Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[TheBeardedDude]

I noticed you missed the threads on the value of testimony.

Except it's testimony corroborated with an audio recording...

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Marilyn testifies to seeing a supernatural entity, while on the audio recording Branham states, and I quote "between you and I stands that light"..

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Travis Walton (and several others) testify to seeing aliens, while on the audio (various recordings and polygraph tests) recording Walton states, and I quote "the aliens took me up into their ship".. (I'm paraphrasing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Wal...O_incident


There, do you know accept that aliens have visited Earth, abducted humans, and then sent them back to Earth with their memories partially erased?

[KevinM1]

Wait... why is Huggy ASSuming that Hickey suffered from something like Müllerian agenesis?  Nothing in either video mentions it.  All either mention is an inherited condition.

Huggy, there are other causes of infertility than a missing uterus.  Here's a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_inf...y_location

Now, please provide proof that Hickey actually had any of these conditions, and that the doctor(s) didn't misdiagnose.

[Whateverist]

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

Thanks for playing.

But Huggy really, really, really, wants it to be true.

Well why didn't he say so.  It can be true for him.  But surely he doesn't expect us to play along?

---

Except it's testimony corroborated with an audio recording...

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Marilyn testifies to seeing a supernatural entity, while on the audio recording Branham states, and I quote "between you and I stands that light"..

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Travis Walton (and several others) testify to seeing aliens, while on the audio (various recordings and polygraph tests) recording Walton states, and I quote "the aliens took me up into their ship".. (I'm paraphrasing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Wal...O_incident


There, do you know accept that aliens have visited Earth, abducted humans, and then sent them back to Earth with their memories partially erased?

They probably also reject that God/Jesus/Casper actually are part of a triploid alien race intent on probing us.

[JackRussell]

All the doctors in all the world and they keep missing these Nobel prize winning, god proving muthafukkas. But then they think the world is 3 weeks old and the grand canyon was god's piss after a too long night on the brew. That's science baby.

[KevinM1]

Except it's testimony corroborated with an audio recording...

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Marilyn testifies to seeing a supernatural entity, while on the audio recording Branham states, and I quote "between you and I stands that light"..

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Travis Walton (and several others) testify to seeing aliens, while on the audio (various recordings and polygraph tests) recording Walton states, and I quote "the aliens took me up into their ship".. (I'm paraphrasing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Wal...O_incident


There, do you know accept that aliens have visited Earth, abducted humans, and then sent them back to Earth with their memories partially erased?

There was an old (as in years ago) thread where Huggy posted a video of some street preacher wannabe guy "summoning" angel UFOs upon command. It was basically just him and a buddy screwing people over with a balloon or two.

So, the answer is yes.

[TheBeardedDude]

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Travis Walton (and several others) testify to seeing aliens, while on the audio (various recordings and polygraph tests) recording Walton states, and I quote "the aliens took me up into their ship".. (I'm paraphrasing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Wal...O_incident


There, do you know accept that aliens have visited Earth, abducted humans, and then sent them back to Earth with their memories partially erased?

There was an old (as in years ago) thread where Huggy posted a video of some street preacher wannabe guy "summoning" angel UFOs upon command.  It was basically just him and a buddy screwing people over with a balloon or two.

So, the answer is yes.

Oh...oh...Jesus Christ that is stupid. Okay, I'm done. I can't interact with stupid of this magnitude for too long

[Mister Agenda]

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.

The more unbiased outside corroboration, the better, particularly in a region and time noted for how much was preserved by historians of the time. All the testimony seems to come from believers, which is really odd, considering all the things they're claiming happened; if they really happened. If they didn't really happen, it's not odd at all: 'Chinese whispers' and bias easily account for uncorroborated fantastic stories recorded decades after the supposed events.

There's plenty of evidence that Christians existed in the Middle East thousands of years ago and evidence of what they believed. But what you want is evidence that what they believed about supernatural events was true, right? You'd want outside corroboration from people with no skin in the game for that, right? If you had Pliny the Elder complaining about the dead people wandering Jerusalem and the sky darkening for three hours along with rock-splitting earthquakes, that would be something. That was quite a day to only be noticed by the faithful, and outside coverage of it would be evidence that something remarkable, at least, was happening. But hardcore atheists are spared trying to explain it because there's no good reason to think it happened in the first place. It's embellishment and symbology; believing it actually happened despite no outsider recording it requires more mental gymnastics than dismissing it as such.

[Whateverist]

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.

Excuse me, Min, but that kind of statement might be off putting to our Christian interlocutors.  To keep them from tuning you out, you might want to explain that "sucked his cock" is merely a euphemism for doing him a miraculous favor.  Or not.

[JackRussell]

Shit, I like old stories too.

[LadyForCamus]

Wait. I'd like to add to expand on my previous post as I am thinking back on Steve's threads.

First, he tried to argue that extraordinary claims shouldn't need extraordinary evidence to be reasonably accepted. When that approach failed, he then tried arguing that the crappy non-evidence for his extraordinary claims is actually good, reliable evidence. After that one sank, now he's here saying that at least his religion has more crappy non-evidence than everybody else, as though bad evidence in high enough quantities somehow magically transforms itself into good evidence. Awesome.