Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Harry Nevis]

Because of course, 1000's of people that can be interviewed moments after an event, are no where near as reliable as, 500 anonymous people, whose stories are not recorded for decades or more after the alleged events.

Move those stories 1800 years in the past, and somehow they become even more reliable.

That is a textbook example of special pleading. What is the title of this thread again?

Intellectual honesty is not quite your thing, is it Steve?

Except you didn't address my second and third justification for treating the testimony different. Why is it that everyone misses that part of the definition of special pleading. I'll highlight it for you. 

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. Link

I think it's been said that we don't agree that your justifications change anything.

---

"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?

While I am going to let you have the last word in our back and forth, I AM going to clear this little misunderstanding up. 

In my OP, I said "For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence." under the section where I was defining my terms.  This is because we just came off a rather long thread where some of you, despite logic and the reality that we as a society do accept testimony as evidence, actually have the position that testimony is NOT evidence. I was not going to rehash that nonsense. 

YOU have to read in a lot of extra meaning to those words to come up with "For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence". Read more carefully. Ask for clarification if you don't know what I mean. Don't launch into smug attack mode--that's not a discussion.

Lets say that testimony is evidence. None that you offer is evidence that supports anything but that people believed such-and-such.  It in no way supports the claim that Jesus was god or the bible is the word of god.

[LadyForCamus]

While I am going to let you have the last word in our back and forth-

Thank you for acknowledging me.  Some people just stop responding which I find rude, considering I do take the time to give thoughtful responses; snark non withstanding. 😏

I AM going to clear this little misunderstanding up. 

In my OP, I said "For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence." under the section where I was defining my terms.  This is because we just came off a rather long thread where some of you, despite logic and the reality that we as a society do accept testimony as evidence, actually have the position that testimony is NOT evidence. I was not going to rehash that nonsense.

Again...you're just asserting that witness testimony counts as evidence, solely for the purposes of this argument. Do you see how that looks? And, now you're declaring winner of a debate we just had on the subject, which was FAR from settled when you and Road dropped out.

Your entire argument here, in defense of special pleading charges, hinges on us accepting your assertion of witness testimony as evidence.  Obviously, I'm no expert on formal argument structure, but your position in the OP looks something like this:

1. Witness testimony is evidence.
2. Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions.
3. If Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions, then it has more evidence (your "justified" difference). 
4. Since Christianity is better evidenced than other religions, special pleading does not apply.

No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1.  And, if you can't get 1. by us, you can't get to 3.  If you can't get to 3., then you haven't justified your conclusion.  Asking us to accept without question, or assume for no other reason than the success of your argument that testimony is evidence, is absolutely unfair, and to me, a dishonest debate tactic.  Your opinion that our objections to the arguments for "witness testimony is evidence" are nonsense, is just that.  An opinion.  It has no bearing on anything in this argument regarding special pleading.

YOU have to read in a lot of extra meaning to those words to come up with "For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence

Is that not what you're asking us to do?  I mean, isn't that your whole thing? That the Bible; the Christian testimony, is the evidence?  Aren't you the one who gets bent out of shape every time someone tells you, "the Bible is the claim, not the evidence"?

[vorlon13]

Ephesians 2:8 (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


there you have it, not one fucking peep about PROOF

So, consider this a missive direct from Jesus Himself to his confused followers here to STFU.

[vorlon13]

Jesus fucking Christ, was that so fucking difficult ??

[SteveII]

While I am going to let you have the last word in our back and forth-

Thank you for acknowledging me.  Some people just stop responding which I find rude, considering I do take the time to give thoughtful responses; snark non withstanding. 😏

I AM going to clear this little misunderstanding up. 

In my OP, I said "For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence." under the section where I was defining my terms.  This is because we just came off a rather long thread where some of you, despite logic and the reality that we as a society do accept testimony as evidence, actually have the position that testimony is NOT evidence. I was not going to rehash that nonsense.

Again...you're just asserting that witness testimony counts as evidence, and now you're declaring winner of a debate we just had on the subject, which was FAR from settled when you and Road dropped out.

Your entire argument here, in defense of special pleading charges, hinges on us accepting your assertion of witness testimony as evidence.  Obviously, I'm no expert on formal argument structure, but your position in the OP looks something like this:

1. Witness testimony is evidence
2. Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions 
3. If Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions, then it has more evidence 
4. Since Christianity is better evidenced than other religions, special pleading does not apply

No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1.  And, if you can't get 1. by us, you can't get to 3.  If you can't get to 3., then you haven't justified your conclusion.  Asking us to accept without question, or assume for no other reason than the success of your argument that testimony is evidence, is absolutely unfair and to me, a dishonest debate tactic.  Your opinion that our objections to the arguments for "witness testimony is evidence" are nonsense, is just that.  An opinion.  It has no bearing on anything in this argument regarding special pleading.

YOU have to read in a lot of extra meaning to those words to come up with "For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence

Is that not what you're asking us to do?  I mean, isn't that your whole thing? That the Bible; the Christian testimony, is the evidence?  Aren't you the one who gets bent out of shape every time someone tells you, "the Bible is the claim, not the evidence"?

You do know that not considering testimony as evidence is a very fringe idea, right? Most people here (even atheists) do not hold to that. In fact every legal system in the world illustrates that point quite clearly. Additionally, you would have to discard 99% of what we know about any history because...well...it is just people writing down what they think happened. Let it go. It really does sound silly.

[Whateverist]

A competent apologist can diffuse special pleading objections by reminding his interlocuters that he has come to his religion by faith, he didn't argue himself into it.  It's only special pleading when you actually -do it-, and the nature of some statement as a component in a special pleading argument does not actually make the conclusion of that argument inaccurate.  A christyian believes their stories are true despite the similarities, and believes that others stories are false despite the similarities.  They cannot rationally argue this case...but they don't need to, because they have faith in their stories..and none in the stories of others.  That leap is, supposedly, theologically important.  The difficulty and even inability of rationally distinguishing true and false prophets is strongly supported by scripture.  Many will be lead astray, after all.

Too bad we don't have any competent apologists....you'd think that the "faith" skyhook would be obvious to the simpletons just the same....but apparently it isn't.

I had to read this over a few times to make sure I got what you were saying.  Let me check.  So you're saying special pleading is  not a problem only provided one does not depend wholly on the argument to result in belief.  Faith is a kind of trump card in the deck of possible arguments, its the secret sauce without which all is lost.

The only weakness in this comes when you want to lead others to believe by providing them with the arguments which support your beliefs (pretty much the same way they support other, different beliefs).  So a fully actualized apologist would tell his intended victims that, as good as his arguments are, only faith will take them the whole way there.  That might be why so many like to suggest that we just try it and see what happens.  

Of course to those disinterested in adopting the belief it just remains a silly idea.

[LadyForCamus]

Thank you for acknowledging me.  Some people just stop responding which I find rude, considering I do take the time to give thoughtful responses; snark non withstanding. 😏


Again...you're just asserting that witness testimony counts as evidence, and now you're declaring winner of a debate we just had on the subject, which was FAR from settled when you and Road dropped out.

Your entire argument here, in defense of special pleading charges, hinges on us accepting your assertion of witness testimony as evidence.  Obviously, I'm no expert on formal argument structure, but your position in the OP looks something like this:

1. Witness testimony is evidence
2. Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions 
3. If Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions, then it has more evidence 
4. Since Christianity is better evidenced than other religions, special pleading does not apply

No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1.  And, if you can't get 1. by us, you can't get to 3.  If you can't get to 3., then you haven't justified your conclusion.  Asking us to accept without question, or assume for no other reason than the success of your argument that testimony is evidence, is absolutely unfair and to me, a dishonest debate tactic.  Your opinion that our objections to the arguments for "witness testimony is evidence" are nonsense, is just that.  An opinion.  It has no bearing on anything in this argument regarding special pleading.


Is that not what you're asking us to do?  I mean, isn't that your whole thing? That the Bible; the Christian testimony, is the evidence?  Aren't you the one who gets bent out of shape every time someone tells you, "the Bible is the claim, not the evidence"?

You do know that not considering testimony as evidence is a very fringe idea, right? Most people here (even atheists) do not hold to that. In fact every legal system in the world illustrates that point quite clearly. Additionally, you would have to discard 99% of what we know about any history because...well...it is just people writing down what they think happened. Let it go. It really does sound silly.

And as we've talked about this before, not all claims are created equally.  Are they?

[Harry Nevis]

Thank you for acknowledging me.  Some people just stop responding which I find rude, considering I do take the time to give thoughtful responses; snark non withstanding. 😏


Again...you're just asserting that witness testimony counts as evidence, and now you're declaring winner of a debate we just had on the subject, which was FAR from settled when you and Road dropped out.

Your entire argument here, in defense of special pleading charges, hinges on us accepting your assertion of witness testimony as evidence.  Obviously, I'm no expert on formal argument structure, but your position in the OP looks something like this:

1. Witness testimony is evidence
2. Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions 
3. If Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions, then it has more evidence 
4. Since Christianity is better evidenced than other religions, special pleading does not apply

No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1.  And, if you can't get 1. by us, you can't get to 3.  If you can't get to 3., then you haven't justified your conclusion.  Asking us to accept without question, or assume for no other reason than the success of your argument that testimony is evidence, is absolutely unfair and to me, a dishonest debate tactic.  Your opinion that our objections to the arguments for "witness testimony is evidence" are nonsense, is just that.  An opinion.  It has no bearing on anything in this argument regarding special pleading.


Is that not what you're asking us to do?  I mean, isn't that your whole thing? That the Bible; the Christian testimony, is the evidence?  Aren't you the one who gets bent out of shape every time someone tells you, "the Bible is the claim, not the evidence"?

You do know that not considering testimony as evidence is a very fringe idea, right? Most people here (even atheists) do not hold to that. In fact every legal system in the world illustrates that point quite clearly. Additionally, you would have to discard 99% of what we know about any history because...well...it is just people writing down what they think happened. Let it go. It really does sound silly.

Do you see that what you are calling evidence is not for what the bible claims to be?

---

You do know that not considering testimony as evidence is a very fringe idea, right? Most people here (even atheists) do not hold to that. In fact every legal system in the world illustrates that point quite clearly. Additionally, you would have to discard 99% of what we know about any history because...well...it is just people writing down what they think happened. Let it go. It really does sound silly.

Now who's sounding silly?  History is accepted by having corroborating evidence.

[Succubus]

... Additionally, you would have to discard 99% of what we know about any history because...well...it is just people writing down what they think happened. Let it go. It really does sound silly.

There's very little consistency in the four cannon gospels*, so what did the writers (whoever they were) think was happening? Without knowing who wrote the gospels we can't know when they were written, why they were written or who the intended audience was. For the Nth time, scripture is the claim and there's nothing to back up the claims. You have no way out of this. Claim's are not evidence.

*Apart from the sections copied from the first one.

[SteveII]

You do know that not considering testimony as evidence is a very fringe idea, right? Most people here (even atheists) do not hold to that. In fact every legal system in the world illustrates that point quite clearly. Additionally, you would have to discard 99% of what we know about any history because...well...it is just people writing down what they think happened. Let it go. It really does sound silly.

And as we've talked about before, not all claims are created equally.  Are they?

Wait, what? Are you saying that some testimony is evidence? I really can't follow you. You just clearly said that "No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1." There is a name for creating an exception for things without justification...it's coming to me...damn, lost it.