Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[LadyForCamus]

The only thing inch deep here is your pool of "evidence."  Harry and I have no responsibility to counter you.  None of the above listed (separate or cumulatively) are evidence of the existence of God.  Other possible (and more reasonable) explanations have been postulated to you and RR time and again, but you don't like those possibilities so you simply dismiss them.  If your evidence is sucky, that's on you.  

As I said to Harry, if you say my list is not evidence, you are making a claim that you have knowledge of an alternate explanation to everything I listed that is a matter of fact.

That's not true at all. I am not making any claims. I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay as evidence for the theist claim that god exists.

This endeavor cannot be summed up with one word answers like deceit, myth, or conspiracy. There has to be a body of facts that account for everything I mentioned.

Those things, cumulatively, are far more likely and reasonable an explanation. A more reasonable alternative is all I need in order to reject the supernatural (whatever that means) as an explanation for mass belief, or for anything.

You and Harry have failed to even scratch the surface of doing that.

You have failed to provide anything which requires scratching.

---

Do you really think this is an important point to argue? You're saying some decent things in my opinion, but it's not really unreasonable that someone would discard very weak evidence as not being evidence at all. There's a point where evidence goes from meaning nothing to meaning something, and it seems like a semantic difference to insist we include the evidence that really means nothing under the category of evidence.

In my experience here, most atheist have so little understanding of the NT, its provenance, its people, its content, and its message that there is no way they can even claim there is no evidence because of two facts:

1. Because they do not have any clue about the facts they are claiming are not evidence. Really not much at all. You just mentioned goat herders. Another "a book". Another mentioned Teacher of Righteousness, temples and Confucious. Another believes that Jesus must have been crucified twice. Paul didn't agree with Jesus or founded Christianity. And I have so many people blocked that I don't see half of the dumb things that are said.  How do you reject something that you don't even have sufficient knowledge of? 
2. They cannot explain why the facts we do have (of which they are unfamiliar) is not evidence of what it claims to be--failing to realize this is a claim to knowledge for which they can't possibly have because of 1.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to Poca, who addressed each of your points of "evidence" that you listed.