Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Harry Nevis]

But the reason, I posted, is that I agree.  We should be able to say I don't know, and that should be the default.  I don't think that arguing a god of the gaps is a good method.  Although that accusation can also be abused, ignoring the reasons why God or something like god is a better explanation.  However I don't think the theist is alone in this.  An atheist's tendency in this situation; I have observed, is to deny, and claim the observer as mistaken, crazy or something similar (or if unable to deny, then well there must be a naturalistic cause (science will figure it out someday).  Here too, I think that often, it may be better to just say I don't know.  Not that there can't be reasons for these answers, but they are a claim that needs to be supported.

Atheists get tired of hearing the same old debunked claims and arguments.  We ask for evidence, we get unsubstantiated claims.  We ask for outside corroboration, we get writers who may have used the word christian. We point out discrepancies in the bible, we're told we are reading it wrong. This has gone on for centuries.  I feel safe in calling people who make these claims mistaken and, when they seem to be trying more to convince themselves of their "knowledge" of god, I feel safe in calling them crazy or something similar.  All it would take to shut us up is objective, falsifiable evidence that points to no other explanation than your god.  And so it goes...