NT is great evidence for the fact that taxes the supernatural exists. 

No, it isn't, because while writing is mundane, the claim that the supernatural exists isn't.

By your logic, Hogwarts is a real school and Harry Potter is a gifted young man indeed.

You asked "Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible which asserts that JC was divine?" I pointed out that your question was malformed. 

Now you pivot to "one story". Wouldn't it be cause for concern if all these books told us more than "one story"? I think it's more convincing that it is "one story". 

A more parsimonious explanation is that they are retellings (I'm thinking of the Gospels in particular.) That is not sufficient to be evidence because, again, anyone can write a story, and anyone can then retell it.

Not accepting the eyewitness claims in the NT is fine--I don't find that an unreasonable position. However, your misconceptions and fringe theories that I marked above is just that--misconceptions and fringe theories with no real evidence.

Uh, no. You clearly don't understand, and I am not emotionally invested in changing your mind. I don't count your opinion as valuable.

[Minimalist]

I think Stevie needs a padded cell.

[Cyberman]

Where's the fun in that?