Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

See above. It is not a option to say "I don't know" when, for example, faced with certain end of life decisions, such as pulling the plug on a critically injured loved one.

Aren't you really just arguing for comfort in the face of death?  Think I'll wing it without a security blanket.  I'm sure I'm not worried about any awkward posthumous interview at the pearly gates.  So really it just seems to be about spinning our mortality in a candy-land direction.

That's not the issue. Deciding if and when it is permissible to end a human life, what it means to be human, and how to make and live in a just society has very little do with what someone believes about the afterlife. Whether we acknowledge it or not, everyone has a philosophical world view.

Personally, I find non-theistic appeals to the "golden rule" and evolved empathy to be such loosely held principles that one could justify almost any horror that is personally or collectively convenient at the moment. That is not to say that poorly formed and rigidly held philosophical and religious convictions don't often result in judgmental and heartless choices, but corrective measures and restraints are contained within those traditions that are not available to atheistic ones.