RE: Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?
September 19, 2017 at 1:39 pm
(This post was last modified: September 19, 2017 at 1:43 pm by Harry Nevis.)
(September 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm)SteveII Wrote:(September 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Because of course, 1000's of people that can be interviewed moments after an event, are no where near as reliable as, 500 anonymous people, whose stories are not recorded for decades or more after the alleged events.
Move those stories 1800 years in the past, and somehow they become even more reliable.![]()
That is a textbook example of special pleading. What is the title of this thread again?
Intellectual honesty is not quite your thing, is it Steve?
Except you didn't address my second and third justification for treating the testimony different. Why is it that everyone misses that part of the definition of special pleading. I'll highlight it for you.
Special Pleading
Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. Link
I think it's been said that we don't agree that your justifications change anything.
(September 19, 2017 at 1:19 pm)SteveII Wrote:(September 19, 2017 at 8:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: "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?
While I am going to let you have the last word in our back and forth, I AM going to clear this little misunderstanding up.
In my OP, I said "For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence." under the section where I was defining my terms. This is because we just came off a rather long thread where some of you, despite logic and the reality that we as a society do accept testimony as evidence, actually have the position that testimony is NOT evidence. I was not going to rehash that nonsense.
YOU have to read in a lot of extra meaning to those words to come up with "For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence". Read more carefully. Ask for clarification if you don't know what I mean. Don't launch into smug attack mode--that's not a discussion.
Lets say that testimony is evidence. None that you offer is evidence that supports anything but that people believed such-and-such. It in no way supports the claim that Jesus was god or the bible is the word of god.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam