Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Harry Nevis]

Well you are immersed in the evidence you contends attests to your belief. How deep are you prepared and exposed to the apologetics of all other beliefs? Can you honestly say you are up to speed with all of that? I know plenty of Christians that have become Muslims over here.

Propaganda and evidence are not equal. Even if I was a theist, I would think one contender would really be well evidenced. Why don't your fellow theist of many and differing strikes disagree? Atheism is irrelevant here if a real God knows his shit.

There is very little to investigate in other religions. If you don't agree, give an example.

---

Of course you say that.  You would hand-wave away from consideration anything you don't agree with.

There is much more compelling evidence that actual witches existed during the Witch Trials than there is for your god.

---

Incorrect. You have a whole additional set of claims with the same paucity of evidence. It's all the same bible there buddy

It does not matter if you don't find the evidence compelling. The point was and is that many of you atheist lump all religions together and claim that Christians are not logical/consistent in dismissing other religions. I say all religions are not equally evidenced so such a charge is baseless.

Grasping at straws?  Even if the charge is baseless, it does nothing for your argument.

---

It's not evidence. Calling it "evidence" and then dancing about saying that we don't accept "evidence" is blatantly dishonest.

Of course there is evidence. You seem to have a problem with definitions. 

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

But none of your evidence helps to establish any "truth", other than some people will twist words to hang on to their emotional security blankets.

---

That being said, would you concede that a woman who has no functioning uterus yet conceived a child, can be referred to a miraculous?

Show me a firm diagnosis of a non-functioning uterus, and we'll talk.

---

Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhist, etc

Christians would accept all evidence provided for Judaism. 

Buddhists don't really make any claims that require evidence or that would have evidence. 

Hindus have stories that were written down after 400+ years of telling stories about events before those 400 years. What specifically are you proposing as evidence?

Mormons, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Joseph Smith's head?

No, are you serious?  You have a ...flexible...definition of evidence.

---

Huggy, we don't know if her diagnosis was correct.  Until we do, then anything else is moot.

Thanks for playing.

Sigh,

Determining whether or not a person has a uterus doesn't take a genius...

So now it HAVING a uterus, rather than having a non-functioning one?  Make up your mind.

---

I noticed you missed the threads on the value of testimony.

Except it's testimony corroborated with an audio recording...

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Marilyn testifies to seeing a supernatural entity, while on the audio recording Branham states, and I quote "between you and I stands that light"..

So?  In the light of the garbage she spews out, you can't believe a thing she says.

---

Maybe we're just dumbstruck that anyone would seriously think this sort of thing could be persuasive to anyone who hadn't already imbibed plenty of the Koolade.

The point isn't to persuade, it's to start a conversation. You guys repeatedly ask for evidence because you think none exists, You're clearly not equipped to deal with any modicum of evidence that's presented other than deflection.

I've also posted evidence that was tested extensively, and it funny how quick you guys turn on science when it doesn't support your world view.

Tested extensively?! Riiiight.  BTW, the "conversation" ended when the first person asked for a believer to show some objective, testable evidence.  Probably centuries ago.  It hasn't changed since.  You assert, we ask.  You assert, we ask.  You assert, we marvel at your gullibility.

---

Wait... why is Huggy ASSuming that Hickey suffered from something like Müllerian agenesis?  Nothing in either video mentions it.  All either mention is an inherited condition.

Huggy, there are other causes of infertility than a missing uterus.  Here's a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_inf...y_location

Now, please provide proof that Hickey actually had any of these conditions, and that the doctor(s) didn't misdiagnose.

I cant think of any other condition that would cause a doctor to state that conception is an impossibility...

Well, as long as you can't think of any.....Sheesh.  You're amazing.

---

That is what we call an argument from ignorance. You not being able to conceive of an answer, doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is valid

Doctors as a rule generally don't state anything with absolute certainty, so what other condition do you think might cause a doctor to state that conceiving a child is an impossibility other than not having a uterus?

---

Lying for Jeezus?  The whole thing was staged?  He wasn't a doctor?  I got more.

---

So, Huggy, did Emperor Vespasian cure blindness and a crippled hand or not?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...g=original



Also recounted by C. Suetonius Tranquilus.  Here we have two actual historians which is far more than can be said for your silly-assed godboy.  Surely, you can't deny this evidence, can you?

I don't deny anything seeing how one can be healed simply through the power of belief, even science attests to that fact...

The mark of gullibility.  "I don't deny anything".  Then a lie about science.

---

He thinks Dawkins is a great thinker and the science will prevail. His view of Christianity and it's teachings are a weird mix of evangelical fundamentalism and the straw men that Dawkins and other erect to sell books. His arguments against Christianity are all over the place and often nonsensical.

Citations, please.

---

The placebo effect depends primarily on belief.

That's my exact point.

Thank you.

No, that wasn't your point.