Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Harry Nevis]

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).

Depends on your definition of information.

---

Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

Well, except for John, Peter, and James...

If you use "gawd" again, you won't get a reply. Not because I am offended--I just don't like people who are obnoxious on purpose.

Alleged eyewitness testimony.  So, basically, you have an old book with fantastic claims that have no objective, testable evidence for it's claims.

---

I'm giving this the answer it deserves...

Just as I thought...

It's funny how you guys shut up the moment anything resembling evidence is is actually produced...

Since you refuse to respond, you forfeit the privilege of requesting that any theist produce  evidence from now on.

It really didn't resemble evidence much.  And fuck you if you think you can dictate what "privileges" we can have.

---

bold mine

Um...........what? How do you even measure this? By word count? By number of supposed authors? By amount of publication?

An argument for belief based on quantity alone? Really? 

This might be one of the worst propositions you've put forward for your delusion.

What evidence would you expect to see from events that happened in the first century? Writings. The more the better. The more names we know the better. The more immediate effects these writings had the better. The more people that believed the events even before the writings the better (for example, Paul addresses the already existing churches throughout the Roman empire in the very first surviving writings).
So yes. Quantity of the only evidence we should expect to survive (writings) is an important factor.

I would expect concrete evidence that the miraculous happened.  I would expect these writing to be consistant and have outside corroboration.  You have evidence people wrote about something, not of the something.