Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

The term assumption only applies when you have no previous history, where I must -assume- that jesus and the gospels are rattling around in your head.  I don;t have to do any such thing here, because you've already had this discussion with us on multiple occassions and it split off of a discussion of precisely that.  Just fucking stop, man, lol?  We know whats on your mind, we know why you ask now, why you asked then, we always know.  We still have a conversation with you...so I can;t even see the practical upside to being disingenuous.  You gain nothing and lose..well, I would say your credibility, everything..but?  

So, this brings us round to another wonderful question regarding personal testimony.  When one bit of personal testimony contradicts many other bits of personal testimony allegedly written by or about a single person....what is the value of that testimony then?  How are we to determine, on the basis of that testimony alone, what is true and what is false?

I don't remember any other threads I was involved in, where the topic was only about testimony other than ones I started (although I could be wrong).  And I think that the history will show, that I do normally try to keep the thread on topic in most cases (sometimes I may join in as the thread has already veered off topic, or . 

Anyway, here is the first thread I started which was debating witness testimony.  https://atheistforums.org/thread-38852.html

And here is a related thread about anecdotal evidence which I started, which is somewhat related  https://atheistforums.org/thread-45573.html

You may look through them, for something more specific for you evidence if you like.   I think in the last one, I might have been ignoring you, and I'm beginning to remember why.

If you want to discuss the topic, or if you come up with something more specific to accuse me of... I'll be here  Otherwise I think that we are done.