Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sorry, but there is no amount of textual material that can ever be good evidence for miracle, supernatural, god claims.

Well, there it is, folks. A refreshing piece of honesty. Atheists have no interest in evidence that does not already confirm their opinions.

And of course, you are guilty of special pleading by not allowing for the same kind of evidence for other religions texts, besides your own.

Not true. Already answered here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-50195-p...pid1594726

I can interview living people, some that have written books, that will attest to their alien abduction experiences. Most of them are honestly and sincerely reporting what they believe is the truth. Should I believe them? Do you?

Actually, I do. One report is an anecdote. Multiple reports are a case study. The nature of what they are actually experiencing is still up in the air because it is a strange mixture of physical events and consciousness effects. Hopefully, this reply doesn’t completely derail the thread. I’m just keeping an open mind about a very real phenomena that is largely not understood.

Now, why when you move other supernatural stories 2000 years into the pre-scientific past, written decades or more after the alleged experiences, by non eyewitnesses, do supernatural stories become more credible?

I think it’s a total package of the kind SteveII mentioned earlier. The impeccable logic of Aquainas (Atheists say its debunked but no one on AF seems to know how) revealing a Philosopher’s god, coupled with historical accounts (sorry Simon, archeological finding almost always confirm the biblical accounts) , the promptings of the sensus divinitatis, and the testimony of changed lives all lead us to conclude that our faith is reasonable.

Hey SteveII and Roadrunner79, I'm really enjoying the group effort that reveals the sloppy thinking, uncritical acceptance of fringe NT scholarship, and reliance on stupid memes of atheistic skeptics.