Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Amarok]

And more evidence against Huggies silly narrative

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-placebo-narrative/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/can-the...-the-body/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo...ditioning/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-pla...-stronger/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/bait-an...e-studies/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/spin-ci...nd-asthma/

[Harry Nevis]

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).

Depends on your definition of information.

---

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.

Alleged eyewitness testimony.  So, basically, you have an old book with fantastic claims that have no objective, testable evidence for it's claims.

---

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.

It really didn't resemble evidence much.  And fuck you if you think you can dictate what "privileges" we can have.

---

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.

I would expect concrete evidence that the miraculous happened.  I would expect these writing to be consistant and have outside corroboration.  You have evidence people wrote about something, not of the something.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is very little to investigate in other religions. If you don't agree, give an example.

---

You are right that the natural theology arguments fallacious arguments given by Aquinas and his ilk could be used for any other monotheism. However, And we have a whole body of evidence stories in and surrounding the NT to consider that is not generic as generic as any other holy book and has no equal in is just as silly and unimpressive as other religions.

I fixed that for you.

A lot of atheists say the cosmological arguments of Aquinas are fallacious but none have yet revealed any flaws in his impeccable logic. Since I am feeling generous I'll just assume you mistakenly relied on the pronouncements of some authority or were swayed by the confident tone of some YouTube video.

But really the topic is essentially whether the claims of the Christian faith are categorically different than those of other faiths and it is pretty obvious that they are.

[Harry Nevis]

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.

---

Of course you say that.  You would hand-wave away from consideration anything you don't agree with.

There is much more compelling evidence that actual witches existed during the Witch Trials than there is for your god.

---

Incorrect. You have a whole additional set of claims with the same paucity of evidence. It's all the same bible there buddy

It does not matter if you don't find the evidence compelling. The point was and is that many of you atheist lump all religions together and claim that Christians are not logical/consistent in dismissing other religions. I say all religions are not equally evidenced so such a charge is baseless.

Grasping at straws?  Even if the charge is baseless, it does nothing for your argument.

---

It's not evidence. Calling it "evidence" and then dancing about saying that we don't accept "evidence" is blatantly dishonest.

Of course there is evidence. You seem to have a problem with definitions. 

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

But none of your evidence helps to establish any "truth", other than some people will twist words to hang on to their emotional security blankets.

---

That being said, would you concede that a woman who has no functioning uterus yet conceived a child, can be referred to a miraculous?

Show me a firm diagnosis of a non-functioning uterus, and we'll talk.

---

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?

No, are you serious?  You have a ...flexible...definition of evidence.

---

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...

So now it HAVING a uterus, rather than having a non-functioning one?  Make up your mind.

---

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"..

So?  In the light of the garbage she spews out, you can't believe a thing she says.

---

Maybe we're just dumbstruck that anyone would seriously think this sort of thing could be persuasive to anyone who hadn't already imbibed plenty of the Koolade.

The point isn't to persuade, it's to start a conversation. You guys repeatedly ask for evidence because you think none exists, You're clearly not equipped to deal with any modicum of evidence that's presented other than deflection.

I've also posted evidence that was tested extensively, and it funny how quick you guys turn on science when it doesn't support your world view.

Tested extensively?! Riiiight.  BTW, the "conversation" ended when the first person asked for a believer to show some objective, testable evidence.  Probably centuries ago.  It hasn't changed since.  You assert, we ask.  You assert, we ask.  You assert, we marvel at your gullibility.

---

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.

I cant think of any other condition that would cause a doctor to state that conception is an impossibility...

Well, as long as you can't think of any.....Sheesh.  You're amazing.

---

That is what we call an argument from ignorance. You not being able to conceive of an answer, doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is valid

Doctors as a rule generally don't state anything with absolute certainty, so what other condition do you think might cause a doctor to state that conceiving a child is an impossibility other than not having a uterus?

---

Lying for Jeezus?  The whole thing was staged?  He wasn't a doctor?  I got more.

---

So, Huggy, did Emperor Vespasian cure blindness and a crippled hand or not?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...g=original



Also recounted by C. Suetonius Tranquilus.  Here we have two actual historians which is far more than can be said for your silly-assed godboy.  Surely, you can't deny this evidence, can you?

I don't deny anything seeing how one can be healed simply through the power of belief, even science attests to that fact...

The mark of gullibility.  "I don't deny anything".  Then a lie about science.

---

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.

Citations, please.

---

The placebo effect depends primarily on belief.

That's my exact point.

Thank you.

No, that wasn't your point.

[Mister Agenda]

Shall I take you up on that? I'll pick the day, time and place...

I live in Columbia, SC. Come on over. I'm not traveling to be your stunt monkey. You've got to be one for the record books: people can produce illusions with trickery, THAT you've got to see for yourself to believe.

[TheBeardedDude]

I never did get an answer from SteveII on this post, so I'll ask it again:
Christians, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Saul of Tarsus' head?


Get it yet?

My question was in regard to what actually counts as evidence that claims are true, as opposed to evidence of what people believe. If Joseph Smith's "evidence" doesn't convince you of Mormonism, why in the world does Saul of Tarsus' "evidence" convince you of the validity of Christian claims?

[Mister Agenda]

I don't deny anything seeing how one can be healed simply through the power of belief, even science attests to that fact...

Science can attest to the fact that organic blindness can't be healed by belief. The placebo effect can't cure organic blindness. It doesn't remove cataracts or repair nerves, at all.

[Harry Nevis]

I fixed that for you.

A lot of atheists say the cosmological arguments of Aquinas are fallacious but none have yet revealed any flaws in his impeccable logic. Since I am feeling generous I'll just assume you mistakenly relied on the pronouncements of some authority or were swayed by the confident tone of some YouTube video.

But really the topic is essentially whether the claims of the Christian faith are categorically different than those of other faiths and it is pretty obvious that they are.

As opposed to the pronouncements of some authority or confident tone of apologists?  Because that's really all you have.

How is the difference obvious?  Through your god-tinted glasses?

[SteveII]

I never did get an answer from SteveII on this post, so I'll ask it again:
Christians, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Saul of Tarsus' head?


Get it yet?

My question was in regard to what actually counts as evidence that claims are true, as opposed to evidence of what people believe. If Joseph Smith's "evidence" doesn't convince you of Mormonism, why in the world does Saul of Tarsus' "evidence" convince you of the validity of Christian claims?

You really don't have a firm grasp on the facts of which you seem so confident. 

Regarding the general interpreting of evidence as to who Jesus might really be (the crux of Christianity)? There is all kinds of evidence to weigh.

- Documentary (both actual and inferred--by careful textual examination). There has been no other set of writings so thoroughly investigated in the history of the world. 
- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and somehow it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that. I read recently that over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing more than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. 
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have. If you think that having an alternate theory on one or two will make your case, it will not--these are a package deal. Address them all or or your objections are meaningless.  

You could write books on any one of the points above (and people do). The point is, it is not as simple as saying "there is no evidence" There are layers upon layers of evidence that one person or another will find somewhere between uninteresting to compelling.

[Mister Agenda]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't have time to address every point. But here are a few comments.

You're welcome. No worries, I don't expect you to respond to everything, with so many other people on the thread, you have to pick and choose what to address.

1. It would only be special pleading if there was no justification for the Christian belief. I think that the significant amount of information available in the NT make a better case by far than most religions have. With this justification, there is no special pleading.

It would only be special pleading if you expect what Christians have to present to be treated differently than what other theists have to present. That the information in the NT makes a better case is your opinion, and so far it hasn't failed to be convincing to atheists because of how poorly it stacks up to other religions, but because it fails to be convincing entirely on its own merits. Most of us are equally skeptical of other religions, the paranormal, alien visitors, or cryptids. It's not like our standards of evidence are inconsistent. No amount of testimony, in itself, is going to convince me of alien abductions, Bigfoot, or ghosts. What is presented for the supernatural claims of Christianity, in order to be convincing, needs to be of the caliber that would convince me of the same of another religion, alien abductions, Bigfoot, or ghosts. I'm not really familiar with your complaint of specifically Christian special pleading accusations; all I've noticed that could be described as special pleading is the usual generic theist stuff (something caused the universe, and that something is the God of Christianity).

 
2. I am talking about the writings of 27 sources we combined into the NT as well as dozens of other surviving documents that at least attest to a part of the overall narrative. No special criteria--just the only evidence that we could ask for from that time period for the truth of the claims of Christ--people writing about things within the lifetime of witnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses.

But no Pliny the Elder or similar contemporary historian confirming the events of the crucifixion of Jesus or any of his miracles. Your contention is on the order of details of London in an account being accurate, therefore you have evidence that the events portrayed in the Harry Potter series actually occurred. You have nothing of the kind, sir.

The statements "Christianity is true" and "there is more evidence for Christianity than any other religion" are independent of each other (a belief on one does not have an impact on the other). This discussion is on the latter. 

Since no one doubts the existence of your religion, please be more specific about what it is you are claiming is true. I'm guessing you mean ' the miraculous events described in the books that were determined to be canonical to the NT actually happened'. Christianity can be correct on a variety of mundane matters without that also being true. You could mean 'the Bible is literally true and inerrant', which is not something all Christian sects believe. You could just mean 'the God of Christianity is real, but not every jot and tittle of the Bible literally true'. From my point of view, you're claiming 'there is more unreliable evidence for Christianity than any other religion'. That's an assertion, I don't know if it's true or not. If you were a Zoroastrian, I imagine you'd consider a religion happening to start in a period where much of history is known and literacy was fairly common, to be a pretty arbitrary standard.

Lastly (and generally), the case for Christianity does not rest on one aspect (i.e. unassailable 1st century documentation). It is and always will be a cumulative case with many aspects (natural theology, message content, predisposed to the supernatural, historicity of Christ, morality, personal experience, influence of others). We are discussing one aspect and how it compares to other religions.

It might be better to focus on those other things, then. I think we've established pretty clearly that 'we have more testimonials' isn't considered awfully impressive around here.