One of the more extraordinary claims atheists make, for which they have provided no evidence, is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't think I should have to give more of an explanation as to why this claim is self refuting, it's self evident.
Today, I want to explain another flaw. Even if we accept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, who gets to say what is extraordinary? Theism certainly isn't extraordinary. It's persisted for 6,000 years, and even today, the overwhelming majority of the human race are Theists, with a mere 16% of humanity projected to fall for atheism by the end of 2023. And ironically, atheism also tends to be more popular in certain regions.
Christianity, by contrast, is not so unusual. If the secular definition is applied, 31% of the human race are Christians. That's followed by 23% who are Muslims. That means when you combine all the orthodox and heretical sects of the world's two largest Theistic religions, literally half of the human race believes in some form of "Abrahamic" God. And a large portion of them would consider atheism extraordinary.
Now, I'm not trying to play the numbers game here. "We're the majority, therefore we win" is absolutely not what I'm saying. In fact, it would be illogical to say "we're the majority". I combined both orthodox and heretical sects of two completely separate religions. No, my point is simply this: It's all well and good to claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but assuming you can provide evidence extraordinary enough to prove such a claim, you must then provide extraordinary evidence for the other extraordinary claim that Christianity is an extraordinary claim.
Until such extraordinary evidence is provided, Christianity should be held to the same standard of evidence as any other claim. The irony is that by making the original claim, atheists effectively admit that it has fulfilled that standard. There is so much evidence for Christianity that the only reason atheists have to reject it is to invent a brand new standard of evidence by claiming the evidence we do have isn't extraordinary enough. This, my friends, is not rational.
Ironically, it's not extraordinary, either. During Jesus' lifetime, many people demanded evidence of His claims. And to those who were sincere, He obliged. He performed many great miracles. Healings, feedings, exorcisms, resurrections, Jesus showed His power, authority, and identity beyond any reasonable doubt. But not beyond unreasonable doubt. There were those who were so desperate to reject Him, they actually blamed His miracles on Satan, an excuse that is still used by some non-Christian Jews to this day. And despite all of these miracles, they still wanted more signs.
But Jesus gave them just one: The "sign of Jonah". Just as Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the great fish, so also would the Son of Man spend 3 days in a tomb. Just three days. After that, Jesus rose. Now tell me, is it not extraordinary for a dead man to just walk out of His grave? Atheists certainly seem to think so. Some of them are so irrational, they call Him a "cosmic zombie". So, obviously, they are aware that this is not an ordinary occurrence. So there's your extraordinary evidence. Jesus proved His claim to be God with the extraordinary evidence that He rose from the grave. In doing so, He bought your life. See, you were doomed in your sin. Every time you mocked God, every time you spat on His commandments, every time you made His world a little less good than He designed it to be, these are all reasons God should destroy you today.
But in His mercy, He can wait until tomorrow. He can give you time to repent and be saved. More than enough. Certainly more than you deserve (which is rather the point). Making up arbitrary reasons to resist that rescue is pure foolishness.