No one said that PZ getting death threats is evidence that his views are correct. It’s evidence that irrational beliefs can be dangerous.
PZ sees religion as something intrinsically harmful. He threw a cracker in a bin and got death threats. I have to agree with him.
Heh, I sense a mighty excluded middle! 
How about ‘people are prima facie entitled to respect, unless by their acts they demonstrate that they are not respectable?’
I feel no difficulty in respecting Catholics and not respecting White Supremacists.
Any offense taken against any sort of insult is “voluntary”. The insult taken against Phelps is “voluntary” by the same token. This line of attack strikes me as more than slightly bizzare.
Why are you insisting we do the work? You bought up the 50/50 ratio you justify it.
You don’t actually have to stipulate even to this much. There is no good evidence that anyone claimed to have seen an empty tomb or a physically resurrected Jesus.
Phelps sees homosexuality as something intrinsically harmful. He held a parade and got death threats. By your logic, you have to agree with him.
For a start, you can’t be an atheist with respect to other gods. Atheism is the belief in no gods. Not believing in Zeus would be azeusism or anti-zeusism. All you are doing is playing with definitions.
Secondly, I don’t believe in Zeus because I think it more likely that Jesus is God, and that necessarily means that Zeus does not exist. It is exactly the same reason I am not an atheist. I think Christianity is more likely true than atheism. Your quote assumes that I am using some sort of special pleading to reject other Gods but accept Christianity. That is simply wrong. I believe in what I think is the most likely true out of all the possible options, including what you believe.
If anything the quote shows that you are the one with the special pleading argument. Is there any reason to believe that atheism is true? If not, and there is no reason to accept any other religion, then you have simply picked atheism for no rational reason. If there is similarly no positive evidence for either Thor or atheism, why even pick atheism. I would think that believing in Thor is more fun. 
Calculon.
I see disrepsecting a cracker as disrespecting a belief, not not people.
In the case of Myers, no one could even be aware of the “insult” unless they voluntarily clicked on his blog. If someone chooses to click on the WBC website then they are volunteering to be “insulted.”
Just to be clear, I didn’t intend the argument to be convincing. You asked me for an example of what sort of evidence one could consider as conspicuously absent. What I was trying to say was that if the world was not effectively understandable, then that could indicate that God does not exist because he would create an understandable world.
Calculon.
… and that is where you make your mistake.
The responsibility for an insult lies on the person making it, not the person who becomes aware of it. It is bizzaro world else. Posting an insult on a public website means you want people to hear it.
Maybe, but it doesn’t count as evidence. My point was that there is no such thing that I could think of, and perhaps none that you could either.
I don’t believe atheism is true (whatever that means). I don’t even try to assert “there is no god”. I just don’t believe that any god, by any definition I’ve heard or seen so far, exists. I’m not certain (though that is not the same as 50/50). It’s just that the (lack of) evidence so far doesn’t come close to convincing me.
If the resurrection is the best “evidence” you’ve got, than I’m far from convinced (based on the myriad of naturalistic explanations, one of which I gave above, that could explain the same set of data).
If all those people who made death threats were homosexuals who made a decision based on their homosexual beliefs you might have a really clever point here. It’s a pity (for you) that’s not true.
But you find it more likely that an all-powerful God has always existed? That seems way less likely than the universe simply existing on its own.
Not Hume’s view at all. He didn’t consider them inherently impossible, he just considered that out of the possible explanations, the ones that rely on a miracle should be considered the least well-supported.
No! Where do you get this stuff?
If I quickly glance at my hand and think I see a royal flush, I will at first think I was mistaken in what I saw, because the probability of me being mistaken is way higher than my having been dealt a royal flush. But after I look more carefully, pretty soon my certainty in what I see increases, and the chance that it really is a royal flush surpasses the chance that I’m mistaken.
Like what data? We have a book, written decades after an event, by a few people with an agenda, from a time when historical, factual accuracy was not considered important, and these writers could at best be second-hand sources. What about this idea? Paul has a vision in which he imagines he sees Jesus. The other followers, over the next few decades, come to accept that someone living in an earlier time saw Jesus after he was dead. This morphs into the story that the original disciples saw Jesus after he was dead. No one writes any of this down because they think that Jesus’s return is imminent. Eventually after waiting for decades, someone writes down his understanding of the events (the writer of Mark), then a few years later a couple of others take his work and expand on it with their understanding of the legends (the writers of Luke and Matthew).
Completely plausible, fits the data we have, no miracles required.
Maybe, but we have no indication of whether they claimed to remember that or not. They certainly didn’t write it down.
It makes absolutely no difference. There is no proof that all the persons threatening Myers were really Catholics who made a decision (I presume you mean the decision to post death threats) based on their Catholic beliefs, either.
Even if they were, the making of death threats cannot somehow prove that the beliefs of those making the threats are intrinsically harmful, only that some subset of those offended are jerks.
Sadly, jerks are everywhere and subscribe to every possible belief. For example, Myers demostrates that some jerks are atheists.
Here’s something for all of you.
Normal Logic:
I say to you, “I have an apple.”
You say, “Can I see it?”
I say, “Sure, here it is.”, as I pull out the apple to show it to you.
Religious Logic:
I say, “I have an apple.”
You say, “Can I see it?”
I get angry then yell, “YOU CAN’T PROVE I DON’T HAVE AN APPLE!!!”
If you weren’t a Catholic who thinks that the cracker is Jesus why would you threaten PZ? Is there a wafer liberation front I’m not aware of?
And this carries on of course:
“By the way the apple says that gays can’t marry and that condoms are bad so if you can stop those things happening the apple would be very happy and allow you to live forever in magic land in the sky”
Presumably, it’s the militant wing of the “don’t-be-a-jerk” coalition.
Perhaps because “you” are a nut who gets off on threatening the subject of some new controversy? Same of course goes for those threatening Phelps.
I just have to say that I find this objection interesting given your acceptance that there are no square circles. Isn’t that just “playing with definitions”?
Okay, if you are not yourself just “playing with definitions,” then what to do if the evidence for Thor, Zeus, Horus, Jesus, God and The All Powerful Capt. James McDickyduck is all the same, and all equally absent? What do you call that position?
I got the feeling a few pages back that you were going to pull this one.
You are no scientist, regardless of what your job may be, or what piece of paper you may have hanging on your wall.
When confronted with something you can’t immediately explain, labeling the question as unanswerable and running back to the aprons of your religion is not the behavior of a scientist.