Religious Background

[TheBeardedDude]

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".

---

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

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.

I've never had a theist actually deliver on the claims of evidence being real. And the paucity of evidence for a claim, clearly does not correspond to a sudden loss of a belief in the claim. See: astrology, magic, crystal healing, homeopathy, etc, etc, 

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: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

So when you reject one religion (like Islam) for not having convincing evidence, but don't reject your own for the exact same reason, it is special pleading. 

What you have accused me of is...well I don't know exactly. You claim that I have engaged in special pleading for pointing out basic facts about the NT and the paucity of contemporary records/accounts of the Jesus character from the NT. It isn't special pleading to point out the flaws of a position, its inherent weaknesses, and its dearth of evidence.