Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

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.  

Two things about that:

1. Most of the NT is not hearsay. John, Peter and James were eyewitnesses. Paul never related the events of Jesus' life. It is not necessarily true that 
2. Hearsay is evidence. So what you are saying is "I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay [evidence] as evidence..." 

So, you are making claims regarding the evidence that is not hearsay and you reject the hearsay evidence without reason (so you say)--in spite of accepting it in every other ancient historical account ever. 

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 others) keep saying that there is a reasonable explanation. However, there is none forthcoming that answers all the facts we find in the first century church. Go ahead, try one.

---

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?

It's not like atheists just never have heard of religion before. Many atheists were steeped in religion at some point in their life or have considered the topic deeply. As for how do you reject something that you don't have sufficient knowledge of: how much do you know about Pastafarianism? I bet I know more about Christianity than you do about Pastafarianism. But do you reject the ideology?

Also, you didn't respond when I said if not goat herders, who? I think understanding who we're talking about here is a valid discussion.

Your analogy does not fit the point I was making.

I never said how can you reject something that you don't have sufficient knowledge of? I very specifically mentioned the body of evidence for Christianity that many here simply claim "no evidence". You simply cannot say that without understanding the thing you are claiming is not evidence.

Who in the NT was a goat herder?