Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Sorry, Mr. Agenda;

I was speaking more generically here, and did not intend to imply anything about you specifically or about anything you said in this context. I can respect a person who is a true skeptic. However recently I have even seen someone even insinuate, that theist have not even presented their reasons for their beliefs, like it is a big secret. And there are a number of bad arguments made by atheist, which attempt to dismiss evidence, not just to doubt it. (to be fair there are a number of theist who make bad arguments as well).

As to the why instead of the what. I am referring to what the evidence is, not to what the evidence points to. I think that epistemology should be consistent, and that the same arguments made for or against one thing can be applied and be consistent with the conclusion for another thing (apart from committing any category errors). That is that similar reasoning in one instance, applies to the next. It's kind of like algebra, we can insert X and Y and the formulas still hold true, because the underlying principles are true. Would you agree?

And again, I'm sorry, I didn't intend this to be agaisnt anything about you personally but more general. I don't really keep track of people, but I don't know that I could state your positions or any specific arguments you've made. that I would take issue with. Would you agree, that just because we don't like the answer or conclusion, while we may go back and look closer at our initial assumptions and premises, we can't just invalidate the logic or math? By the way, I think some Christians do this as well.