(September 19, 2017 at 10:50 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(September 19, 2017 at 9:57 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I don't know how else to say it to you RR. To ask your interlocutors to 'assume for the sake of the argument that there is evidence for my religion' so that you can say, 'therefore, it's not special pleading because my religion has evidence,' is entirely circular. He's failed to make a case for excusing Christianity from special pleading, which is what he set out to do.
With this reasoning, anyone would be equally valid in saying that you are special pleading, merely on the basis of disagreement. You demanding that your interlocutors deny testimony as evidence is special pleading. And thus the whole claim is subjective.
If you look at the definition for special pleading [here]
You will see that special pleading involves a person asserting a standard or principle, and then making an exemption to that standard without adequate justification for that exemption. Not that you assert the standard, and they disagree with it.
This is also, why I have sought to go back to basics about what is evidence and similar posts, rather than talking about specifics based on the principles. And this (combined with lack of time, and overall being tired) is why I was ignoring your question about the quality of the testimony in the scriptures. Because in the end, you can just dismiss it anyway, and go back to testimony is not evidence.
RoadRunner, out of curiosity, I'm somewhat confused by apologetics. Specifically, god belief is unfalsifiable, yet from my observations, there are apologists who will use tools of falsifiability, such as reason and logic, to establish that their unfalsifiable claims are true (which can often give the appearance of mental gymnastics, rationalizations, circular reasoning, etc). Could you please clarify how this is not a contradiction? Also, when taking an apologetics approach toward one's belief system, to what degree are the truths of that belief system faith-based? Does it make sense to engage in rational discourse over truths that are faith-based?
With that said, is it completely sensible for an individual to accept the claims of his or her belief system based on faith/belief? Also, rather than asserting that one's belief system is the truth in our reality, is it more sensible and open-minded to keep one's belief system in the domain of faith/belief? Thanks