Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[LadyForCamus]

You do realize Steve DID speak for him self on the matter, and his answer is what Simon was responding to?  So, how is that a straw man?  And please identify the "poisoning the well" fallacy here, because I don't think you understand what it means.

In other news, I'm still waiting for you to answer a question I asked you pages ago.   I'll ask again.  Do you think that the testimony in the Bible is high quality, reliable testimony?  Why or why not?

Yes... and other than the general topic, there is very little else, that corresponds to what Steve said.  And I do not think he is reflecting Steve's position in his assertions. 

As to poisoning the well.... I think that calling him intellectually dishonest qualifies, especially when it's concerning a straw man.  It may be somewhat disputable, but the repetition across the board is getting old.  It's more about attacking and discrediting the person, than the arguments and reasons presented.

As to your question.... I don't remember the context of the question, and frankly your feigning of interest only to criticize for discussing previously doesn't lend me to starting another discussion with you right now.

---

After this many posts.... I'm still trying to figure out where this supposed special pleading is occurring?

In order for a personal comment to qualify as poisoning the well, it must be preemptive.. That's what makes it a fallacy. Simon was simply commenting on Steve's reasoning.  

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...g-the-Well

What do you mean, 'what's the context'?  Lol.  This is about the most straightforward question I've ever asked you, RR. No "context"
necessary to weigh in; just your evaluation of the available information. What's so hard about that?

Do you find the testimony of the Bible to be reliable, high-quality testimony?  Why, or why not?

Your glaring evasion of this question in favor of speculation about my motives (boy, does THAT sound familiar) speaks volumes, my friend.  

And, Steve is special pleading because he has failed to distinguish his religion's supernatural stories as better evidenced (thus different enough to disqualify it from the fallacy) than other religion's stories, which was his assertion.  All he did was say, "We'll assume as such for the sake of the argument," which is no different than saying, "for the sake of the argument, let's assume it's not special pleading."