Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[LadyForCamus]

I usually stop reading a thread after a while, but once in a while I'll pop in just to mainly see what the theists are saying and if I have anything to contribute to counter their nonsense.

We're at the point where Steve is merely restating over and over his position.  It's the same schtick he's had for years on here... same argument, same 'evidence', etc.  It's fun to poke him every once in a while.

Also, Steve: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence due to the burden of proof.  The more unlikely/improbable the claim, the more proof is required to verify that the claim happened, and wasn't due to any other known/ordinary cause.

I'm sure you have me on ignore, but this is what it is.  Logic 101.  You would've failed any freshman logic course with what you've written in this thread.

It's really just as simple and straightforward as this, isn't it?  But it's quite amusing to watch our resident theists desperately try to make the concept seem more complicated than it really is in order to wiggle out of having to actually demonstrate anything relating to their religious claims.  40 some odd pages, and still, all we're hearing from Steve and Co. is: I don't have to do better because the Bible is good enough, because it is.  And, alleged biblical testimony is reliable and truthful because it is, and I say so.  Nice work guys.