Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Mister Agenda]

Neither theism nor atheism is a claim. They are brain states, the state of holding a belief that at least one god is really real, or the state of not holding that belief. Neither is a claim except about what you do or don't believe. In that sense, they are both real/existent.

Further conversation is about clarification and justification of those positions. You may be incorrect in holding one or the other position, but that you actually hold it is a trivial claim, barring evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, I just cringe a little when it see the 'isms' used as shorthand for existential claims.

In particular, 'atheism' is not 'the claim that 'God doesn't exist', which I see a lot.

---

Sigh. Bayesian probability tells us what is an extraordinary claim and we use it all the time except when we suspend it so we can believe something extraordinary that we're already convinced of.

It isn't reasonable to believe something consequential that hasn't defeated the null hypothesis. The process I used for evaluating whether ultrasonic pest repellants are effective can be used for most consequential decisions (and it saved me 14.99!).

---

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.

I'm not averse to the conclusion. If God is real, I want to know about it. How does the why of something get to precede establishing the existence of it?

I would really be interested to learn about independent corroborating evidence for biblical miracles, the existence of the man portrayed in the gospels (I tend to lean towards their being a real person that the gospels are loosely about, based on textual analysis, but that's pretty slim).

And assuming that I am averse to the conclusion of your argument and that the reason I don't fall down in a swoon over how convincing your evidence is, is very uncharitable and a slimy insinuation that I have done nothing to deserve.