(September 19, 2017 at 9:48 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote:(September 19, 2017 at 9:42 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?
This makes no sense what so ever. You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true. In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true. Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading. Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction.
"Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?"
Why are you on an atheist forum complaining about atheists backing up atheists on said atheist forum?
"This makes no sense what so ever. You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true. In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true. Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading. Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction."
Making it clear, yet again, that you didn't read any of the discussions explaining how it is special pleading.
Accepting the claims of Christianity as true, but not the claims of (we will stick with Mormonism) of another religion when they have literally the exact same type of "evidence" (personal testimony that is asserted to be unquestionably true and unquestionably derived from interactions with a god) and quantity of "evidence," is the very definition of special pleading.
Mormon evidence is superlative in many ways. Most was published in a timely fashion, dates and names of the folks involved are known and have been known since the actual events and even before. Even locations where events happened are known.
Evidentiary requirements postulated by non-Mormon Christians in regards to evaluating their own claims are met emphatically by the Mormons. Hands down. It's really over whelming.
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
