Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Ravenshire]

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

Eye witness testimony




Audio recording of the actual event

I'm giving this the answer it deserves...

[vorlon13]

But even with the Mormonism evidence, even the MORMONs have a problem with their own evidence!!

Joseph Smith's hand written account of his first Visitation contradicts the 'official' Mormon version of that event. And unfortunately for Joseph Smith, it's the 'official' version they require belief in to avoid excommunication. Poor old Joe, by committing his version of the First Visitation to paper he has committed a grievous error for which he would be tossed out onto the street.

Given the Mormon predilection for schisms, however, (over a hundred in less than 200 years, BTW) I'm sure Joe would just move on and start another religion.

[Huggy Bear]

I'm giving this the answer it deserves...

Just as I thought...

It's funny how you guys shut up the moment anything resembling evidence is is actually produced...

Since you refuse to respond, you forfeit the privilege of requesting that any theist produce evidence from now on.

[SteveII]

[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.

What evidence would you expect to see from events that happened in the first century? Writings. The more the better. The more names we know the better. The more immediate effects these writings had the better. The more people that believed the events even before the writings the better (for example, Paul addresses the already existing churches throughout the Roman empire in the very first surviving writings).
So yes. Quantity of the only evidence we should expect to survive (writings) is an important factor.

[JackRussell]

I've never seen any evidence that provides consistent support for the central arguments of Christianity (that a god exists as well as those beliefs that require a god to exist). It would be special pleading to "accept" something as evidence of Christianity if comparable "evidence" isn't also accepted as evidence of any other religious and/or god claim.

You have never "seen" or you do not find the information (I use this word to clear up any confusion) we have compelling? There is a huge difference in meaning. You might be unaware of the information we have or you might understand what we have and don't think it's compelling or proof for the existence of God. 

Give an example of this "comparable evidence" from another religion.

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.

[TheBeardedDude]

I've never seen any evidence that provides consistent support for the central arguments of Christianity (that a god exists as well as those beliefs that require a god to exist). It would be special pleading to "accept" something as evidence of Christianity if comparable "evidence" isn't also accepted as evidence of any other religious and/or god claim.

You have never "seen" or you do not find the information (I use this word to clear up any confusion) we have compelling? There is a huge difference in meaning. You might be unaware of the information we have or you might understand what we have and don't think it's compelling or proof for the existence of God. 

Give an example of this "comparable evidence" from another religion.

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.

[KevinM1]

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Special pleading example number 1: All causes require a cause... except God.
Special pleading example number 2: Argument for a deist God is given... then Jesus is added in without an argument for Christianity given.

[brewer]

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.

Apparently this needs repeating, What? Quantity? Really?

Edit: I see a response now, I'll check it out.

[SteveII]

You have never "seen" or you do not find the information (I use this word to clear up any confusion) we have compelling? There is a huge difference in meaning. You might be unaware of the information we have or you might understand what we have and don't think it's compelling or proof for the existence of God. 

Give an example of this "comparable evidence" from another religion.

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.

---

You have never "seen" or you do not find the information (I use this word to clear up any confusion) we have compelling? There is a huge difference in meaning. You might be unaware of the information we have or you might understand what we have and don't think it's compelling or proof for the existence of God. 

Give an example of this "comparable evidence" from another religion.

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 could be used for any other monotheism. However, we have a whole body of evidence in and surrounding the NT to consider that is not generic and has no equal in other religions.