Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Foxaèr]

I would disagree, that there is no evidence.  And I think people need to assess this claim.  I have had discussions about evidence itself which have been interesting.  And I learned that it seems that some, don't regard anything as evidence, unless they are persuaded by it.  So when they are saying there is no evidence, they are really just giving information about themselves.  But there are a number of reasons and points of history, that are evidence for God (and many believe or come to belief because of that).  In a court room, both the defense and the prosecution present their evidence for their side.  It doesn't mean that the contradictory conclusions are both true. You can acknowledge evidence for the other side, and still not believe  But the evidence needs to be weighed and evaluated properly. My goal here isn't really to present the evidence, many do that already, and many already know it.  I'm more concerned with the reasons and principles, in which the evidence is dismissed. This is a claim that can be examined.    And to also learn about how atheist think (which is why I push to discuss and reason through things).   I set my goals low.  And why I may sometimes fail to my natural inclinations, and get a little short with someone, who doesn't want to discuss the topic at hand, but shift the burden to me, and demand that every discussion can default to me and their assumptions about what I am "really" talking about.  
.

When it comes to the existence of something that relies merely on the fallible system of faith, there is honestly no evidence to provide to alter a rational mind.

Evidence is not about persuasion; in fact, that is the job of religion. Evidence relies upon the verifiable scientific method.

Historically, there is no evidence for god. There are certainly biased viewpoints, but nothing of actual fact provided.

I believe you, as most theists, have a convoluted understanding of precisely what "evidence" means in relation to reality. Evidence is something that meets the requirement of the scientific method, not something that is merely faith-based on personal experience or how many people believe the same thing.

It is quite easy to dismiss that which is not based on evidence but mere personal experience and faith.

I completely understand how you can become short with atheists, but certainly you also understand how atheists can become short with theists.

Atheists represent the logical, realistic portion of society, while theists tend to represent the fantastical side in relation to their adherence to that which, by all rational understanding, is based in mythology.

Theists can certainly be logical in all other aspects of their lives, except for their adherence to a mythology that has no evidence to base it in fact.