Gospels are eyewitness accounts

[Eight Foot Manchild]

No the difference is knowing when the eyewitness is telling the truth or not.

Which is why you - and me, and every thinking person - proportion your acceptance of a claim to the evidence given, with regard to the nature of the claim.

If I told you I traveled to Hawaii last year, you'd have no problem taking that on my say-so alone.

If I told you I traveled to Hawaii last year by swimming across the Pacific Ocean from the Bay of San Francisco, you would need much more than just my say-so.

At the end of the day if you discount all testimony you believe in nothing at all and that is not sustainable for normal life.

Nowhere have I ever said, or implied, that I discount 'all testimony'. What I said was, I discount it as evidence for extraordinary claims.

So do you. You just apply the standard inconsistently, making an exception for the extraordinary claims of your religion, whereas I apply it consistently, making no exceptions.