Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim.  As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence?

Yeah, I was just telekinetically hovering over my roof this morning and a thousand people saw me, right after I put my pants on.

Really, who can tell whether it was the hovering or dressing that's the extraordinary claim? It would take selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticism to be able to pretend to tell the difference.

Actually, I would look for independent corroborating evidence among other things to accept this claim.  As I just stated to someone else, I don't think anyone is stating, that every testimony is true.   (Some people think there is nothing wrong lying, if it benefits them)  I also don't think you would agree, that anyone can disregard any testimony of evidence based on that reason alone.

---

No that is the argument from incredulity.  I was talking about the reasoning of  because it's old which was in response to "considering the age of the book of mythology".

 Now if you are not trying to make a case against the thing thing in question, but just commenting on your subjective mental state that is fine.  And I agree, we shouldn't just accept everything without reason.... however if you are doing so for irrational and fallacious reasons, that doesn't make it bullshit.

An argument from incredulity occurs when someone asserts that something didn't happen because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

'A miracle didn't happen because I don't believe in God and I don't see how it could have happened without an omnipotent being to pull it off' is an example of an argument from incredulity.

'I don't believe it because the evidence for it is hearsay, and ancient hearsay with no provenance to boot' is not an example of an argument from incredulity.

Yes, I agree.  And if you mean the latter, you should say that, instead of what you originally did (and be ready to support your claims.)  If you give bad reasoning, I don't think that it's wrong to point it out.

---

I think that you have a different understanding of faith than I do.  And I don't consider my faith weak, but strong because of the evidence.

It seems like the faith needed to believe something would be inversely proportional to the evidence available to support it. But what's the evidence, again? I seem to missed your attempt to present it.

Yes, and you seem to misunderstand where my faith is applied. It isn't a blind faith.
And I don't believe that I did present any evidence. Just stated, that my faith is based on it. I think it is more important, that your evaluation of the evidence, isn't biased by your aversion to the conclusion. It's not about what, but the why. Unless, perhaps the what is contradictory, to something else, which you fell has better support as an evidence standpoint.