And it is the end of the line. This is not a Q&A session with you presenting questions and I am giving the answers. I already gave you all the information for your questions. If you wish to conduct a CONVERSATION, then stop acting like an interrogator.
Thank you for a clear and informative answer.
For yes, it is both clear and informative. It shows that you did not like the question I asked (“how do you know that [your investigation] is indeed thorough and impartial?”) - just as you didn’t like the previous questions about classifying your claims about classification of claims and the “original” principle. And, of course, it means that you do not have a satisfactory answer to those questions.
For let’s see what evidence could have been expected (the step I advocated here, the one which you, apparently, reject) for your claim that you know your investigation of religions was thorough and impartial. Naturally, if that was a case, you would have at least something to tell in answer to my question (let’s say, to give some sort of technique). And thus, it would be pleasant to answer the question - after all, it would give you an opportunity to brag.
But that piece of evidence is missing (and a contrary one is present). Therefore, we can conclude that you are in no position to claim to know that your investigation was thorough and impartial.
Which, of course, means that you were not applying the principles you advocated here. Not that it is very surprising - they aren’t really worth much - as we found out, you can’t even apply them to themselves. They are merely a cover for confirmation bias.
Ditto.
I have made a conscious effort over the last few weeks to stop repeating my arguments endlessly. Not always successfully, I’m afraid. But if I think I have made my point clear enough and I feel that any reasonable person could understand it (but not necessarily agree with it), then it doesn’t seem worth my effort repeating it ad nauseum.
If there are questions that arise based on anything I say, then I will do my best to answer them. Otherwise…as frustrating as it can be giving the last word to someone else, especially when there has been little attempt to address what I have said in the first instance, then so be it.
I see. So, after I have listed many flaws of your argument, the only thing you could think of (other than giving up) was to repeat it again, without changing anything substantial? Yes, I don’t think that would have been a very good idea.
I guess at this point it is safe to say that there is no good reason to take your version of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” seriously.
I agree with the atheists who say belief should not be motivated by incentives.
Imho anyone who believes in the expectation of getting a reward or avoiding punishment lacks integrity. They will believe and disbelieve whatever they think in their self-interest. Here today and gone tomorrow.
In this thread it does not really matter that much if belief really should or should not be motivated by incentives.
What matters is this: atheists are inconsistent about having beliefs motivated by incentives.
When it suits them (arguing for “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”), they point to incentives (for example, opinion of “guys in bar”). When it does not suit them (answering Pascal’s Wager) they claim that incentives do not matter.
For example:
Likewise you cannot believe in Him on the off chance that you will suffer for eternity or gain the keys to heaven. Otherwise you’d look just as foolish (and probably somewhat opportunist and dishonest into the bargain).
Now, both “looking foolish” and “going to Hell” are incentives meant to motivate belief.
Accepting both or rejecting both might be consistent. Accepting the “big” incentive (“going to Hell”) while rejecting “minor” incentive (“looking foolish”) might be consistent too.
But in this case it is the minor incentive that is allowed to dictate the belief. Apparently, because it happens “now”…
I’m suspect that even in your view believing in God lest one ends up in Hell, while suboptimal, is preferable to refusing to believe in God lest “guys in bar” will think one is “foolish”…
and people simply get tired of his incessant nonsense. But, of course you need to feel “superior”, so you conclude that people don’t answer your questions because they don’t have answers - even if they DID answer your questions a few times already. 
), the so called revelations, the Bible (allegedly the “word” of God), the descriptions of alleged miracles. I consider this endeavor sufficient, and I arrived at the conclusion that the claims are unfounded and many times simply nonsensical, irrational and illogical.
