Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Astonished]

Still silence on Cato the Elder, Socrates, and Alexander the Great? We have less evidence that any of these existed than for Jesus of Nazareth. If the issue is simply one of having sufficient and reasonably accurate accounts about people from the ancient world, then Jesus of Nazareth stands out as one of the more extensively documented.

Not the same category of person . And no jesus is not even close . This tired line of reason of comparing Jesus to actual historic figures is just tiresome.

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that  skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

It's matters . And nope we have not abandoned anything by not accepting the far less likely claims of the miraculous. That's not begging the question that relying on what we already know . And what deviates or contradicts it.

Not to mention it matters not one whit. Any lessons we can learn from the stories about those guys are not contingent on them having actually existed. Without all the magic shit, the whole Jesus myth is impotent.