Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence

When deliberating the mysteries of the world, atheists often quote the late Carl Sagan's declaration that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Whether it's God, reincarnation or other supernatural beliefs, atheists demand such beliefs be supported with scientific evidence, extraordinary scientific evidence to be precise. Absent of such evidence, one should question their God, give up their faith and convert to the religion of Atheism. But what degree of evidence is required to claim there is no God?

From all indications, those who quote Carl Sagan have neglected to apply the same high standard of "extraordinary evidence" to their own "extraordinary claim." An intellectually honest and humble person would certainly conclude that saying there is no God is an extraordinary claim and should require extraordinary evidence. Over seven billion humans currently reside on planet earth, and the vast majority believes in some form of supernatural power. As a matter of fact, every documented culture in history had some form of supernatural belief, even when it was repressed in Atheist nations.  The belief in God is as universal as the human smile.

With the universality of supernatural beliefs and the critical role they play in every nation, anyone saying "God doesn't exist" is an ordinary claim is purposely deceiving themselves. If we all adopted the belief in no-God, society would transform in ways never before seen in the history of mankind. Literally, there is no historical precedent.  No one knows if the changes would be for better or worse, but the potential for earth-shattering shocks to our culture and the individual are enormous.

Why would anyone want to believe the atheist doctrine and forgo the benefits of an afterlife, moral clarity and the peace of mind a supernatural belief offers, unless the atheists had extraordinary evidence? Before causing unspeakable and unnecessary damage to your mind and soul, the atheists had better have some extraordinary evidence of their own to convince you they're right. Considering what they're asking of you and mankind to do, they better have undeniable proof.

Atheists have presented no extraordinary evidence that God doesn't exist. The theory of evolution and the theory of the big bang are extraordinary for showing how mankind may have come into existence. They may nullify some religious interpretations of God, which were created by man in the first place. However, proving there isn't a God is a completely different animal than proving religious dogma incorrect.

The lack of humility, caution and evidence with which atheists declare the non-existence of God, reinforces the idea that Atheism is based on faith and not on fact. Moreover, it makes any atheist repeating the Sagan quote a hypocrite. Where, oh where, is your extraordinary evidence?

Perhaps those with beliefs in the supernatural would be vindicated if unquestionable scientific evidence was found to prove one or more claims of supernatural phenomena? Unfortunately, that's not the case. Reincarnation offers the best, documented scientific evidence that part of our humanity lives on after death. The body of evidence accumulated by scientist Ian Stevenson shines a light on the very unusual, but very real phenomenon. Because reincarnation challenges the faith of Atheists, it is dismissed without a second thought. Far from being the inquisitive, open-minded, free thinking hip individuals portrayed in the media, they are first and foremost rigid believers. It is not the truth they seek, but evidence to support their belief.

To be an Atheist means one must have already made up their mind. They believe in no God. This is their faith, religion and identity. Their God is no-God.  Any statement to the contrary, no matter how valid, puts them on the defensive in support of their belief.

This brings me to skepticism. Atheists justify their belief in no-God by claiming to be champions of skepticism. As self-proclaimed "skeptics" they doubt all claims of supernatural belief, even those supported with scientific evidence. Yet, when the time comes to be skeptical of the scientific evidence they support, they defend it as if science has never been wrong. The science is blindly accepted as long as it fits with their view of the world.

If atheists pride themselves on being skeptics, they're not actually atheists then they'd be considered agnostic. That would make too much sense. A true 'skeptic' questions all evidence and identifies oneself as agnostic. The most logical explanation is that Atheists want to not believe in God. Atheists are skeptical of all supernatural belief, but not the beliefs they hold so dear, which may after all turn out to be the real superstition.