Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[LadyForCamus]

"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.

It seems like an overly simple view, to only base it on the type of evidence, and not look at the details and context further.   Also, where did you get these "unquestionably" remarks?  At best, if you think the evidence is equal; you get to an agnostic position.  And again, just because you disagree, doesn't make it special pleading.  I think that you are trying to evaluate an overly simplified view, that doesn't represent what Steve believes.

I think you haven't been reading the thread, and you have no idea what you're talking about.