Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

Mormons, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Joseph Smith's head?

Jospeh Smith was an eye witness to the miracle of the golden tablets, has second hand testimony from angels, and we have secondary evidence that Joseph Smith was indeed the author of the material -- that's something we don't have for any of the alleged authors of the bible, nobody can verify that 1 Peter was written by Peter.  You're treating the evidence of the religion of Mormonism according to a different standard than your own.  When Joseph Smith offers eye witness testimony, then it's all in his head.  When an anonymous author of the bible offers second hand testimony, why then it's "paleographic gold".  That's de facto an example of you special pleading the evidence of Christianity.  When you dismiss other religions for reasons that you don't equally apply to your own, that sure as hell is special pleading.  A similar argument could be made for Mohammed.

Your comparison is way way off. Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of. 

The 9 authors of the NT wrote down what happened in public. Tens of thousands of people would have been affected in some way by the events they relate. We have historical evidence that some significant number of people acted on their belief that the events of the NT happened (even before the gospels were written): there are churches across the Roman Empire before 50 AD. 1 Peter? Are you kidding me? That's 5 chapters out of 260. 

In addition, your use of the term 'anonymous' is inaccurate and often used in an attempt to poison the well. Do you actually think that the people who received the first copies of the gospels received them on their doorsteps and did not know where they came from? Get real. They would have known exactly who the editor was and where the information came from. The name of the editor is unimportant to pass along. The only concern was the apostle's name who provided the input.

So, your comparison is nonsense and your charge of special pleading unsupported.

[RoadRunner79]

I may have to read this.  You can bet your butt that Huggy and the other god buggerers won't go near it!

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1040266/...siah-myth/

Since the eighteenth century, scholars and historians studying the texts of the Bible have attempted to distil historical facts and biography from the mythology and miracles described there. That trend continues into the present day, as scholars dissect the gospels and other early Christian writings to separate the 'Jesus of history' from the 'Christ of faith'. But in The Messiah Myth Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed.

Like King David before him, the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity. The theme of a messiah - a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection - is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. In Thompson's view, the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Testament were written would naturally have interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures , but as metaphors embodying long-established messianic traditions.

Huggy's head would explode just from all the big words.

No head exploding here.... I just ask how they came to that conclusion?  I would bet, that it is the fallacy of begging the question!

[LadyForCamus]

So no theists are going to respond to comments about Paul then? Where did Steve go all of a sudden? Seems like whenever the gospel writers' legitimacy is called into question, he disappears. Not that I blame him. Even the slimiest of all slime, WLC, won't debate the authenticity of the NT.

[TheBeardedDude]

So no theists are going to respond to comments about Paul then?  Where did Steve go all of a sudden?  Seems like whenever the gospel writers' legitimacy is called into question, he disappears.  Not that I blame him.  Even the slimiest of all slime, WLC, won't debate the authenticity of the NT.

He told me that he wasn't going to reply to me anymore when I posed his own bullshit back to him with respect to Saul of Tarsus (drawing the comparison between Saul and Joseph Smith). Christians don't like it when you point out there special pleading, this thread is a testament to that!

[RoadRunner79]

[hide]

Jospeh Smith was an eye witness to the miracle of the golden tablets, has second hand testimony from angels, and we have secondary evidence that Joseph Smith was indeed the author of the material -- that's something we don't have for any of the alleged authors of the bible, nobody can verify that 1 Peter was written by Peter.  You're treating the evidence of the religion of Mormonism according to a different standard than your own.  When Joseph Smith offers eye witness testimony, then it's all in his head.  When an anonymous author of the bible offers second hand testimony, why then it's "paleographic gold".  That's de facto an example of you special pleading the evidence of Christianity.  When you dismiss other religions for reasons that you don't equally apply to your own, that sure as hell is special pleading.  A similar argument could be made for Mohammed.

Your comparison is way way off. Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of. 

The 9 authors of the NT wrote down what happened in public. Tens of thousands of people would have been affected in some way by the events they relate. We have historical evidence that some significant number of people acted on their belief that the events of the NT happened (even before the gospels were written): there are churches across the Roman Empire before 50 AD. 1 Peter? Are you kidding me? That's 5 chapters out of 260. 

In addition, your use of the term 'anonymous' is inaccurate and often used in an attempt to poison the well. Do you actually think that the people who received the first copies of the gospels received them on their doorsteps and did not know where they came from? Get real. They would have known exactly who the editor was and where the information came from. The name of the editor is unimportant to pass along. The only concern was the apostle's name who provided the input.

So, your comparison is nonsense and your charge of special pleading unsupported.

This is a big difference, that I find when looking at other religious accounts. Quite often (and I think out of necessity) the events happen isolated in a cave or out in the woods somewhere to only one person, or they occurred a long long time ago, in a far away land. And when they are not, I am able to take the information into consideration to form an intelligent conclusion. No need to deny the evidence and call the people liars or delusional. But to look at all the evidence, and form an intelligent conclusion.

I do think the argument of anonymity is interesting. Often, because the same people who make this case, will quite often contradict themselves shortly after.

---

So no theists are going to respond to comments about Paul then?  Where did Steve go all of a sudden?  Seems like whenever the gospel writers' legitimacy is called into question, he disappears.  Not that I blame him.  Even the slimiest of all slime, WLC, won't debate the authenticity of the NT.

What is the question that you had or the comment, that you think is being ignored.

[SteveII]

So no theists are going to respond to comments about Paul then?  Where did Steve go all of a sudden?  Seems like whenever the gospel writers' legitimacy is called into question, he disappears.  Not that I blame him.  Even the slimiest of all slime, WLC, won't debate the authenticity of the NT.

What specific, non-fringe, comment about Paul would you like to see an answer to? 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establish...eliability

[Harry Nevis]

No, you haven't.  You uncritically put forward any delusional shit you like as long as it tells you what you want to fucking hear.  And then, you think it is evidence.

It isn't.

Lets review shall we.

I posted a video of eye witness testimony of Marilyn Hickey claiming she saw an entity in the form of a spinning light.

I also posted the audio of the aforementioned where William Branham clearly states that a supernatural light is present.

I posted a photograph of where this light is positioned just over William Branhams head. (I posted biblical scripture where the same event was recorded, showing a precedent.)

I posted the report of scientific testing done to the negative and the expert opinion stating that there had to be a source of light there to form an image on the negative (this eliminates any anomalies, not to mention lights just don't hang out over peoples heads for no apparent reason)

The Athiest response:



Your denial of the evidence is based on nothing.

Which shows your denial of the evidence is totally irrational seeing how none of you has proven God doesn't exist. Therefore if there is a possibility that God exists, then supernatural events aren't an impossibility.


"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

I guess I missed where a supernatural event was scientifically proved.

---

No, the atheist response is, "there are way too many possible natural explanations for all those events, to accept that the only explanation is a miracle".

How did you go about ruling out all possible natural explanations?


This is actually a fallacious quote.

It is an almost textbook example of argument from ignorance.

I'm all ears...

And nothing in between.

[Whateverist]

So basically if a being that exists in another dimension were to visibly appear, you would only see it partially, and it would most likely appear as gibberish as Sagan demonstrates with the apple.

Huggy, do you exist in another dimension? I only ask because this looks like gibberish to me.

---

No doubt, my dear.

I bet Huggy thinks he is the only real xtian in the whole wide world!

Don't laugh.  God depends on this guy.

[Harry Nevis]

Lol, Huggy.  Tell us, which part of the scientific method did you use to determine that the light in your picture is the Holy Spirit?

You didn't see the report of the scientific testing that was done to the negative?

It was the examiners own personal opinion that the light was supernatural, in other words THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION SCIENTIFIC OR OTHERWISE FOR WHY THE LIGHT WAS THERE.

What you guys have is SPECULATION based on nothing other than the opinion that the supernatural cannot exist...

Because nobody cares.  Since there is no scientific explanation for a blob of light on a photo, does that equal god?  You have nothing but speculation either.

---

It's amazing the amount of mental gymnastics you guys perform when faced with scientific evidence that doesn't support your world view..

Fuck off. You're just an ignorant sore loser.

---

Huggy, I just read in the Wikipedia article on Branham that he taught -- among other *ahem* interesting things -- that Eve and the serpent had intercourse and their union produced Cain. This sounds suspiciously close to some similar nuttery you've spewed here before. Is Branham your source for your interpretation of the garden tale?

That "interpretation" is the traditional position found in the Talmud...

From a Jewish website
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/eve...nd-aggadah

According to another tradition, the serpent did indeed engage in intercourse with Eve, who became pregnant and gave birth to Cain (see below, “Now the Man Knew His Wife Eve”).

The Bible states that 'Cain was of (descended from) the wicked one', and furthermore Cain is not included in the Genealogy of Adam.

So he's a deluded wacko and his testimony can't be trusted.  What else you got?

[TheBeardedDude]

[hide]

Your comparison is way way off. Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of. 

The 9 authors of the NT wrote down what happened in public. Tens of thousands of people would have been affected in some way by the events they relate. We have historical evidence that some significant number of people acted on their belief that the events of the NT happened (even before the gospels were written): there are churches across the Roman Empire before 50 AD. 1 Peter? Are you kidding me? That's 5 chapters out of 260. 

In addition, your use of the term 'anonymous' is inaccurate and often used in an attempt to poison the well. Do you actually think that the people who received the first copies of the gospels received them on their doorsteps and did not know where they came from? Get real. They would have known exactly who the editor was and where the information came from. The name of the editor is unimportant to pass along. The only concern was the apostle's name who provided the input.

So, your comparison is nonsense and your charge of special pleading unsupported.

This is a big difference, that I find when looking at other religious accounts.  Quite often (and I think out of necessity) the events happen isolated in a cave or out in the woods somewhere to only one person, or they occurred a long long time ago, in a far away land.  And when they are not, I am able to take the information into consideration to form an intelligent conclusion.  No need to deny the evidence and call the people liars or delusional.  But to look at all the evidence, and form an intelligent conclusion.

I do think the argument of anonymity is interesting.  Often, because the same people who make this case, will quite often contradict themselves shortly after.

---

So no theists are going to respond to comments about Paul then?  Where did Steve go all of a sudden?  Seems like whenever the gospel writers' legitimacy is called into question, he disappears.  Not that I blame him.  Even the slimiest of all slime, WLC, won't debate the authenticity of the NT.

What is the question that you had or the comment, that you think is being ignored.

"What is the question that you had or the comment, that you think is being ignored."


Probably something along the lines of the one I have asked multiple times now (for instance in this post: https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1618334)