cuchulain

I have never met an Atheist who believes in life after death, any form of reincarnation, or any sort of vague there must be something. I don't disagree, necessarily, that such could be out there. Just saying, maybe it isn't many.

A piece of sand is nothing significant, but in the wrong place it can sure SEEM significant.

It would be plenty for them to believe in what they claim...if they weren't trying to convince me, sometimes with threat of violence. If a person wants me to believe what they are saying, they should be able to provide a good reason for me to believe it, other than they believe it as well. Otherwise I would be doing a lot of waffling back and forth, depending on who was trying to convince me and when.

I have considered this position in many ways. My favorite: The coke user who thinks they can fly. They might be alone on a roof top loaded to the gills with cocaine, and when they jump they are the only person available to determine the reality of whether they can or cannot fly. They still sink like a stone.

Everyone has bias. This is something you have said multiple times, by my recollection. If everyone has bias, then everyone has things that are harder to prove to them. Everyone has a claim they feel is extraordinary and that they feel needs superior evidence. So...it is about the claim, while at the same time it is about the person examining the claim and the evidence for that claim.

I can understand this position...to a point. I have a cracked cd in my car in the case. It still plays, fortunately for me. But I am the only person who has observed that this cd is cracked. Yet still, even though I am the only observer, the fact is still true. It is cracked. Maybe I am exemplifying your point, upon further review

Welcome aboard. Hopefully, your cruise here is enlightening, or at the least entertaining.

Some people are adversarial and simply enjoy trying to point out flaws in an argument. That's my analysis. Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't think so. Maybe it's under the auspices of getting you to think about your position a little deeper, I don't know. mererdog has informed me in the past in private messages that he doesn't like to respond to individual comments and questions directly but rather wants to do so in a broad sense to reach an audience...of course, he sure does ask a lot of individual questions for someone that claims not to answer them. It's all my personal perception of course, and I might be mistaken, just like others.

Sure there were. Haven't you read them in school? I am not being facetious with this, but there is just as much evidence for Zeus as any other deity. There were stories written by people anonymously in ancient times that claimed to be first hand accounts about Zeus walking the Earth perpetrating various deeds, he even had kids(though on a much more numerous basis). Prophecy? Ever heard of the Oracle of Delphi? I am willing to wager that if you could get some of those, you would see that some of them might be interpreted to have come true as well.

So I have explored the topic of extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. I decided maybe a touch on levels of belief. Do different things require different levels of belief? Dan would say he is wholeheartedly Christian, and I would probably agree with that assessment even though it really isn't my place to tell him whether he is or not. It seems to me that that particular level of belief is very strong. If my kid came home from school and told me he had been in a fight that the other kid started entirely, I would investigate. Not that I would immediately disbelieve my kid, he's usually pretty honest with me so far as I can tell, but there are some things that it just seems like you investigate a little more. I guess that would be middling belief? Then there are claims that are just so far fetched as to be ludicrous on the face of it. I was in jail one time with a guy. He had a different story about everything. He was a ninja. Said so himself. Now that's one of those that I just straight out didn't believe. I guess with this topic I am looking into insights into what people might believe, and why, and what level of belief there is. I mean, some things just aren't worth pursuing for proof, like if I said I had a peanut butter sandwich I doubt many people would choose to quibble about it, although they might. But what general level of belief would there be in something like that, that wasn't investigated further to prove? Middling, low, strong? Non existent even? I hear occasionally that I just "need to believe"...but do I really? And what level of belief should I have? If someone tells me that Zeus sometimes wanders around Earth in disguise and he takes vengeance on those who displease him, but often grants a boon to those who he likes, why should I just believe that? I mean, it's well documented from ancient sources after all. It's written down, and it's not like anyone can come along and prove otherwise....on the same note, someone tells me I need to believe in Jesus, he's coming back and burning his enemies in hell and the only way to righteousness is by following him. Again, it's well documented, it's written down in ancient sources, and nobody can come along and prove otherwise, right? Both stories, they are along the same lines with the exception that one was believed while the other wasn't. What's the real difference though?

doesn't seem to for you friend.

Anything can be argued. Even what I claim I believe to be the truth can be argued. Reference the above debate for proof.

Judgement occurs. That does not mean that all judgement is bad. Bias occurs. I also think that not all bias is bad. Whether I am biased or not, I can still rationally view the evidence presented to me about any particular topic and determine whether I believe the evidence or not. Something like the bible, I need to see a little more evidence. That's because the things that are in that book are things that I have never heard of happening anywhere else, things like talking animals. But the evidence presented needs to be from a credible source. I don't believe in Mr. Ed, you know? That's because the source fully acknowledges that it is fiction. Some sources, especially when debating religion, start off asking how you know for sure. That means, to me, that they admittedly DON'T know for sure...but they want me to believe them anyway. Like Johnathan said, a lot of sources are based on fear. They fear the almighty, and by God we better too! Or, even if they come across as reasonable, they fear that maybe they are wrong and so are trying to prove themselves right. Not a good position to be in, when attempting to convince someone else of your credibility. Maybe they are in it for the money, I have heard of the evangelist tv guys that rip people off. Maybe they are keeping their cover simply for the profit(not prophet). In the end, the burden of course lies on the person trying to convince me. If it were partially on me, that would win them half the battle. It would also win ME half the battle in convincing them. No...I don't have a burden when it comes to listening to a sales pitch. At least, other than reasonably determining on my own whether I believe it or not. I don't have to accept any evidence presented to me without testing it for myself. Maybe they photoshopped that angel in the picture, you know? And as for testimony, eye witness reporting is no where near as reliable as people seem to think, statistically. Why should ancient people be any different from modern? Why does age of testimony seem to lend it credibility? If someone tells me they were walking down the street and man, this bush, like totally caught on fire and started talking, you know man? I wouldn't buy it. Sorry. Not without something more substantial that Cheech's word for it.

I can appreciate both points of view at this time. But what I am looking for is the logical basis of extraordinary. So far, I have come to the point of acknowledging that the term extraordinary is subjective. I also have come to the point of acknowledging that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence(or whatever other term you would like to insert instead of evidence). This leaves me at the point of needing to understand fully who has the burden of understanding, the person making the claim or the person listening. I think for this part, I use the analogy of a foreigner being arrested but not being able to understand the language of the arresting officer. Is it the officer's obligation to find a way to make him/herself understood, or is the the person being arrested's obligation to figure out what the officer means? I tend toward the first. So, does the burden of understanding evidence fall unto the listener or the teller, and does the term in question(proof) become subjective at that point? Who's point of view in terms of what proof is becomes more important when discussing evidence? I see a tree with rings in it that predate the alleged creation of the world, and I consider that ample evidence to suggest that the bible is flawed. Another person would look at the same evidence and interpret it as God's way of testing us by having created that ring in the tree in such a manner as to make us have possible doubts, a test of faith of sorts(I have heard that exact argument). The evidence is the same no matter who is viewing it: A tree with more rings than the bible claims years. Then there is the subjectivity of time, and biblical interpretation. Is a day a year, a month, what? Each person has their own idea, but who's evidence matters? I think, and this is my own opinion of the subject, that the burden lies on the person trying to convince someone else. If I try to convince Dan that that tree really does predate creation according the bible, then I need to be able to back up that positive assertion. The way to do that is to demonstrate via the way the world has been observed to work that tree rings grow a specific manner, etc...but in the end, the burden of convincing him falls to me because I made the assertion. If he chooses not to believe me, that is my failing and not his. On the same note, if Dan tries to convince me that God is real and the bible is evidence, the burden of understanding would be his, the same as the burden of proof. It falls on him at the point he makes the positive assertion to convince me, not the other way around. The same as if I had said I had a peanut butter sandwich...if the person I am talking to doesn't believe me and asks for proof, it doesn't fall on THEM to somehow garner the information and believe me, simply because the claim isn't that fantastic and so should be believable. It becomes incumbent to me to prove the claim, or determine that the claim isn't worth the effort to prove.

That's the heard of my question. I have heard it said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But I have never seen the analysis to back up that assertion...and looking at it in the subjective, which is what it seems to be, well...that leaves me with some conundrums to consider for a while. The typical argument is made by the Atheist who claims to be logical. But, if extraordinary is subjective, then how logical is it to apply the same standard(theirs) to everyone else's argument? The use of logical methods is commendable, at least in my subjective view. Understanding fallacy, where such can lead, how things piece together, these are all useful. But add in something as subjective as the term "extraordinary" and it seems to me that it gums up the works, so to speak.

i can see how the term is subjective, something I haven't considered. does that make a difference? or is the person attempting to persuade burdended with a higher requirement of proof?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is something that has been bandied about by others and myself, but I began wondering about it today. I thought I would ask for some perspectives. Do you believe this statement, and if so why. If you don't, why not? My perspective until now has been to accept this statement, but I think in examining my reasoning it is mostly based upon personal bias against Theism in most of it's forms. So I am reevaluating whether this is true. I still tend towards believing it is true. I mean, I could claim I had a peanut butter sandwich for lunch. I doubt many people would require video evidence before believing me. On the other hand, if I claimed I could fly without the aid of machine I am fairly certain I would either be disbelieved immediately or asked for substantial proof(such as demonstrating my newfound ability). Even if I could fly in such a manner, I do not think I would mind terribly if someone didn't believe the claim without evidence that was credible.

Perhaps they drank their own kool aid. It has become a propaganda word, especially to those of faith. It has been stigmatized to the point that those who follow religion would rather not call it that. But ultimately, they are deluding themselves. That's my assessment at the least.

To me, religion has connotations of deity. Philosophy is an idealogical practice, and does not necessitate deity, although it does not exclude the possibility either. A church is a little more complex, I suppose. It could reference the building itself, or perhaps the congregation. Or it could reference the governance behind the church, the people in power of that particular church. Practice is something I hear referenced to Christians who don't. I suppose it should be related to all philosophies and religions. A person can have a good idea of what they think they should be doing, and then not do it anyway. I could claim the title of stoic, and then focus on material possessions if I desired to. On the same note, someone could say they are Christian. Perhaps even in THEIR idea of what constitutes Christian they are. But someone else might say they aren't practicing Christians because they don't follow such and such or so and so philosophy, which is CLEARLY outlined in the bible...isn't it funny how many can say that, but can't see anyone else's interpretation as being possible? Many religions like to emphasize charitable works, but the practitioners rarely actually practice charity, outside of the precincts of their church that is. In philosophical terms, there are those who claim perhaps to be pacifists. Maybe they've never been up against it, where they absolutely had to choose whether or not to stick to their guns. A lot of this relies upon judgment of course. Something a lot of religion claims to be against. How does a Christian reference what a REAL Christian is, without judging what a real Christian isn't? How does someone determine whether they are really practicing or not? Does the church determine what is and is not Evangelical Protestant? Or is it a personal interpretation of the scripture that matches that description?

True enough. I recognize the possibility of bias. However, the beginning point for me was a belief in Christianity as a child. So that phenomena is ruled out. It could be that I am biased against it as a result of having ruled it out, but all I can do is act in the manner I see as best and attempt to come to a less biased conclusion. Or, all I can do is my best. And as I said, I went from Christianity to Druidry, which is another form of deism for most.

I look for God. I look for the truth. It isn't a matter of asking which God, I have sought many. The question becomes: How long should I look, or how detailed an examination should I give it? I give it the same length of time I would anything else(although, 20 years as a Druid kind of shows I am a little bit gullible at the least). I seek the scriptures, and truth located therein. I don't find it, but instead find pieces that don't match up, to me. When I couple that with the thought that these scriptures are supposed to be perfect, I recognize that the scriptures do not live up to themselves and so are false. As for new age, I suppose Druidry falls into that category as well, never mind it's ancient sources. They taught many of the same principles at the least. Nature reverence. But that, too, fails with examination. Sit against a tree and commune with it. But the problem is that the tree is not sentient. The human mind is a tricky beast, capable of many wonders. And still, people cannot accept that their own minds MIGHT be capable of tricking them into believing they have found THE Truth, with a capital T. God is Christ on the cross...well, if someone can produce evidence that Jesus existed that meets my satisfaction I may invest some more time into researching that particular religion. But no, it hasn't happened yet. (I still get that, "Historians agree" line as though it were sacrosanct since historians agree). I haven't seen any evidence as to WHY historians agree. And I still get people wondering why I don't accept that. I don't see science as God, or logic, or any process of thought. They are not sentient beings, but processes by which we might understand the universe(or multiverse) a little better. I am saddened to see people devote their lives to understanding the scriptures. What could they have accomplished with that much focus on any other endeavor?

And science is a process, something which accumulates. One piece of knowledge leads to another, and if one piece in the chain is faulty then the entire chain must be reconsidered. In fact, if one piece of a chain does not work, chances are good that other parts of the chain do not as well. If 2 + 2 turned out NOT to be 4, then a lot of math would have to be refigured. Since the processes of science produce repeatable and predictable results, this suggests that the process of science works. It has a track record, in other words. Sometimes those procedures produce inaccurate results, and such is discovered after repeated testing, and through method. What tools show that God exists and by what method? And how repeatable are those methods? And how is God falsifiable?

I would revise that. Accept the default position of "I don't know, but I will attempt to find out".

First cause. I never understood that one. If Christians can allow that there must be an exception(God himself did not have a cause), they why do they argue so vehemently that the universe could not be another exception?

Sorry for the late response, been moving to Georgia this week. I can understand both views. In a Christian sense, if I may make a point in such a way...by refusing to aid others in a one on one basis because a person might buy drugs etc...that comes across as judging others in my opinion. I give to others as I can, and leave it up to them to determine where the gift goes afterward. I have done my part, which is the giving. It is up to them to do the right thing with that gift, or not. In no way do I feel responsible for giving to someone who spends it on drugs or other things I might consider a vice. For example, and I have a recent one...on my move to Georgia I stopped at a gas station to fuel the U-haul. The person in the car next to me asked for help, as they were trying to visit a dying grandparent and just put their last 10 in the tank, but didn't think they would make it. I gave the fellow a 10 and told him to have a safe trip. If he was simply pan handling, if he was going to use that on alcohol or drugs, it doesn't concern me. I acted in good faith(funny thing for an atheist to say, isn't it), in giving a gift to someone, based on the information I had available. That said, mostly I give to larger charities. Mostly, things that help with kids, or kids hospitals. That's simply a personal choice, as I had a little one pass away in a Children's hospital and another who had an extended 5 month stay, and while those events were happening I got help with gas money from the hospital charity. I lived two hours away, and the trip wasn't easy as I was on welfare at the time. I saw a lot of parents there in similar circumstances, and I fully understand the hardship of having other kids in school two hours away while trying to afford gas to go see the sick child, balancing time at home for the other kids with time at the hospital for the kid in need. It's very demanding.