Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Astonished]

I noticed a series of posts, along this line from you here.  I feel fairly confident (they can correct me, if I'm wrong) in saying that the theist involved in this conversation are not saying that everything anyone has claimed is always true.   Also in my experience, it is followed by a similar line of questions, for which you believe things, which you have to trust the testimony of others for their validity.  Also in my experience, this takes a very long time for an atheist to admit this when asking questions. 

So, unless you are holding to a position apart from what I described above, and justifying the most rigid fundamentalist and conspiracy theorist out there. (I can think of a lot of things to question, and say there is no evidence for; on these grounds alone)   I thought that perhaps it may speed things up, to skip this part, and move on to discussing what makes a testimony good evidence.

I've read this three times and I still don't have the remotest idea what you're saying.

Good, so I'm not the only one.

Also, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of what's being claimed is that whatever is being pointed to as evidence for theistic claims IS evidence, even if it's the worst kind, which to me makes no fucking sense. It's as if I said that a solar eclipse is evidence that there is a turd at the bottom of my clothing hamper. If I make that claim, I clearly don't know what the fuck I'm talking about and that 'evidence' should be completely dismissed, and cease to be categorized as evidence. I see no reason why the insubstantial ramblings of a stone-age fairy tale should be taken as evidence of anything, but I seem to be getting told that no, not only is it 'evidence' but evidence good enough not to completely dismiss. That's going miles too far.

So am I missing something? Is there just some fancy wordplay I skimmed through too quickly to identify as bullshit on its own terms?