Quote:It does not matter if you don't find the evidence compelling.

Actually, that is the vital point.  Some moron running around shouting that jesus sucked his cock might be an entertaining video but it sure as hell is not compelling evidence.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:12 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:03 pm)JackRussell Wrote: Well you are immersed in the evidence you contends attests to your belief. How deep are you prepared and exposed to the apologetics of all other beliefs? Can you honestly say you are up to speed with all of that? I know plenty of Christians that have become Muslims over here.

Propaganda and evidence are not equal. Even if I was a theist, I would think one contender would really be well evidenced. Why don't your fellow theist of many and differing strikes disagree? Atheism is irrelevant here if a real God knows his shit.

There is very little to investigate in other religions. If you don't agree, give an example.

---

(September 11, 2017 at 4:05 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I have never seen any evidence or information that provides any substantive evidence that corroborates the claims central to Christianity.

The comparable arguments that are given as evidence (but are not) would be things like the ontological argument. If it can be used to "prove" any other god claim, then it does not prove any god.

You are right that the natural theology arguments fallacious arguments given by Aquinas and his ilk could be used for any other monotheism. However, And we have a whole body of evidence stories in and surrounding the NT to consider that is not generic as generic as any other holy book and has no equal in is just as silly and unimpressive as other religions.

I fixed that for you.

SteveII Wrote:This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Yes, all the supernatural claims of any religion can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's are. As far as I can tell, no religion has what could reasonably be described as a 'body of evidence' for their supernatural claims. Which are their most central and important claims, because their claim to authority depends on having a supernatural source for it.

SteveII Wrote:Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims?

I'm not aware that this is the sort of thing that serious scholars of religion debate...if they did, I'm sure they'd have announced a winner by now.

SteveII Wrote:If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity?

When Christians use special pleading, they use it the same way as every other theistic religion: 'My God is the exception. My God is different. My God is unique. My God is the only explanation. Their God isn't real, my God is.'

 

SteveII Wrote:If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

Christianity, of course, exists. There is ample evidence of that. If you think Christianity has special evidence for its supernatural claims that other religions do not possess, I would be interested in seeing it. If your definition of what constitutes 'more evidence' is arbitrarily picking some criteria that conveniently and arbitrarily favors Christianity, that would be some sort of fallacy, but I'm not sure it would be special pleading. I'm sure other religions would find which religion is the oldest persuasive, or which religion has the lowest body count, or which religion has the highest percentage of people willing to pierce themselves to show their faith. Whatever evidence you have that Christianity in particular is true, it should be something relevant to whether its supernatural claims are true.

---

SteveII Wrote:The topic is the often repeated charge that somehow Christianity is no different than any other religion and to think it is different is "special pleading". I contend that it is different in that there is more information to weigh than any other religion (by far).

Christianity is quite unique. As are all the other religions. Of course it's different from the other religions.

But if you've got actual evidence of the supernatural, I'd like to know what it is.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:28 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: It does not matter if you don't find the evidence compelling. The point was and is that many of you atheist lump all religions together and claim that Christians are not logical/consistent in dismissing other religions. I say all religions are not equally evidenced so such a charge is baseless.

It's not evidence. Calling it "evidence" and then dancing about saying that we don't accept "evidence" is blatantly dishonest.

Of course there is evidence. You seem to have a problem with definitions. 

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

(September 11, 2017 at 3:13 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 3:08 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

Well, except for John, Peter, and James...

Quote:Estimated dates of composition and author identity:

Interpretations differ:

• Conservative Protestants typically believe in the inerrancy of all of the books in the Bible. Thus, they believe that the authors, as identified in most of the Epistles, were the actual writers. Most believe that the Apostle John wrote both the Gospel of John and the Epistles 1,2, and 3 John. They generally believe that the Epistles were written early in the history of the Christian church; all but 1, 2 & 3 John were written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, at 70 CE.
  
• Liberal Christians typically believe that those Epistles whose approximate dates can be estimated were written after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, by unknown persons. By that time, various segments of the early Christian movement had introduced new beliefs that were not present in primitive Christianity as taught by Jesus of Nazareth and Paul. They contain a lot of information about how beliefs developed within the church in the later 1st century and first half of the 2nd century CE.
  
• Roman Catholic scholars: Fr. Raymond E. Brown, is a member of the Vatican's Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and was described by Time magazine as "probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S." 7 He has expressed his beliefs concerning the authorship of these epistles:
  In "Hebrews" there is no reference to Paul being the author; there is no reference to the Hebrews. It was only in the second century CE that this epistle became interpreted as being directed at Hebrews.        1,2 and 3 John contain no reference to authorship by the author(s) of the Gospel of John. That belief also arose in the second century.        Fr. Brown suggests that among critical scholars of the Bible:            
  • 95% believe that Peter did not write 2 Peter;
               
    
  • 75% believe that Jude did not write Jude;
               
    
  • 75% believe that James did not write James;
               
    
  • about 50% believe that Peter did not write 1 Peter.
    

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb4.htm

Congratulations. You've manufactured a fact out of minority or disputed opinions. With such "evidence" it's not surprising that you've found an abundance of it. You present a biased and distorted interpretation of the evidence, much like the advocates of other religions. When we can't trust you to represent the facts faithfully, all we have left to examine is your antics. In that you are no different from the advocates of other religions. Claiming that your distorted misrepresentations of the facts is different from those of other religions is the real special pleading. They have their arguments and "evidence" and you have yours. In that you are no different from them. Your objection that you are "different" deserves to be dismissed just like your bogus "evidence".

(September 11, 2017 at 4:43 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:28 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: It's not evidence. Calling it "evidence" and then dancing about saying that we don't accept "evidence" is blatantly dishonest.

Of course there is evidence. You seem to have a problem with definitions. 

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

Does that mean you're going to stop with these asinine threads?

(September 11, 2017 at 4:43 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:28 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: It's not evidence. Calling it "evidence" and then dancing about saying that we don't accept "evidence" is blatantly dishonest.

Of course there is evidence. You seem to have a problem with definitions. 

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

Evidence isn't an argument. Evidence corroborates an argument. What Christians have are arguments, and a paucity of evidence to substantiate them.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:05 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: For those that don't want to watch Huggy's BS, essentially, in 1958, Marilyn Hickey was 'healed' by evangelical pastor William Branham.  Doctors had told Hickey she wouldn't be able to conceive, but he laid hands upon her and invoked Christ, yadda yadda yadda.

She wasn't 'healed' until 10 years later, when she actually got pregnant.

People like Huggy think this is the power of Christ performing a miracle.  Those of us with functioning brains realize that medical science in the late 1950s was still pretty sketchy, and that there's a far better chance that the doctor were simply wrong in her case than anything miraculous happening.  False positives are, and have always been, a thing.

And, of course, if faith healing was actually a thing, it would be used on a wide scale.  Why have doctors if holy people can cure you?  Surely there are people just as devout as Hickey and/or Branham that haven't had their maladies healed simply through ritual.

So, yeah, it's dumb and idiotic, and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.  Par for the course.

That post was in response to:

(September 11, 2017 at 3:08 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

I was simply providing eyewitness testimony, if you like evidence with more scientific scrutiny, I can provide that also.

I find it quite interesting that you chose to try to explain away the situation without know what condition Marilyn Hickey suffered from, after all she clearly stated she suffered from an inherited condition that caused infertility, one such as being born with no functioning uterus which affects 1 in 5000 women.

Therefore If no functioning uterus is present it doesn't take a genius to figure out that one cannot conceive, and a doctor would have no problems stating that fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCllerian_agenesis

Quote:Müllerian agenesis is a congenital malformation characterized by a failure of the Müllerian duct to develop, resulting in a missing uterus and variable degrees of vaginal hypoplasia of its upper portion. Müllerian agenesis (including absence of the uterus, cervix and/or vagina) is the cause in 15% of cases of primary amenorrhoea. Because most of the vagina does not develop from the Müllerian duct, instead developing from the urogenital sinus along with the bladder and urethra, it is present even when the Müllerian duct is completely absent.

Because ovaries do not develop from the Müllerian ducts, affected women might have normal secondary sexual characteristics but are infertile due to the lack of a functional uterus. However, motherhood is possible through use of gestational surrogates.

That being said, would you concede that a woman who has no functioning uterus yet conceived a child, can be referred to a miraculous?

Huggy, we don't know if her diagnosis was correct. Until we do, then anything else is moot.

Thanks for playing.

I REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE, THIS JUSTIFIES MY BELIEFS, MY BELIEF IS JUSTIFIED.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

You need to convince me.

I think your 'evidence' is weak

Prosecutor, over to you....