Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

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.

The problem with this is, eyewitness evidence, even if there was some for Christianity, is notoriously BAD evidence.

And I am talking about eyewitness evidence for crimes that can be proven to have taken place, in the present, with no alleged supernatural events taking place.

You don't have anything like that for Christianity. All you have is alleged eyewitness accounts, from texts written a generation or more after the alleged events took place, by non-eyewitnesses.

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).

[Huggy Bear]

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

[Ravenshire]

For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.

Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

[SteveII]

For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.

Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

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

If you use "gawd" again, you won't get a reply. Not because I am offended--I just don't like people who are obnoxious on purpose.

[Huggy Bear]

For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.

Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

Eye witness testimony




Audio recording of the actual event

[brewer]

[edit]

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.

bold mine

Um...........what? How do you even measure this? By word count? By number of supposed authors? By amount of publication?

An argument for belief based on quantity alone? Really? 

This might be one of the worst propositions you've put forward for your delusion.

[vorlon13]

For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.

Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

It's even worse, Scripture provides signs by which we might verify True Believers. And while intellectually I might be on board with some of our witnesses here swilling poison while molesting dangerous adders, asps, and cobras, emotionally, I feel I might miss them upon their (inevitable) demise attempting to prove the tenets of their faith.

[Ravenshire]

Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

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

If you use "gawd" again, you won't get a reply. Not because I am offended--I just don't like people who are obnoxious on purpose.

70 CE is not first hand, eyewitness testimony, sorry.

[Astreja]

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).

In one significant aspect of what a religion is  -- that is, a worldview based on unverifiable claims and supernatural elements that do not match up with observable, testable reality -- there is no difference.

[Pat Mustard]

The problem with this is, eyewitness evidence, even if there was some for Christianity, is notoriously BAD evidence.

And I am talking about eyewitness evidence for crimes that can be proven to have taken place, in the present, with no alleged supernatural events taking place.

You don't have anything like that for Christianity. All you have is alleged eyewitness accounts, from texts written a generation or more after the alleged events took place, by non-eyewitnesses.

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).

No there isn't, coward. For example Vorlon's citation of mormonism, where we have proof of the founder, his history, his religion's history, everythinghe wrote and quite a lot of what he said. As we have virtually nothing of christianity until well into its second century (and no three word fragments of single pages don't count) you cannot truthfully claim christianity has the same evidentiary basis as mormonism. Hell, even with islam, another religion bsed solely off legend we know most of the major players actually existed and did at least some of the stuff attributed to them. We can say this about exactly none of the founding members of christianity (unless you want to argue it was largely founded at Nicaea).

So your latest baseless assertion fails under even the most dilletantish of scrutinies.