Well "the evidence they found to be supporting their assertion" is included, but is not actually the full extent of what is expected.
"Expected" by whom? You? No one else is required to abide by YOUR requirements for evidence or proof. They are only required to offer their evidence and their reasons for why they felt that evidence rose to the level of proof.
A person is expected to have enough self-knowledge to know if they are rational thinkers, and knowing the rules of logic only rational people would put forth a valid claim/assertion. Mistakes happen, and these can be exposed in discourse.
Again, no one is required to abide by what YOU consider rational thinking. Your rationale is based on your truth paradigm. Their rationale is based on their truth paradigm. Yours does not trump anyone else's. Yours is not the yardstick by which all truth and logical reasoning must be measured. And to expect that it should be is highly irrational, asit would be impossible for anyone else to meet this expectation.
But we are seeing claims that not only have poor evidence, the evidence isn't even good enough to support an acknowledge the claim might be plausible. Religious claims are notoriously a poor bet to claim in a community of rational thinkers. These claims get obliterated on a routine basis. For a savvy thinker, religious claims tend to be easy pickings.
If you were such a savvy thinker, you would have realized that your own thinking (via these expectations) is irrational, and unworkable. It was never anyone else's job to overcome your defenses, or to meet your expectations regarding what is evidence and what is proof. You are not the standard-bearer for either.
Well I guess it's true that there is no rule that evidence has to be credible and valid. The thing is logic assumes the users will be informed, ethical, honorable, and want to promote truth.
It is neither ethical nor honorable to presume yourself to be the standard bearer for evidence and proof. It is neither ethical nor honorable to expect other people to take on the task of overcomming your ignorance and bias (because you don't see them as being ignorance and bias).
With religious claims we see many folks who share none of these virtues, and just want to promote their dogma.
Same goes for atheist's and their idiotic, baseless, an irrational presumptions and claims. Welcome to the human condition.
Theists often get upset when the rules of logic are applied, along with the ethics of thought, and the claims get slaughtered. Trailblazer is an example of this to a degree that I've never seen in decades of religious debate.
They get frustrated by the insane insistence that YOU are the definer of logic and reason, and that they must meet your standards or be labeled irrational. Which is an understandable frustration, especially as it's so hypocritical.
TB is female, but yes she does. The thing is she doesn't accept that her claims are highly flawed and the evidence lacking credibility. Then she repeats, ad nauseam. She doesn't learn. The ethics of the rules of logic are not respected.
And your ARE learning??? All I'm seeing is you dismissing someone else truth claims because they didn't meet your standards for evidence of proof. I don't see you even considering anyone else's standards for evidence or proof. You simply auto-defend, and learn nothing. Exactly the same as you accuse others of doing.
She has her low standards that are good enough for her. They aren't good enough objectively.
Objectivism is a myth-based ideology, but you don't understand this. And you will never understand it so long as you continue to auto-defend it instead of trying to see it the way some others can.
I suggest those who aren't already convinced some idea is true are the BEST judges of evidence. So to impress atheists over religious claims would be what most claimant's Holy Grail. I think theists should keep working hard to impress theists, and not other believers, who already believe. Preaching to the choir. I mean, you theists aren't here because you like the abuse, right?
We are aware of how low the standards of evidence are for theists. Theists making claims in a diverse debates forum need to impress those who DON'T believe. To just keep posting the low quality evidence just invites more criticism and scorn.
Having a low standard of evidence should be embarrassing. It's almost as if it is a badge of pride.
What a load of egocentric nonsense.