(September 11, 2017 at 4:33 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Name another religions with evidence we can compare over any time span you want. Without a comparison, we would be left with just a litany of beliefs going way back that don't add anything to the discussion.

Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhist, etc

Christians would accept all evidence provided for Judaism. 

Buddhists don't really make any claims that require evidence or that would have evidence. 

Hindus have stories that were written down after 400+ years of telling stories about events before those 400 years. What specifically are you proposing as evidence?

Mormons, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Joseph Smith's head?

(September 11, 2017 at 4:43 pm)SteveII Wrote: Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something.

Yes. Something Christianity doesn't have with regards to any of its supposed miracles or other supernatural truths.

And you're wrong about your excessive polarization of evidence and proof because they are not completely unrelated. Both are used to "prove" something to some extent. It is merely that what we normally call "proof" is absolute proof that uses deductive reasoning.... but evidence still gives relative proof using inductive reasoning. Just because evidence doesn't prove anything absolutely doesn't mean it doesn't prove anything. It's supposed to bolster points, which does prove something to some extent. It at least relatively proves that X is more likely than not X.

But Christianity doesn't have that. It has a book with words written in it. It's evidence of nothing true and it proves nothing.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:53 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:33 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhist, etc

Christians would accept all evidence provided for Judaism. 

Buddhists don't really make any claims that require evidence or that would have evidence. 

Hindus have stories that were written down after 400+ years of telling stories about events before those 400 years. What specifically are you proposing as evidence?

Mormons, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Joseph Smith's head?

Christians, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Saul of Tarsus' head?


Get it yet?

(September 11, 2017 at 1:41 pm)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?

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? 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? 

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.

Well at least you don't suggest that atheists are holding you to a higher standard for your supernatural claims than we do ourselves for various and sundry mundane claims we make ourselves.  I appreciate not having to argue that evidence for supernatural claims is going to be more demanding than for ordinary natural ones.  

I also appreciate your defining the terms as you are using them.  Nice, and the definitions seem reasonable.  

As to your question, I have no idea how good the evidence is for other religions or how well that stacks up against your own.  All I know, is I've never seen anything that has made me doubt my disbelief for any religion.  I have looked at a few but not with any interest in the evidence provided for the truth of religious claims interpreted literally.  Fundamentalism of any ilk is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned.

Okay, Steve. You failed utterly at providing evidence for your assertion that witness testimony is reliable as evidence, so now you're here essentially saying, "Well, at least Christianity contains a lot more crappy, unreliable testimony than the other religions!"

Is that supposed to be persuasive...?

Why do you ask questions we have already answered ?

Regarding doctors being correct/incorrect:

My oldest brother had colon cancer several years ago. His PCP refused to believe it was possible because he was too young (in his late 30s). Despite knowing our family history of cancer everywhere, and my brother pleading with him to have a colonoscopy, the doctor simply told him to eat more fiber. It took months for the doctor to finally yield to a colonoscopy. His cancer was stage III-B.

With me, doctors told my parents I would never be able to walk. I was able to walk for 11-12 years with full-length leg braces that locked at the knee and a walker.

Doctors get shit wrong all the time, even with evidence staring them in the face. So, no, I'm not going to simply take Hickey's word for it. Or yours, for that matter. Especially when this story is being used to market something, and especially when human error/ignorance meets the burden of proof.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:53 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:33 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhist, etc

Christians would accept all evidence provided for Judaism. 

Buddhists don't really make any claims that require evidence or that would have evidence.

If that is true, it isn't a fault but rather a strength of Buddhism. In the realm of religion, empiricism is beside the point. A mature religious world view should acknowledge that.

Huggy74 Wrote:

Tazzycorn Wrote:We would accept christian evidence...



if any christian ever bothered providing some.
[/thread]

Edit: and no Steve you don't get to special plead your baseless assertions into evidence. Us telling you that the third hand "testimony" of 500 anonymous people isn't arguing overdefinitions, it's applying the one correct definition properly. If you don't like it fuck off back to christianforums or whatever other nuthouse you come from.

Oh please.

I've posted evidence on a number of occasions.

Here's one thread to prove it.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-41513.html

Your contributions to that thread seem to be entirely assertions, claims, and evidence that other people made claims. Nothing that could reasonably be described as evidence for the supernatural.

If I say God cured my tummy ache, that's a claim with three elements: I had a tummy ache, I no longer have a tummy ache, and a miracle from God is the explanation for why I no longer have a tummy ache. All the 'evidence' there ever seems to be for the last element is 'I'm saying God did it'. That's not good enough. It wouldn't be good enough for you if some other religion's god or God was being credited for a cure, because you have to believe that the god or God being credited with the cure is real before you can believe it did something.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:52 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Huggy, we don't know if her diagnosis was correct.  Until we do, then anything else is moot.

Thanks for playing.

Sigh,

Determining whether or not a person has a uterus doesn't take a genius...