Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

Well, Steve, I've heard a lot of apologetics.  I've read the Bible.  I've heard innumerable testimonies.  I've never believed.

My parents did not raise me as a Christian, either; we were nominally Christian but no one in the household was a regular churchgoer (I remember my mother going to one Easter service, and that's about it).  Religion was not something we bothered discussing; we were vastly more interested in astronomy and electronics and the NASA space programs.  The only reason I know as much as I do is because I liked to read, and I just can't shake the initial impression of the Bible as just one storybook among many.

Setting aside the OT for a minute (because it is really not useful in any initial evaluation of the gospel message), you have to at least admit that the "story" is unlike any ever told. It is a story of an offer of redemption. Have you read say John and Romans with and open mind--trying to forget the biases created by atheist skepticism, misbehaving Christians, and preconceived notions of what the NT is?

[Whateverist]

Does anything really ride on the strength of the case you put together?  I mean for you.  For those who want to believe or start off already believing I think it must really just be about making the case for the plausibility of God existing.  You just need to smooth over the rough parts and preserve as much common sense and intellectual rigor as you can .. under the circumstances.  You have my sympathy on that.  Can't be easy.  For what it's worth, I think you do a better job than most.

That's a good question. I was raised in a Christian home. My father is still a pastor of a small evangelical protestant country church (not the one I attend). I have a brother who sounds a lot like the the angrier of the bunch on AF. He has rejected Christianity. Growing up. we got the same classic fundamentalist super-conservative evangelical version of Christianity. I spent years discovering philosophy of religion, apologetics, doctrinal differences, historical thought, atheist arguments and their rebuttals, and satisfied myself that the Christian belief system was well-reasoned. My beliefs are different than my parents. 

My brother did not take these steps and rejected whatever his understanding was of Christianity from his childhood. He thinks Dawkins is a great thinker and the science will prevail. His view of Christianity and it's teachings are a weird mix of evangelical fundamentalism and the straw men that Dawkins and other erect to sell books. His arguments against Christianity are all over the place and often nonsensical. 

So, to answer your question, yes. The cumulative case for Christianity is so much more convincing than the classic evangelical fundamentalism I came from. The more I understand the details of systematic theology, doctrine, natural theology, how we should live, historical Jesus, and questions of morality, purpose, meaning, and eschatology, the more convinced I am that God is real.

Thank you for that.  Nice to connect with the man behind the arguments.

I suspect most people who want to talk religion are working out with strangers what they can't (my now deceased father) or couldn't (one of my younger brothers) with a relative or friend.  I only really pushed my father when he pushed me.  He'd painted himself into a corner as a believer.  He didn't really have many interests outside of his belief.  I never tried to take that away from him.

My younger brother (who lived near my father) attended the same church as him and was much closer to him than I was.  He used to initiate debate with me and I kind of enjoyed it.  But then he stopped and resisted engaging that way anymore.  I realized my points were painful and unwelcome.  And I didn't even go after God belief itself.  I just argued that his god should have been able to make use of big bangs and evolution if he wanted, and whatever happened to Christian humility about His mysterious ways?  But he doesn't really have a good head for subtlety.  So to admit a crack was to threaten everything.  We don't talk religion any longer.  I'm a lot older, live pretty far away and we have very little in common.  So we're not close.  Frankly, he doesn't look very happy.  If enjoys musing on his afterlife I have nothing to say about that - to him anyhow.

Here I sometimes feel put out by the condescension of some apologists.  You're not so bad, good bedside manner.  But people struggle sometimes with finding any happiness at all.  Really, do what you need to do.

[Amarok]

The placebo effect depends primarily on belief.  If someone knows they're ingesting a placebo it generally has no effect; that's why trials of new drugs use a blinded control, and look for a statistically significant variation between the placebo control and the drug being tested.

I'm sorry that simply false as the links clearly point out

---

Already been refuted as pseudoscience  nice try

https://debunkingdenialism.com/category/featured/
And here
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/1...ggeration/
And here
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/1...deception/
And here
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/1...lacebo-ef/
And here
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-harn...-anything/
And here
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-are-you-there/
And here
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-ris...-medicine/

And Each of those have links to more information

Could not have said it better myself

The placebo effect is NOT pseudoscience dummy, it has been studied extensively.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/the-p...phenomenon

The Placebo Phenomenon

phe·nom·e·non
fəˈnäməˌnän,fəˈnäməˌnən/
noun
noun: phenomenon; plural noun: phenomena

   1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

But researchers have found that placebo treatments—interventions with no active drug ingredients—can stimulate real physiological responses, from changes in heart rate and blood pressure to chemical activity in the brain, in cases involving pain, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and even some symptoms of Parkinson’s.

I didn't say the effect was not does not exist idiot . Read what I linked fool . They address that very "narrative"

[SteveII]

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?

How nice for you. You asked for a comparison based on quantity alone and then disqualify these religions works based on quality.

You should probably stay in the shallow end.

What is behind the constant condescending digs? It's not just you.  Most of you people really can't handle a civil conversation can you? No need to answer. It was a rhetorical question. 

Every one of those answers dealt with quantity. 

Buddhist = 0 (since they don't make claims that require evidence)
Hindus = what little claims they do make that would have evidence, their gods come from an ancient amalgamation of stories that no one knows the source of. Is that evidence? Since it is the only type they have, it speaks to both quantity and quality.
Mormons = Joseph Smith's head = 1

[Astreja]

Setting aside the OT for a minute (because it is really not useful in any initial evaluation of the gospel message), you have to at least admit that the "story" is unlike any ever told. It is a story of an offer of redemption. Have you read say John and Romans with and open mind--trying to forget the biases created by atheist skepticism, misbehaving Christians, and preconceived notions of what the NT is?

It's just a story, Steve, and it's not as original as all that.  In the Hindu mythos, Shiva drinks a river of poison to save all humanity -- not just believers.  Bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism turn their backs on Nirvana and stay in the cycle of birth, death and reincarnation so as to save as many people as possible.  Dead-and-rising gods are a dime a dozen, especially in the springtime when the world comes back to life.

I've read John.  Bunch of mystical wittering, one unsupported assertion after another.  I find 3:16 utterly repulsive, and 3:18 even more so.  Never liked any of the epistles; Paul of Tarsus comes across as a creepy, negative, misogynistic and self-loathing control freak.  There's simply nothing in Christianity that I want, and the few teachings I view as positive are not unique to Christianity.

I also think it's rather amusing that you asked if I put aside the very useful tool of skepticism when assessing those books.  If the Bible can't stand up to skepticism then it has failed.

[Minimalist]

Setting aside the OT for a minute (because it is really not useful in any initial evaluation of the gospel message), you have to at least admit that the "story" is unlike any ever told.

So is Little Bo Peep, dumbass.

[Amarok]

Setting aside the OT for a minute (because it is really not useful in any initial evaluation of the gospel message), you have to at least admit that the "story" is unlike any ever told.

Not even remotely

[Astreja]

The placebo effect depends primarily on belief.  If someone knows they're ingesting a placebo it generally has no effect; that's why trials of new drugs use a blinded control, and look for a statistically significant variation between the placebo control and the drug being tested.

I'm sorry that simply false as the links clearly point out

It's a very interesting neurological and psychological puzzle, that's for sure -- expectations, both good and bad, do seem to be playing a role, along with the brain's reward system.  Surprised to hear that some people do get benefits from a known placebo, which is not how I understood the phenomenon.

[Amarok]

I'm sorry that simply false as the links clearly point out

It's a very interesting neurological and psychological puzzle, that's for sure -- expectations, both good and bad, do seem to be playing a role, along with the brain's reward system.  Surprised to hear that some people do get benefits from a known placebo, which is not how I understood the phenomenon.

Tis the beauty science my friend were always learning .

[vorlon13]

Well, Steve, I've heard a lot of apologetics.  I've read the Bible.  I've heard innumerable testimonies.  I've never believed.

My parents did not raise me as a Christian, either; we were nominally Christian but no one in the household was a regular churchgoer (I remember my mother going to one Easter service, and that's about it).  Religion was not something we bothered discussing; we were vastly more interested in astronomy and electronics and the NASA space programs.  The only reason I know as much as I do is because I liked to read, and I just can't shake the initial impression of the Bible as just one storybook among many.

Setting aside the OT for a minute (because it is really not useful in any initial evaluation of the gospel message), you have to at least admit that the "story" is unlike any ever told. It is a story of an offer of redemption. Have you read say John and Romans with and open mind--trying to forget the biases created by atheist skepticism, misbehaving Christians, and preconceived notions of what the NT is?

Um . . .

Better leave out John, he has Christ crucified on Thursday, that kinda FUBARS the Good Friday thing which I have been informed is pretty important.