Religious Background

[SteveII]

The difference is that compared to other religions, Christianity has a much large body of evidence (to a significant degree) in which to draw conclusions.  

Islam makes no significant claims about anything that rises to the level of a body of evidence.  The entire religion is based on what went on in the head of one person.  If you know of other evidence that Muslims claim, let me know. 

Regarding Hinduism, there were centuries or millennium between when the events were supposed to have happened and when they were cataloged. That really can't be called a body of evidence either. 

Listen, if a person is set in their minds there is no God, very little will move them off that position. However, the vast majority of the population of the earth believes in the supernatural. So if most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural, then Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice. This claim is supported by the fact it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to. 

No worries about the last post. Sorry if I over-reacted.

Bolded:  It has to do with the fact that there is zero evidence to support the existence of God. [1]
Italics:  That just means there are many delusional people in this world.  [2]
Underlined:  Argumentum ad populum [3]

1. I disagree. If that were that were true, then many more people would be convinced of atheism and it would be growing instead of stagnant. The atheist never had or has overcome the built in sense that the supernatural exists.
2. Delusional? If it is built in sense that most people have, it isn't delusional because nothing external deluded them. The belief would be 'properly basic' and therefore rational to hold. This does not mean the belief is correct, but it does mean it is not delusional.
3. You should revisit the definition of Argumentum ad populum or reread that sentence. I stated a fact "most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural" and then another fact "Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice"--all within the context of a post that was explaining why we are seeing another fact: "it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to".

---

The difference is that compared to other religions, Christianity has a much large body of evidence (to a significant degree) in which to draw conclusions.  

Islam makes no significant claims about anything that rises to the level of a body of evidence.  The entire religion is based on what went on in the head of one person.  If you know of other evidence that Muslims claim, let me know. 

Regarding Hinduism, there were centuries or millennium between when the events were supposed to have happened and when they were cataloged. That really can't be called a body of evidence either. 

Listen, if a person is set in their minds there is no God, very little will move them off that position. However, the vast majority of the population of the earth believes in the supernatural. So if most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural, then Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice. This claim is supported by the fact it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to. 

No worries about the last post. Sorry if I over-reacted.

Now that is a post full of special pleading.

Different religion, same type and level of evidence (except Islam actually has more concrete evidence for the existence and teachings of its messiah), but it's viewed as being significantly weaker.

You couldn't have constructed a better example of special pleading if you tried.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

You really need to read up on "special pleading". I am clearly discussing/comparing bodies of evidence and don't come close to the definition. 

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading