Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Pat Mustard]

The problem with this is, eyewitness evidence, even if there was some for Christianity, is notoriously BAD evidence.

And I am talking about eyewitness evidence for crimes that can be proven to have taken place, in the present, with no alleged supernatural events taking place.

You don't have anything like that for Christianity. All you have is alleged eyewitness accounts, from texts written a generation or more after the alleged events took place, by non-eyewitnesses.

The topic is the often repeated charge that somehow Christianity is no different than any other religion and to think it is different is "special pleading". I contend that it is different in that there is more information to weigh than any other religion (by far).

No there isn't, coward. For example Vorlon's citation of mormonism, where we have proof of the founder, his history, his religion's history, everythinghe wrote and quite a lot of what he said. As we have virtually nothing of christianity until well into its second century (and no three word fragments of single pages don't count) you cannot truthfully claim christianity has the same evidentiary basis as mormonism. Hell, even with islam, another religion bsed solely off legend we know most of the major players actually existed and did at least some of the stuff attributed to them. We can say this about exactly none of the founding members of christianity (unless you want to argue it was largely founded at Nicaea).

So your latest baseless assertion fails under even the most dilletantish of scrutinies.