Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Amarok]

But if you claim that Joe the Baker walked on water, raised the dead, and turned two loaves and five fish into a feast feeding 5,000, I'm going to need a little more than eyewitness testimony two thousand years old that has suffered all the indignities I've listed above. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you are here trying to convince me. You'll need to set aside your own obviously paltry requirements for evidence and play rational ball.

Agreed evidence proportioned to what is claimed. If theist don't like those standards they can kiss our behinds .

---

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

Bullshit there are no independent sources . And your point about the churches believe is bullshit as well . and none of it is circular reasoning no matter how much you stomp your feet and scream about it.

---

But if you claim that Joe the Baker walked on water, raised the dead, and turned two loaves and five fish into a feast feeding 5,000, I'm going to need a little more than eyewitness testimony two thousand years old that has suffered all the indignities I've listed above. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you are here trying to convince me. You'll need to set aside your own obviously paltry requirements for evidence and play rational ball.

Agreed evidence proportioned to what is claimed. If theist don't like those standards they can kiss our behinds .

---

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

Bullshit there are no independent sources . And your point about the churches believe is bullshit as well . and none of it is circular reasoning no matter how much you stomp your feet and scream about it.

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events? Admit it, your problem isn't with eyewitness, its the content of the claim. And if that's the case, you are the one engaged in question begging/circular reasoning: the NT can't be true because miracles don't happen.

Nope and you have not shown otherwise. But even if that was the case it's still not circular reasoning . So nice try .