Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[RoadRunner79]

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence.  Therefore: no special pleading," is one of the laziest arguments I have seen put forth by an apologist on these forums in two years.  Why did he think that we were simply going to grant him that assumption, unchallenged?

I believe that his assumption he asked for was that testimony was evidence. And given the nature of the topic, about special pleading, I don't think that assuming his views on testimony is unreasonable in this circumstance.

---

And for the record, if you've been reading along; Steve was the one who started name-calling.  Not me.  I recall the words, 'stupid', and 'obnoxious' from him, before I retaliated.  I've been consistently addressing the argument, and asking him to clarify his position.  He's the one who's attitude went from haughty to sour in a matter of pages (wonder why that was?).  So, this:  'all you atheists do is personally attack and avoid discussion' is demonstrably false in this thread as it pertains to me, personally.

The statement is demonstrably false in this thread for the majority of respondents. Steve got his feelings hurt when he contradicted himself in his very own thread, he literally engages in special pleading for Christianity while simultaneously claiming he isn't. I guess he didn't like having that called out, probably because his interests center around preaching and not conversation/debate. Steve (and RR too) presume that they have a lot to teach us, but nothing to learn. So they presume that they will do just that, teach us. Except what they have to teach is erroneous, demonstrably false, and unwanted. You can't teach bullshit to people who know bullshit when they smell it.

I can speak for myself thanks! And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned).

Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?