ECREE.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or ECREE is nothing but an illogical catch phrase used by skeptics devoid of logic to judge religious claims. What constitutes an extraordinary claim is entirely subjective and relative to the person, for example; a man living his entire life in the amazon jungle might find the entire concept of an airplane to be an extraordinary claim, whereas you or I will find the concept of an airplane to be a mundane claim. Which leads me to my next point, there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.

Evidence is either personal experience/anecdotal, historical, documentary or scientific. How would you go about providing extraordinary evidence of an airplane to the man living in the amazon? you could provide a picture right? but is a picture extraordinary evidence? yes or no? if yes than you've conceded that pictures are extraordinary evidence and thus you must accept pictures of the supernatural as extraordinary evidence! if not than a picture is documentary evidence and thus does not suffice as extraordinary evidence to back your extraordinary claim that airplanes exist. If you accept them as extraordinary evidence in one case and not the other you're simply picking and choosing based upon your own subjective reasons. What about a video? same thing applies, its either extraordinary evidence or it isn't. How does this relate to supernatural claims?

You might think certain claims from a Christian are extraordinary claims, but to the Christian they might not be, just like how an the guy living in the amazon might find the existence of airplanes an extraordinary planes, but to you they might not be. If it is an extraordinary claim, what constitutes extraordinary evidence? pictures? how many pictures? videos? how many videos? scientific evidence? and does that suffice as extraordinary evidence for an airplane? The point is, an extraordinary claim is entirely dependent upon ones own experience and thus differs in regards to each individual. The second point is, 'extraordinary claims' do not require any more proof than ordinary ones.

GSP, who can beat him?

The funny thing about it is he is SO BASIC. His entire fighting repertoire consists of a jab, an inside leg kick, superman punches and take downs, which makes his performances that much more impressive. His post fight interview is something of interest as well. GSP states that Koscheks punches were wild loopy while his punches were straight. That is a basic fundamental of boxing, the straight punches will always beat loopy(wild) punches because they arrive at their target faster(assuming both punches were thrown at the same speed of course). Joe Rogan spoke about how people were going to start using the jab more often, which shouldn't come to a surprise since the majority of MMA fighers cannot throw a punch correctly. Its no coincidence that GSPs boxing application and knowledge dramatically improved after training with Freddie Roach, I'd almost call GSPS victory of Koschek a tribute to Freddie Roach and more importantly how sound knowledge and application of boxing can impact the constantly evolving MMA sport.

A demonstration is in order....

It's always fun and informative (more fun!) when I can demonstrate the concepts I talk about first hand. We'll start with what Nameless Cynic said in the Hidden Conversations post.

1. "There's no proof God exists," translates to "I don't know what the word proof means."

Or maybe you don't. Show me your proof. (And please, don't hold up the Bible. I mean, I could hold up a Harry Potter book - does that mean Hogwarts exists?)

Red Herring. Does proof for God exist yes or no?

2. "There's no evidence God exists," translates to "I don't know what the word evidence means."

Same answer.

Red Herring. Does evidence exist for God yes or no?

3. "There's no good evidence God exists," translates to "My definition of good yadda yadda yadda"

Hey, wait! You used the word "supersedes"!! And you used it right! I'm so proud! Was that on your Word of the Day toilet paper?

This is simply a sarcastic insult and sarcastic insults donot = a refutation of my point. Try again.

4. "There's contradictions in the Bible," translates to "I don't know what a contradiction is."

* yawn *

OK, let's see. (All KJV, btw)

Before I begin I'll refer this ignorant atheist to an earlier post I made on what constitutes a contradiction here. Another good site regarding a contradiction is here.

It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections (1005b19–23).

-Aristotle.

To dumb it down for anyone that might be confused.

“a is F” and “a is not F” cannot both hold in the same sense, at the same time, and in the same respect.

Lets begin sha'll we?

"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)
"Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen" (Romans 15:33)

WRONG.

“a is F” and “a is not F” cannot both hold in the same sense, at the same time, and in the same respect.

Looks like the Lord was a man of war during the events described in the book of Exodus and a God of peace during the events described in the book of Romans, which means God was not a 'man of war' and a 'God of peace' at the same place or the same time. I don't even need to point out how Nameless Cynic is taking the scripture out of context because these scriptures don't even remotely qualify as a contradiction.
Is it a contradiction if I say Bob was alive 20 years ago and is dead now? no, because I am not saying Bob is alive and dead at the same place at the same time, so why on earth would it be a contradiction to say God is a man of war at one time and then say He is a God of peace thousands of years later? Nameless Cynic has flawlessly demonstrated that he possess no clue what constitutes a contradiction when he claims the bible contains contradictions. 0/1

Not good enough? How about using the same book of the Bible? Ever compared Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? God created the earth TWICE, once with the men first, once with the beasts first.

Again, he displays complete ignorance regarding what constitutes a contradiction. If we ignore biblical exegesis, logic, and throw out the basic reading comprehension we learned in 1st grade and pretend that Nameless Cynic is correct in saying that God created the earth twice, how is that a contradiction? doing something twice is a contradiction now? so If I create a world virtual world with virtual men on it and later create another world with no virtual men on it(or erase the first virtual world), that is a contradiction? once again he demonstrates he possess no clue in what constitutes a contradiction. 0/2

Sorry. Was that too much reading? OK, let's try this. Does God like people to be wise?

"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." (Proverbs 4:7)

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow" (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." (1 Corinthians 1:19)

Again! If we completely ignore the fact that hes taking the verses out of context (Corinthians and Ecclesiastes are talking about the wisdom of the world while Proverbs is talking about the wisdom of God), nameless Cynic cannot seem to grasp the concept of "same place and same time." If we assume of the sake of argument and pretend that all the verses are talking about the same type of wisdom there is STILL NO contradiction. Provers says get wisdom. Ecclesiastes talks about the consequences of said wisdom and then THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER Corinthians talks about destroying the wisdom of the wise, so this does not qualify as a contradiction because they do not take place at the same time. 0/3

Sorry again. I know how you feel about smart people, so that's probably not the best example. Let's go to basic facts. What happened with Judas? I mean, having sold out the Savior (or assisted Him in fulfilling His destiny, depending on who you ask), Judas either threw his thirty pieces of silver down on the temple floor and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5), or kept the money, bought a field, tripped on a stump, and burst open like a well-fed tick (Acts 1:18).

Here are the scriptures:

Matthew: So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Acts: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Looks like he finally grasped the "same time" concept. Too bad he forgot an important verse.

Matthew 27:

6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

9Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Judas gave the priests the money, they refused to take it therefore it still belonged to Judas, they used Judas money to purchase the field i.e. Judas bought the field. Judas hung himself, no one touched his body, it grew bloated and decayed, and he fell from where he hung. Logic 101. 0/4.

This stuff is easy to find. Really. All you have to do is actually read the Bible... oh, wait... "reading"...

Speaking of easy to find and reading.....

http://www.google.com/search?q=judas+death+contradiction&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The first three results (out of 100 different ones out there) refute your 'contradiction.' All you have to do is actually research.....oh, wait....."research"....

Yeah, I'm sorry, man. That was mean, wasn't it?

No, it was actually very informative and hilarious. You demonstrated what I was talking about regarding contradictions almost PERFECTLY. I couldn't have asked for a better first hand example of the typical ignorant atheist spouting his drivel about contradictions. The only thing that remains to see if you're too much of a coward to answer my 2 direct questions.

Now I'll deal with Quasar.

[cheerful grin] Fun fact: re-interpreting what people actually say to fit your preconcieved notions and thus failing to deal with their precice words is not actually the same thing as reading their body language. Especially when the words come over the internet, so there is no body language. [mildly amused smile, single raised eyebrow]

Fun fact, it isn't a reinterpretation, its an accurate description of what takes place during conversations, just look Nameless Cynic, he proved my point PERFECTLY. Another fun fact, I never said "hidden conversations" were reading body language, rather body language that is something I COMPARED IT TO. Not only that, I listed things OTHER than body language as well, so for you to single that out of everything else I listed is extremely "offputting."

[head tilts forward slightly] It's also arrogant and extremely offputting. [smile vanishes, eyes narrow] I know what I believe, I know which words I understand the definitions to, and when I say I have seen no evidence supporting the existance of your deity, guess what? [cheerfully insolent, lopsided smile, eyes still narrowed] No matter how much you would like to believe otherwise, to twist my words in order to demonise me and my beliefs, what I said is exactly what I meant."

Well I guess you've never seen....well....anything then, much less what the word 'evidence,' means.

UFC 124

Honestly, with the exception of the GSP, Alves and Stevenson fights, this isn't an event I particularly care about.

St Pierre vs Koscheck: ST Pierre by UD (LAY AND PRAY BABY!)
Alves vs Howard: Alves by UD.
Stevenson Danzig: Undecided, tough fight to call.

Hidden Conversation: Atheists.

My coach always told me that people have are having 2 conversations. The first conversation is the immediate conversation and the second conversation is the hidden conversation. The latter is made up of subtle things, body language, tone of voice, etc.. In a fight, if your opponents mouth is hanging open the hidden conversation is "I'm tired." If he is closing his eyes everything you exchange, the hidden conversation is "I'm scared." The following is a guideline of hidden conversations atheists have.

1. "There's no proof God exists," translates to "I don't know what the word proof means."

2. "There's no evidence God exists," translates to "I don't know what the word evidence means."

3. "There's no good evidence God exists," translates to "My definition of good(or the definitions I agree with) supersedes all other definitions of good," or "I don't know that good evidence is relative to the person viewing the evidence."

4. "There's contradictions in the Bible," translates to "I don't know what a contradiction is."

It's funny how accurately you can discern what an atheist doesn't know from the things they claim to know.