Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

(throws bullshit flag) That's a dumb meaningless meme. You could say that about any document ever produced, including the Declaration of Independence or Napoleon's letters to Josephine.

Nonsense. Firstly, the DoI acknowledges its self-reference ...It doesn't claim to be anything more than a claim (to wit, of grievances against an English king).

The DoI is evidence that there was a Continental Congress. It is evidence that John Hancock and company were members of that Continental Congress. It is evidence that the Revolutionary war was a real historical event.

Don’t be dim. Are you really prepared to say that no written record about people, places or events, counts as evidence in favor of the historicity of those events? You’re playing a semantic shell game. There isn’t a single historical document that you couldn’t dismiss simply by calling it a claim. Next you're going to tell me that the battle of Gettysburg never happened because the Gettysburg address is just the claim that there was a battle, not evidence for one.

You seriously want to believe that Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War” is just a claim and that it doesn’t as count as evidence in favor of said war? How about Plutarch’s “Lives”? Isn’t that evidence in favor of the claim that Cato the Elder was a real person? Of course it is.

---

Lol more evidence Neo has no clue what he is talking about

So you claim.