mererdog

Prerequisites. If I don't have the right knowledge base, there are things I simply can't learn. Without a solid mathematical foundation, I can't learn physics. Without a solid understanding of physics, I can't learn modern cosmology. So if I don't have the maths, trying to prove claims about modern cosmology to me would be a giant waste of time. Saying that is somehow a failure on the part of the person making the claim... Well, that would also be a giant waste of time.

Wouldn't that get kind of dull?

You say the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which means it is your burden to prove that claim. I notice you spending zero time proving the claim,

A conversation does not have to be a contest. Imagine that there is a tiger in your bedroom and I am trying to convince you of that fact before you go to bed. To say the burden of proof is on me is to abdicate personal responsibility for your own safety. After all, if you don't believe me, you are going to get mauled and maybe killed, but I will be fine. So maybe it behooves you to put a little effort into figuring out if I am right, above and beyond listening to the evidence that I find convincing. Because my ability to prove a claim has nothing to do with the claim's ability to be true, right? Similarly, if you assume the salesman has the burden of proof, you abdicate personal responsibility for making smart purchasing decisions. Because if the salesman fails to convince you to take what is objectively your better deal, the salesman is not the only one who loses.

Personally, I am not questioning motives. Some groups are simply harder to research than others. The more competing claims about the group there are flying around, the more effort it takes to sort fact from fiction. Make sense?

A third and more common version has people deciding that any evidence shown will simply be rejected out of hand. That the other side isn't really listening, you know? This is that point where evidence stops being used as a way to try to convince others, and is only used as a weapon by people trying to make the other side look stupid.

Having already convinced yourself that it is impossible that you missed something, and that there is therefore no chance that you are lacking critical information needed to interpret the evidence? No chance of hubris there... You say it is up to the believer to show you something that is not a waste of your time, but what could they show you without wasting their's? Because you aren't exactly talking like you have the sort of open mind that is able to look at new evidence fairly.

If you need to know something, is it my burden to make sure you know it? If a student refuses to learn, is that the teachers fault? Communication is a cooperative endeavor. No one person can bear the burden alone. All involved have to make an effort to be understood. All involved have to make an effort to understand the other. Ideally, all involved assist one another in understanding and being understood. It's a shared burden, you see?

Not if you are still insisting that some are bigger or more extreme than others. Evidence and proof are defined based on ability to convince. Without that, it is just so much data. As such, the more an argument or fact resonates with a specific audience, the more effective it will be as proof for that specific audience. Use the same evidence with a different audience, and it falls flat. Focus on qualities of the evidence, to the point where you ignore the interpretive process when evidence interacts with audience, and you won't use evidence effectively.

Imagine you already knew a Bigfoot that lived on Mars and wrote English poetry. None of the claims you mention would seem very extreme to you, right? So, honestly speaking, this isnt about qualities of the claims, but about our own prejudices. Some claims reinforce what we already believe and some go against what we already believe. That is the difference.

Hey, sorry, but I missed your response before. I do not disagree with your point here, but my feeling is that there is a difference of scope, even if not of type. I would say that Scientology and Mormonism are in a league all their own on this one. The number of conspiracy theories surrounding just those two groups is kind of insane. The only other organization that really compares is Freemasonry.

Amen to that.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Israel

Subjective terms lead inevitably to equivocation and special pleading.

יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ = "Yisrā'el" If you look at any collection of numbers or letters, you will find patterns. Most will be both incidental and accidental.

I suggest Googling the term "suppressive person" if you want to know more... Personally, I take everything I hear about Scientology with a grain of salt or fifty. Their church has both a lot of secrecy and a lot of enemies. That leaves a lot of room for slander against it, but also a lot of room in the closet for skeletons.

"require" for what? And how do you measure the size of a claim? Or a proof, for that matter?

Proof is also a subjective concept. Unless we are talking about liquor, in which case it is a matter of fact that is verifiable through direct measurement. I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about liquor, though...

"Extraordinary" is a completely subjective concept. So the truism in question roughly translates to "It will be hard to convince me that claims I find weird are true." More an admission of bias than anything else....

Pacifism is about what you should do, rather than what you will do. So the true test is not whether you engage in violence, but whether you justify violence. If you resort to violence in the heat of the moment, can you convince yourself that you did nothing wrong? If so, you aren't a pacifist. If you can't, acknowledging that is helpful in avoiding future guilt.

You have to be firm, Phil. Remember that you are in charge, not the monkeys.

I didn't mention a sequence. Your claim is interesting. You say you examined the evidence, which implies that you examined all the evidence. I find that hard to believe.

So your position is not due to lack of evidence, but lack of respect?

Not really. When you believed as a Christian, those beliefs created bias that had to be overcome before your beliefs could change. When you were a Druid, you had different beliefs that created different biases. As you grow and evolve as a person, your biases change, but they never really go away. I suggest googling the phrase "bias blindspot.'