Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[LadyForCamus]

No, it is not an argument...it remains just...obvious that more testimony is better than less.

As in, more testimony means, "better evidence"?  Yep, just keep on asserting that despite demonstrations to the contrary.

The contents of the testimony is irrelevant. Believing a claim because of more testimony over one with only one, is no longer special pleading--because, for the last time, it is a justification to treat the circumstances differently.

For the last time, you simply asserting that it's a justification does not magically make it so, lol.

-but you wont be engaging in "Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.

You would be if you failed to provide such adequate justification, which is why you had to shoehorn "for the sake of the argument, testimony is evidence," into your OP.  You might as well have just said, "for the sake of the argument against special pleading charges, it's not special pleading." Without someone giving you that assumption of evidence, you literally have NO argument.

Just substitute 40,000 testimonies against one. Would you still claim special pleading to believe the 40,000? No, a normal person would not and it's the same principle--just a difference in scale.

Are you speaking of just Mormonism now?  Why is that?  What about everyone else?  Do you believe the testimony of those who saw the sun dance at Fatima?  Or those who claim parallel universe collisions are the cause of the Mandela effect?

For the last time, my list of letters a through k are examples of information-

Stories about magic.

-not available to support other religions.

Their books contain fewer magical stories; so what?

It is quite a bit of information and context prior to any testimony.

You mean the the first few times the stories were told before they were told to thousands more?  This legitimizes their supernatural claims how, again?

The stories do agree with each other in ALL meaningful ways (to say otherwise is just buying into silly atheist propaganda and makes you sound ignorant of the facts)

Atheist propaganda?  Really?  

The early church--of which 100% were witnesses to some or all of the public events (another differentiation to all the other religions) of Jesus' ministry-

According to the stories in the Bible.

-did not believe because of hearsay.

You're just assuming stories about people witnessing the supernatural are true.  Why would you do that?  Do you have any external, corroborating evidence to substantiate them?

Not at all. Rationalization is reasoning. It is not  pieces of information. My entire list was pieces of information.

You mean a list of unverifiable claims of witnessing the supernatural...from 2,000 years ago, that you have rationalized as true in the absence of any evidence.

Testimony is an assertion of fact. To deny that it is evidence of something is just plain stupid.

I agree.  It is evidence that Christianity exists.  It is evidence of what the followers of Christianity believe.  What it is not, and never will be, is evidence for the truth of its supernatural claims.

One last attempt. John saw Mary run out of the house, around the tree, and back into the house and writes it down in his diary. Are you really going to say there is no evidence that Mary ran out of the house around the tree, and back into the house? I didn't say proof, I said evidence. Of course there is.

We have evidence of Mary testifying that she ran around the house, around a tree, and back inside.  But of course, we wouldn't treat mundane claims same as we would treat supernatural claims that defy what we know about the laws of physics and biology, would be?

The 'no evidence' thing makes you sound really stupid.

And you saying:  "Let's assume for the sake of the argument that I have evidence for my religion," as a way of escaping special pleading makes you look fucking idiotic.