Steve-o, you've managed to spin out a 43-page (and counting) thread based on semantics and obfuscation but I'll bet you've never even considered examining your own confirmation bias in accepting the absolute worst type of testimonial evidence as sound. Evey time you (practically screaming at this point) claim that the gospels were first-had accounts, you show it. By trotting out a semantics argument in hopes of obfuscating your real arguments, you show it. By repeatedly asserting that the buy-bull is somehow evidence of a claim and not the claim itself (again, practically screaming it at this point), you show it. It's why so many christers loath science and so many who understand science loath religion. Because the method does it's best to strip confirmation bias. You do nothing, and it's glaringly obvious to anyone reading this thread who doesn't hold the same bias.
Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This does not mean the evidence itself has to be extraordinary, but that there has to be an extraordinary amount of it. If you can't understand that, maybe you should read some of the works of the people who have been quoted (correctly or not) saying that, starting with Sagan. You've attacked every argument here with ferocity, but also with a profound lack of understanding. Not only of what the arguments are, but what educated scholars say about your own holy book. I'd seriously recommend some reading of textual criticisms of said holy book. Bart Ehrman is a great place to start, especially since he backs the idea of a historical jeebus.
Now, having said all that, I'm sure you'll ignore it all because you had to get all offended for your gawd, because I called it gawd, or jeebus, or some such (no, I don't have to respect your gawd just because you think it's worthy). If you're so thin skinned that you have to get upset that someone called your all-powerful, creator of the universe, sky-daddy a name, maybe an atheist forum isn't the best place for you.
Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This does not mean the evidence itself has to be extraordinary, but that there has to be an extraordinary amount of it. If you can't understand that, maybe you should read some of the works of the people who have been quoted (correctly or not) saying that, starting with Sagan. You've attacked every argument here with ferocity, but also with a profound lack of understanding. Not only of what the arguments are, but what educated scholars say about your own holy book. I'd seriously recommend some reading of textual criticisms of said holy book. Bart Ehrman is a great place to start, especially since he backs the idea of a historical jeebus.
Now, having said all that, I'm sure you'll ignore it all because you had to get all offended for your gawd, because I called it gawd, or jeebus, or some such (no, I don't have to respect your gawd just because you think it's worthy). If you're so thin skinned that you have to get upset that someone called your all-powerful, creator of the universe, sky-daddy a name, maybe an atheist forum isn't the best place for you.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.