Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Basically I am saying, I don't think that any of the theist here are saying, that we should accept all testimony without evaluation.
In my experience, most atheist are not saying, that all testimony should be discarded by default or that it is not evidence at all.

If a number of independent astronomers report the same or similar observations about the universe, That is evidence of the event or property they are describing; even though I didn't see it personally. This is true, even if it is an event, which is not repeatable.

Also in my experience, even when I would quickly admit the position I gave for the theist above, the same line of questions still persisted.  And it took a while but asking the alternative to the atheist I was discussing with, they eventually agreed, that knowledge gained through the experience of another can be evidence.  However by this time, and after the long back and forth, no one wanted to get into discussing how testimony should be evaluated, and what makes it good or bad.

So I'm suggesting that we forego the line of senseless questions, that don't represent eithers position, and move on to what makes testimony evidence.