Shepherd's belated bonus point spam thread.

[Rational Gaze]

Dr. Manhatten is an even more pointless superhero than Superman, and THAT is saying something.

[Rational Gaze]

Not using the right button timing?

I'm running around vacant with an unsilenced MP5K and manage to call in one Harrier Strike, yet with a silenced M4A1 with Hardline, no such luck.

[Kelp]

Dr. Manhatten is an even more pointless superhero than Superman, and THAT is saying something.

Well, he doesn't do anything because he's grown cold toward humanity and just doesn't care anymore. He did win Nam singlehandedly, basically.

Superman though, is never given all that good an explanation, you're right. I like the name for this phenomenon on the TV Tropes Wiki, "Reed Richards is Useless".

[Rational Gaze]

Superman, can only be killed by Kyptonite. His only other weakness being is loved ones.

Dr. Manhatten is invincible.

[Kelp]

Superman, can only be killed by Kyptonite. His only other weakness being is loved ones.

Dr. Manhatten is invincible.

Yep.

[Kelp]

Now, he's the god of his own little aliens. A role that makes more sense for the character than superhero, I agree.

[Little Shepherd]

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is one of the best movies ever made.

[Kelp]

So I hear. I'm glad.

[Rational Gaze]

Do you think I should spend more than a page refuting ECREE?

[Kelp]

Do you think you need to? It might be a good idea to hammer that one home as much as you can.

[Rational Gaze]

This is what I have written so far:
Typically, when all else fails, some atheists put this mantra forward in lieu of substantive rebuttal. Because the claims made by religions are ‘extraordinary’, the atheist argues, they require ‘extraordinary evidence’ in order to believe them. I shall now demonstrate why this fails as a means of historic enquiry as well as how it fails as a basis for epistemology. Essentially, this is used mostly against the resurrection of Jesus, but, in principle, can be used against anything the arguer arbitrarily labels “extraordinary”. The jist of the “argument” is:
1. ‘I own a car’ is an ordinary claim.
2. ‘I came back to life from the dead’ is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, the claim, ‘I came back from the dead’ requires much more evidence for someone to believe it than ‘I own a car’.
There are several problems with this that I shall now outline, starting with problem one: what criteria does a claim need to meet in order to be considered ordinary or extraordinary? Secondly, what is “extraordinary evidence”? Does this refer to extraordinary amounts of ordinary evidence, ordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence or extraordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence? Thirdly, what criteria does the evidence need to meet to be considered ordinary or extraordinary?

Very rare does one get an actual answer to any of these, but I believe the most concise formulation of this “argument” is: if x has precedent, we require less evidence to prove that x is correct. We require less evidence to accept the claim ‘I own a car’ because many people own cars. Therefore, we require a lot more evidence to believe the claim ‘I own an interstellar craft’ because there is no such technology on Earth yet. To many I am sure this would sound reasonable, although it does not take much thought to realise that there are problems even with this infinitely more coherent version of ECREE. The first is that there would have been a time when x had no precedent. Would x then have had to have ‘extraordinary evidence’ to prove that x was true? The second problem is that this is merely an exercise in confirmation bias. If we already believe x is possible or likely, then we would naturally be inclined to believe x, even if x is false. Thirdly, the amount of evidence required to persuade somebody of a claim differs from person to person. Even when evidence for a claim a person finds extraordinary evidence is presented to them, that person can simply raise the bar by saying it is not enough evidence. Some people even will never believe certain claims, no matter the evidence.

ECREE is not a logical principal at all but a subjective shibboleth that atheists pull out of their backsides whenever they are cornered. ECREE compels one to make a snap-judgment about the veracity of a claim before looking at the evidence and introduces bias such that an objective analysis of the data becomes difficult if not impossible. All ECREE does is create a framework to hide the moving of the goalposts. It is not a means of evaluating evidence; it is a means of avoiding evidence that one does not like. It is also a means for legitimising personal incredulity as a means of truth evaluation. However, the one irony in all of this is that atheists and other sceptics assume that their personal disbelief of a claim is warrant enough to question whether or not that claim is true. The inherent but subtle implication being, they can trust their own intuition when it comes to rejecting things they find unbelievable. Of course, whenever it comes to things they accept as a matter of absolute facts, the human mind is unreliable and all of a sudden, human intuition is no longer valid in evaluating truth claims.

[Kelp]

The first is that there would have been a time when x had no precedent. Would x then have had to have ‘extraordinary evidence’ to prove that x was true?

Yes, I should think it would. What makes this a problem (other than the problems with defining "extraordinary", that is)?

Other than that, it looks good. Of course, as is a lot of atheists will be mad you dealt with their sacred cow in such a short space, but oh well .

[Kelp]

I think I need a nap

[Petrus Caietanus]

Just responded to another email from her.

"my" twin one didn´t respond her one.

I don´t expect that, though.

[Petrus Caietanus]

she cannot, since I´m "dangerous" to her.
:p