"tinyE's not here Mrs. Torrance."

Ah, it's tonyE...

Thanks for clarifying your point. I think the point at which we consider the evidence for something to be sufficiently strong to justify our belief is the point that we consider it to be proved. Many people consider the Bible to be sufficient evidence for the existence of the Christian God, and thus consider it to be proved to them.

I think it is next to impossible for someone to rise from the dead, but I also think it is next to impossible that Christianity survived its inception without Jesus having resurrected**, so regardless of whether or not you think Jesus resurrected, we all think that something next to impossible happened. The scenario that should be believed is the one that tests the best in terms of explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, ad hocness, accord with accepted beliefs, and superiority to rival hypotheses. I think the resurrection has that in spades, so I believe that's what happened, but if you have a better scenario, then I'm all ears.

**http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.php

No, far from impossible when it spread on threats of death.

No one forms an opinion without evidence indicating to them that it's true. The different between what we consider facts and opinions is not that one has evidence and the other doesn't, rather is the degree of evidence.
A greater capability for moral good comes hand in hand with a greater capability for moral evil.

A million people can still be wrong however. A book written long after the fact isn't evidence, neither is gut feelings or beliefs.

I never claimed that Christianity is necessarily true because there exists evidence that it is true. Rather, it is necessary for there to be evidence that Christianity is true in order to form the belief that it is true, just as it is necessary for there to be evidence that Christianity to be false in order to form the belief that it is false. The one that should be believed is the one that has the strongest evidence. My point was to counter the claim that there is no evidence for religious beliefs.

Actually, often enough, small 'wars' and killing their own kind is what most overpopulated animals in the world do. Funny humans, the morally superior race, is no different to this particualar pattern :-P

I've also seen a dog risk its life to another of its pack.
I've also seen a dog shy away from as much as attempting to help.

I'm sure both are just instinctive behaviour and contain absolutely no decisionmaking based on learned patterns, that we so mightily call 'morals' :-P

So what you are saying is that we should get a pass on genocide because we are more capable of good than the other species whom don't commit genocide? XD Try that one out at the Holocaust Museum and see how it flies.

Besides there are too many ambiguities regarding moral good ie the Heinz Deilemma among many others and what many may consider morally good from one aspect may see it as just the opposite from another aspect. Obviously this is NOT a blanket statement; I don't think there are a lot of people going around screaming, "Fucking Mother Theresa! That bitch!" However, you can find a lot of people who found the actions of people like Gandhi just as ugly as folks like myself found them beautiful. Vlad Dracula is seen as a hero and Saint to some, William Wallace as a two faced land baron to many. Good or evil can be a simple matter of which side of a border you are standing on.

I was not talking about how Christianity survived hundreds of years later after it became established as the official religion of the Roman Empire; I'm talking about how it survived its inception.

Wasn't just roman empire that pushed it on threats with death.

Belief that aliens own 50 000 invisible ships in our orbit survived its inception, and became a relatively wide-spread cult in Czech Republic. What you just said? Not very convincing.

Of course billions of people can be wrong. Being written long after the fact bring in question how well it was transmitted, but it doesn't bring into question whether it can be used as evidence to indicate that something is true. The fact is that there are details in the Gospels that could only be found in high quality eye-witness accounts.

For instance, If you were to create story that took place in another country 100 years ago that included over 100 names, would you be able to pick the right names and in right proportions be historically accurate? Our intuition about which names are common or uncommon is often inaccurate because of a small sample size, so without the Internet, it is doubtful anyone could get that right even if they were writing a modern story that took place in their own State.

There is a statistically significant match between the names used in the Gospels and those that were actually used in 1st century Palestine. On the other hand, the names of 1st century Jews in Egypt had a completely different pattern. It’s not only the right frequency, but there is disambiguation for the more common names, such as Simon Peter, Simon the Zealot, Simon the Leper, Simon of Cyrene, Simon the Tanner, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, all while there is no disambiguation for the less common ones. This is also shown in the difference between how the narrator speaks and the way the characters speak, such as John 14:1-4, and then with Herodias' daughter 14:8-9. Furthermore, the Gospels all have different patterns for how they refer to the principle character, but they all have the same pattern for disambiguation. This would have been authentically necessary at the time (to make sure the right John was beheaded), but not necessary if someone was removed from the events.

Names are also one of the hardest things to remember. You can remember all sorts of details about someone, but not their names because there usually isn't a logical connection between a name and the person. If the Gospels have correctly got the detail that’s the hardest thing to remember, isn't there every reason to think they could get the other things right? If it had been getting these stories 5th or 6th hand then, the names would have dropped out, so the only way to get the correct pattern is not just to have eyewitness testimony, but high quality eyewitness testimony.

Another thing that would be difficult to get right would be the names of small villages. The Gospels don’t just list the names, but they also give details such as to whether they are next to the sea, up, down, and traveling times.

The apocryphal gospels are abysmal with getting the right Palestinian names and place names. This is actually evidence for the canonical Gospels because they show what we would expect to find if people did make up stories. The number of words used in the Gospels is in the same ratio as the number of names and place names used, while the names and place names drop off in the apocryphal gospels.

Another test is to look at things like whether there were sycamore trees in Jericho at the time? This is the sort of thing that people know only if they been to the place or have talked to someone who has been there.

With the feeding of the 5000, Mark and John both comment on there being green/much grass. Mark says there were many coming and going, but he doesn't say why. John fills us in by saying it was Passover time, so would there have been green grass at Passover? Precipitation charts say they just had three months of heavy rain. Why does Jesus turn to Philip to ask him where to buy bread and why does Andrew get involved in the reply? Luke tells us the feeding was near Bethsaida. John tells us Philip and Andrew were from Bethsaida. Even barely loaves in John fits with the time of year when they just had had the barley harvest.

All of these things come together to build a narrative that looks believable. With all the attention to detail, one would expect they got the important parts right as well. This doesn't prove that it happened, but it’s not what you would expect if the gospels were the result of a conspiracy of incompetence, or were removed from eyewitnesses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8

Actually, that is reason to suspect that they weren't remembering, but were copying. You said yourself that it's hard trying to recall the names, yet 4 (or more, depending on which you count as official) people did manage to (independently) recall the same names.
If this was an alibi, the police officer investigating would ask to dig deeper, not exonerate the suspects.