Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[TheBeardedDude]

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence.  Therefore: no special pleading," is one of the laziest arguments I have seen put forth by an apologist on these forums in two years.  Why did he think that we were simply going to grant him that assumption, unchallenged?

I believe that his assumption he asked for was that testimony was evidence.  And given the nature of the topic, about special pleading, I don't think that assuming his views on testimony is unreasonable in this circumstance.

---

The statement is demonstrably false in this thread for the majority of respondents. Steve got his feelings hurt when he contradicted himself in his very own thread, he literally engages in special pleading for Christianity while simultaneously claiming he isn't. I guess he didn't like having that called out, probably because his interests center around preaching and not conversation/debate. Steve (and RR too) presume that they have a lot to teach us, but nothing to learn. So they presume that they will do just that, teach us. Except what they have to teach is erroneous, demonstrably false, and unwanted. You can't teach bullshit to people who know bullshit when they smell it.

I can speak for myself thanks!  And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned).

Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?

"I can speak for myself thanks! "

And I can give my insight and opinions. That is what a forum is for after all.

"And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned)."

And I call "bullshit."

"Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?"

Accepting Christian "evidence" as indicating that Christianity is true, but not accepting comparable "evidence" for other religions to demonstrate that they are true and Christianity is false, is but one example from this thread. 

If you can indeed speak for yourself, it would also be wise for you to read the thread (asking that question either means you haven't, or you are woefully lacking in your understanding of what constitutes special pleading)

[LadyForCamus]

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence.  Therefore: no special pleading," is one of the laziest arguments I have seen put forth by an apologist on these forums in two years.  Why did he think that we were simply going to grant him that assumption, unchallenged?

I believe that his assumption he asked for was that testimony was evidence.

Correct.  And, the claims in the Bible are alleged testimony, are they not?  Keep up, will ya?

And given the nature of the topic, about special pleading, I don't think that assuming his views on testimony is unreasonable in this circumstance.

Congratulations!  You think something.  Maybe some day you'll support it with evidence and reason, seeing as you haven't accomplished that yet after four threads on witness testimony.  

Still waiting on your answer to my question, by the way.  I wonder why you're avoiding it.  Maybe it has something to do with that fact that you know your own damn bible claims don't even come close to meeting the idiotically convoluted standards you've laid out in the past (four threads worth) in order to skate witness testimony in as "evidence."  You shoot your in the foot with this crap, RR.  Don't you realize that?

Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?

I'm curious why you don't read.  I explained it to you as plainly as possible, but instead of responding, you just repeated the question, lol.

[RoadRunner79]

I believe that his assumption he asked for was that testimony was evidence.  And given the nature of the topic, about special pleading, I don't think that assuming his views on testimony is unreasonable in this circumstance.

---

I can speak for myself thanks!  And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned).

Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?

"I can speak for myself thanks! "

And I can give my insight and opinions. That is what a forum is for after all.

"And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned)."

And I call "bullshit."

Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?

"Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?"

Accepting Christian "evidence" as indicating that Christianity is true, but not accepting comparable "evidence" for other religions to demonstrate that they are true and Christianity is false, is but one example from this thread. 

This makes no sense what so ever. You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true. In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true. Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading. Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction.

[TheBeardedDude]

"I can speak for myself thanks! "

And I can give my insight and opinions. That is what a forum is for after all.

"And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned)."

And I call "bullshit."

Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?

"Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?"

Accepting Christian "evidence" as indicating that Christianity is true, but not accepting comparable "evidence" for other religions to demonstrate that they are true and Christianity is false, is but one example from this thread. 

This makes no sense what so ever.  You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true.  In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true.  Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading.  Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction.

"Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?"

Why are you on an atheist forum complaining about atheists backing up atheists on said atheist forum? 

"This makes no sense what so ever.  You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true.  In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true.  Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading.  Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction."

Making it clear, yet again, that you didn't read any of the discussions explaining how it is special pleading.

Accepting the claims of Christianity as true, but not the claims of (we will stick with Mormonism) of another religion when they have literally the exact same type of "evidence" (personal testimony that is asserted to be unquestionably true and unquestionably derived from interactions with a god) and quantity of "evidence," is the very definition of special pleading.

[LadyForCamus]

I don't know how else to say it to you RR. To ask your interlocutors to 'assume for the sake of the argument that there is evidence for my religion' so that you can say, 'therefore, it's not special pleading because my religion has evidence,' is entirely circular. He's failed to make a case for excusing Christianity from special pleading, which is what he set out to do.

[RoadRunner79]

I believe that his assumption he asked for was that testimony was evidence.

Correct.  And, the claims in the Bible are alleged testimony, are they not?  Keep up, will ya?

And given the nature of the topic, about special pleading, I don't think that assuming his views on testimony is unreasonable in this circumstance.

Congratulations!  You think something.  Maybe some day you'll support it with evidence and reason, seeing as you haven't accomplished that yet after four threads on witness testimony.  

The reason, is that if you are accusing him of special pleading, then it is not unreasonable to evaluate that, in light of his views. If it isn't agreed upon for the standard or principle, then there may be a disagreement, but special pleading doesn't necessarily apply. That is because special pleading is in regards to the standard that the subject is applying, and then being inconsistent on it in another instance without justification. At least in one context, the reasoning must be faulty.

And your denial of myself giving reasons in my thread on testimony is making me understand more, why you think your perception of reality is not reliable as evidence for reality. You may disagree, but it doesn't mean that reason wasn't given. Your just either being dishonest or delusional.

[Brian37]

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity? 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Of course it is special pleading when people of other religions do it, but out of 7 billion humans you magically picked the correct one.

We do not give your pet sky hero claim any value anymore than you give claims of Allah or Yahweh or Vishnu or Buddha value.

We get the same arguments from all the world's religions. Get in line, take a number.

The only thing you are arguing with different word salad is "I got it right".

So what, everyone thinks they got it right. Prove it in a lab, get it independently peer reviewed and then you can get a patent and win a Nobel Prize. Don't feel bad, we don't give any religion a pass.

How about you pull your head out of your ass, stop thinking you are special, and consider your belief is nothing more than your own desire to want something fictional to be real. But this is simply apology, not evidence.

All I am seeing in this post is mere mental masturbation.

[RoadRunner79]

Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?


This makes no sense what so ever.  You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true.  In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true.  Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading.  Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction.

"This makes no sense what so ever.  You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true.  In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true.  Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading.  Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction."

Making it clear, yet again, that you didn't read any of the discussions explaining how it is special pleading.

Accepting the claims of Christianity as true, but not the claims of (we will stick with Mormonism) of another religion when they have literally the exact same type of "evidence" (personal testimony that is asserted to be unquestionably true and unquestionably derived from interactions with a god) and quantity of "evidence," is the very definition of special pleading.

It seems like an overly simple view, to only base it on the type of evidence, and not look at the details and context further.   Also, where did you get these "unquestionably" remarks?  At best, if you think the evidence is equal; you get to an agnostic position.  And again, just because you disagree, doesn't make it special pleading.  I think that you are trying to evaluate an overly simplified view, that doesn't represent what Steve believes.

[LadyForCamus]

Correct.  And, the claims in the Bible are alleged testimony, are they not?  Keep up, will ya?


Congratulations!  You think something.  Maybe some day you'll support it with evidence and reason, seeing as you haven't accomplished that yet after four threads on witness testimony.  

The reason, is that if you are accusing him of special pleading, then it is not unreasonable to evaluate that, in light of his views.  If it isn't agreed upon for the standard or principle, then there may be a disagreement, but special pleading doesn't necessarily apply.  That is because special pleading is in regards to the standard that the subject is applying, and then being inconsistent on it in another instance without justification.  At least in one context, the reasoning must be faulty.

Honestly sorry: I have no idea what you're talking about here, but I'm on like, three hours of sleep.

And your denial of myself giving reasons in my thread on testimony is making me understand more, why you think your perception of reality is not reliable as evidence for reality.  You may disagree, but it doesn't mean that reason wasn't given.  Your just either being dishonest or delusional.

And, when you open a thread in which you critically examine alleged Bible testimony under the same light, and using the same metrics as you've described over, and over in your past 'testimony is evidence' threads, I'll shit a brick and stop calling you a liar for Christ.

[TheBeardedDude]

"This makes no sense what so ever.  You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true.  In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true.  Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading.  Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction."

Making it clear, yet again, that you didn't read any of the discussions explaining how it is special pleading.

Accepting the claims of Christianity as true, but not the claims of (we will stick with Mormonism) of another religion when they have literally the exact same type of "evidence" (personal testimony that is asserted to be unquestionably true and unquestionably derived from interactions with a god) and quantity of "evidence," is the very definition of special pleading.

It seems like an overly simple view, to only base it on the type of evidence, and not look at the details and context further.   Also, where did you get these "unquestionably" remarks?  At best, if you think the evidence is equal; you get to an agnostic position.  And again, just because you disagree, doesn't make it special pleading.  I think that you are trying to evaluate an overly simplified view, that doesn't represent what Steve believes.

I don't only look at it based on the "type" of "evidence." Please read what I have already written on this before straw manning me.

As for where did I get the "unquestionably" remarks, I get them from Christian theology. God's existence and the validity of the Bible are to be considered unquestionable evidence of a god if you are a christian. (I know this as a former christian)

And no, you don't get to assert if I should be an agnostic or an atheist. I think the evidence is all equally bullshit for all religions. I disbelieve them all, equally. That isn't what constitutes agnosticism. 

Disagreement isn't what makes it special pleading. This has already been explained multiple times by multiple people. 

No one can quite figure out what Steve believes because Steve constantly avoids questions while going back to the same special pleading arguments