Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Simon Moon]

Hey asshole, it is up to YOU to prove that your stupid fucking fairy tales are TRUE.  I cannot disprove delusions which exist in your mind.  For all I know you are the craziest motherfucker on the planet.  The evidence tends to that conclusion.   You can't "prove" that Zeus doesn't exist so STFU and if you have evidence for your god let's see it.

I get really tired of dumb shits like you, Huggy.

Haven't been paying attention have you? I've presented evidence...

Furthermore you have made the claim that God doesn't exist, where is your evidence to back that up?

Your idea of what actually constitutes GOOD evidence is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. Videos of 'miracle claims' is about as far from reliable evidence as you can get.

Not sure who you are saying made the claim that god doesn't exist, but that is not the atheist position.

The basic atheist position is that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof. Atheism is a response to a claim, not a claim itself.

But you correct in one way, if someone makes the claim that gods do not exist, and they want to convince someone of that claim, then they do take on the burden of proof.

[Whateverist]

Based upon the above described examination and study I am of the definite opinion that the negative submitted for examination, was not retouched nor was it a composite or double exposed negative.
Further, I am of the definite opinion that the light streak appearing above the head in a halo position was caused by the light striking the negative.

Respectfully submitted,

George J. Lacy.

*Emphasis mine*

This Lacy's objectivity/neutrality is made more questionable given his description "in a halo position". I pretty sure "halo" is specific to Christian mythology. That tells us we're hearing from someone immersed in that that tradition and looking at the photograph from that perspective.

That the 'spot' is the cause of light hitting the negative doesn't tell us that its source was immediately over the guy's head. Rather, the source was from a source in line with that spot over his head - that is all. It could have been light reflected off of something metallic on the ceiling. Of course, the light could also have hit the negative after the shot was taken when the camera was opened.

The account seems to argue for one possible interpretation and to make assumptions which support it without justifying those assumptions. I would tend to dismiss it as the work of an ardent believer.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

Actually that's wrong, placebos work even if you are told outright its a placebo. The brains funny like that.

"Though the placebo effect is typically associated with deception in order to invoke positive expectations, studies carried out by Harvard Medical School have suggested that placebos can work even without deception. In an attempt to implement placebos honestly, 80 patients suffering from IBS were divided into two groups, one of which receiving no treatment, while the other were provided with placebo pills. Though it was made clear the pills had no active ingredient, patients still reported adequate symptom relief.[58] Another similar study, in which patients suffering from migraines were given pills clearly labeled placebo, but still reported improvements of their symptoms."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

[Astreja]

If you actually took the time to read the report his conclusion is that there had to be a light there to strike the negative.

Huggy, in the final analysis all you have there is an unexplained bit of light contaminating some film.  The light could have been a reflection off the camera lens by some transient illumination, or some other natural source.  Calling it the Holy Spook is a massive, utterly unsupported jump to a patently ridiculous conclusion.

I cannot and will not say for certain that your god is fictional; however, I am strongly of the opinion that it almost certainly is fictional and simply not worth serious consideration.  I am utterly appalled by the trivial and ambiguous things that you present as evidence.

---

Actually that's wrong, placebos work even if you are told outright its a placebo. The brains funny like that.

I'm still shaking my head at how weird and counter-intuitive that effect is -- and wondering how one could go about exploiting and enhancing that brain glitch for overall better health.

[Pat Mustard]

Hugster is easily impressed!  Then again, most religious fucktards are.  What else have they got?

Toast that looks Jesus is on it? A dog's anus that resembles the Messiah?

A bit of dead wood cut deliberately to look like Mary mother of Jesus.

---

If you actually took the time to read the report his conclusion is that there had to be a light there to strike the negative.

Huggy, in the final analysis all you have there is an unexplained bit of light contaminating some film.  The light could have been a reflection off the camera lens by some transient illumination, or some other natural source.  Calling it the Holy Spook is a massive, utterly unsupported jump to a patently ridiculous conclusion.

I cannot and will not say for certain that your god is fictional; however, I am strongly of the opinion that it almost certainly is fictional and simply not worth serious consideration.  I am utterly appalled by the trivial and ambiguous things that you present as evidence.

---

Actually that's wrong, placebos work even if you are told outright its a placebo. The brains funny like that.

I'm still shaking my head at how weird and counter-intuitive that effect is -- and wondering how one could go about exploiting and enhancing that brain glitch for overall better health.

You should buy yourself Ben Goldacre's Bad Science he delves into placebo quite deeply in an engaging and accessible way.

[Succubus]

How about this.

I'm sure many of you are familiar of an event that took place in the bible where the holy spirit took the form of what is describe as tongues of fire that appeared over the heads of the apostles gathered in Jeruselem.

Suddenly a sound like a mighty rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw tongues like flames of a fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. - Acts 2:2-2

I'm sure many of you are familiar of an event that took place in the bible where...

"For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses..."

"Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou shalt drink of thy sister's cup deep and large:"


Thy sisters furry cup???

[SteveII]

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).

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'. [2]  From my point of view, you're claiming 'there is more unreliable evidence for Christianity than any other religion'. [3] 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. [4]

1. Good point. However, special pleading does not mean you have to treat everything the same or even everything in a category the same. All you need is justification for treating it differently. For example, if you are impressed with your uncle's life-altering conversion and you you believe him as to the cause, reconsidering the NT as compelling is not special pleading (as compared to the skepticism reserved for alien abductions, Bigfoot, or ghosts). The actual evidence for the NT didn't change one bit, but your justification did. 

2. For the purposes of this discussion (and not heading down any rabbit trails) I believe the basic claims in the NT surrounding the life and death of Jesus Christ. I believe Paul was who he said he was. I believe that most of the epistles are what they appear to be. 

3. If my father came from Jerusalem with some others to start the church in Galatia and I were the recipient of Paul's letter in 50 something AD, would I be justified in considering the Paul's letters "reliable"? I certainly think so. So what is it the that would have made them reliable to the recipient but not to me today? I think the most you are justified in saying is that to find the information of the NT compelling is a matter of opinion. 

4. Perhaps. But my argument is not if Christianity is compelling, but what is the atheist justified in charging the Christian with.

[Harry Nevis]

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.

Your formatting is horrible by the way.

How about this.

I'm sure many of you are familiar of an event that took place in the bible where the holy spirit took the form of what is describe as tongues of fire that appeared over the heads of the apostles gathered in Jeruselem.

Suddenly a sound like a mighty rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw tongues like flames of a fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. - Acts 2:2-2



Of course you don't believe that actually happened but what if there is evidence of it?

On the night of January 24, 1950, one of the most amazing photographs of all time was taken in the Sam Houston Coliseum, Houston, Texas. As William Branham stood at the podium, a halo of fire appeared above his head. This picture was the only one that turned out on the entire film! George J. Lacy, Investigator of Questioned Documents, and often hired by the FBI in that capacity, subjected the negative to every scientific test available. At a news conference, he stated, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.” The original of this photograph is kept in the archives of the Religious Department of the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

William Branham's account.

---

When he pulled out the one he snapped, there was the Angel of God's picture whirling around where I was at. The first time in all the world's history that a supernatural Being was ever photographed.

It was rushed to Washington, DC, copyrighted, sent back and give to George J. Lacy, J. Edgar Hoover, examiner. They kept it two days at the Shell Building in Houston.

And when he come over there, and they all set out there together to find out what it was all about, he said, "Whose name is Branham?"

I said, "Mine, sir."

He said, "Stand up." He looked, said, "Mr. Branham, you'll die like all mortals do. But as long as there's a Christian civilization, your picture will never die." He said, "Because it's the first time in all the world's history that a supernatural Being was ever photographed." He said, "The old hypocrite has always said, "They… Scientifically, you can't prove there is a God." But said, "That has to be changed now, for here's scientifically… The Angel of God was there, and the Light struck the negative." There it was. There he signed… wrote out a big document, signed his name to it. There it is right back there. You can look at it yourself. There's the Angel of the Lord.
  
51-0502 - The Angel Of The Lord
Rev. William Marrion Branham

---

This photograph was examined by George J. Lacy, (who worked for the FBI as Investigator of Questioned Documents, and would become the president of The American Society of
  Questioned Document Examiners in 1956)  subjected the negative to every scientific test available.

Photocopy of George J. Lacey's official report and conclusion concerning the tests run on the photograph.

---

---

His conclusion,

Based upon the above described examination and study I am of the definite opinion that the negative submitted for examination, was not retouched nor was it a composite or double exposed negative.
Further, I am of the definite opinion that the light streak appearing above the head in a halo position was caused by the light striking the negative.

Respectfully submitted,

George J. Lacy.

About George J. Lacey
http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

George Lacy was the fifth president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and the last of the 15 men who established the organization to be elected to that office.

Mr. Lacy's first meeting was the 1942 inaugural meeting of the society.  Two years later he married Lucile Peters Lacy who would later become the tenth president of the ASQDE.

During Mr. Lacy's early work in law enforcement he arrested Charles Ponzi, the namesake of the Ponzi Scheme.  He began his career in forensic science as a general criminalist and ballistics expert.  As a ballistics expert, he worked on the Bonnie and Clyde case.  He later specialized in questioned document examination.  He was responsible for establishing the Houston Police Crime Laboratory.  Mr. Lacy maintained a private practice in Houston, Texas for many years.

The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners from Wikipedia:

The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners is the world's oldest society dedicated to the forensic science of questioned document examination with 144 members worldwide. The current president is James A. Green. The society publishes the Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners twice a year.

Yep, you may win the prize for gullibility.

---

A glitch on a piece of film, and you think that's a miracle?

Heeheeheeheehee!

If that's the best the Holy Spook can do, it can get stuffed.

If you actually took the time to read the report his conclusion is that there had to be a light there to strike the negative

Based upon the above described examination and study I am of the definite opinion that the negative submitted for examination, was not retouched nor was it a composite or double exposed negative.
Further, I am of the definite opinion that the light streak appearing above the head in a halo position was caused by the light striking the negative.

Respectfully submitted,

George J. Lacy.

*Emphasis mine*

Definite = positive; certain; sure:

so no, not a glitch...

As for the "American Society of Questioned Document Examiners," a quick glance at the Wikipedia page of the society's founders reveals that the page itself is being questioned for lack of citations -- and all the other listed presidents' names appear in red, indicating that there is no Wikipedia information at all on them.  Oh, sweet irony...

You know you could have just gone directly to their website, all the information is there

http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

It was caused by light.  So fucking what?

[Succubus]

...2. For the purposes of this discussion (and not heading down any rabbit trails) I believe the basic claims in the NT surrounding the life and death of Jesus Christ. I believe Paul was who he said he was. I believe that most of the epistles are what they appear to be...

Paul is a character in the bible, he does not appear in history. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary?

[Redbeard The Pink]

My rage boner is hard as a stone right now. Please take a photography class. That "evidence" could be virtually any source of light or reflected light.