NOGO

CX gave a good answer however I believe that most believers can give an equally good answer. Just ask yourself some questions about the claims of other religions.

Was the coran written by God and handed to Mohammad by an angel?
Did Mohammad split the moon into two?
Did the Buddha bodily rise to nirvana?
etc.

If you consider these claims to be extraordinary then tell us why?
If you don't consider these claims to be extraordinary then tell us why you do not believe them?

Are you just raising the bar because it is a claim from another faith?

If you answer all these question you can then figure out how skeptics think about your own faith.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Vinnie

I got it. Your saying fundamentalism is an extraordinary claim. Hey, I agree.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Jedi: This has seriously deviated from applicable topics. Polycarp: please make a BC&A point, or this will be moved to "Existance of gods".

Huh? Where did I say anything about the question of god's existence?

I've been trying to keep the topic focused on the issue of "extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence", and I thought I was doing so. Others have ventured out into the issue of god's existence, so I'll try to bring this around to BC & A relevance. Let's try the following for clarification...

Which of the following claims should be considered "extraordinary"?

1. Belief in kangaroos (based on the analogy).

2. Bigfoot exists today.

3. Jesus of Nazareth existed in the 1st century (a person who had least had some of the characteristics described in the NT gospels).

4. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

5. Jesus of Nazareth healed people.

Polycarp

In addition to the questions in my post directly above this one, I'd like to add the following simple one...

Is there anyone who, under any conceivable conditions, would believe in a miracle (violoation of natural laws) if they did not witness it firsthand?

CX

Not extraordinary

Possible, but improbable. Borderline extraordinary.

Probable. Not extraordinary.

Possible. Not extraordinary.

Possible, but improbable. Borderline extraordinary but requires further clarification.

Toto

Under Sagan's definition, belief in kangaroos is not extraordinary.

Belief in Bigfoot is ordinary, but there is no credible evidence to support it, even at a low level of proof.

The existence of someone named Jesus in the 1st century is an ordinary claim, so no extraordinary evidence is required. Whether the gospel accounts are even "ordinary" evidence is subject to dispute, given their mythic nature and lack of corroboration where it would be expected. Skeptics line up on both sides of the issue.

Ditto with whether Jesus was crucified.

My opinion is that faith healing is not an extraordinary claim, as it is something we observe all the time and has a naturalistic explanation. So I would classify it with the existence and crucifiction questions.

Does this help?

Perhaps it would help to add that the existence of ordinary evidence in support of a claim does not mean that you have to accept it. You are still able to evaluate that evidence, weigh its credibility, consider opposing evidence, etc.

madmax2976

Based on the analogy, this could be construed as extraordinary depending upon the person. There are a great many variables involved.

Whether it "should be" is virtually impossible to answer as I have to place myself in the mind of a 16th century person, complete with all the beliefs and experiences I might have had at that time, and devoid of all the experiences I have now. A difficult, if not impossible task.

Another question would be whether it is more or less extraordinary than other extraordinary claims. Obviously, not all extraordinary claims are equal.

<strong> Given the circumstances, this would be an extraordinary claim. Not as extraordinary as a unicorn or a leprechaun, but extraordinary nonetheless.

<strong> Not extraordinary, in and of itself. Many people lived in the 1st century.

<strong>
Not extraordinary, in and of itself. Many people were crucified.

<strong> Not extraordinary, in and of itself. I would assume people were healed all throughout ancient times.

Of course if he healed them with a magic wand, or by dancing around and shaking a rattle to scare off the evil spirits, that would be extraordinary.

I'll just add that the criteria for what is extraordinary is a subjective one. I know of no objective criteria for determining what is or is not extraordinary. Therefore, I'm uncertain as to what these questions are attempting to point out. Your bound to get different answers from different people. There is no right or wrong answer to the questions as far as I am aware of.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto: Perhaps it would help to add that the existence of ordinary evidence in support of a claim does not mean that you have to accept it. You are still able to evaluate that evidence, weigh its credibility, consider opposing evidence, etc.

Exactly. I completely agree with this.

NOGO

I have a problem with 3, 4 and 5.
If everybody stopped at what you are saying then this very forum would not exist. So why pretend to take only part of the issue.

I am willing to believe that there were many people in the first century who claimed to be "the anointed one of God", or some of their friends made the claim. Some of these people may have been crucified ... under Pilate.

The problem is when extraordinary claims are made then even the ordinary claims are questioned because it becomes obvious that the authors were pushing an ideal and facts would not get in their way.

NOGO

Polycarp,

Perhaps you should make your point and also attempt to answer some of the many questions put to you.


NOGO