Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Whateverist]

Is this any weirder than what goes on in a church?  I'm no more drawn to this than you are to attend a regular xtian church (if I'm remembering correctly).  But I have no problem with people doing what people want to do.

Not to say it's weirder... (who am I kidding, an atheist church IS weird, don't act like y'all didn't cringe)

If going to church on Sundays is a waste of time and money for believers, then what is it to unbelievers?

I didn't cringe.  Those people don't represent me.  There is nothing unifying about being without god belief.  Atheism is compatible with pretty much everything else, including nostalgia for a churchy experience apparently.  But I don't defend or judge them, I just don't join them.

[Amarok]

Nope didn't cringe it's just a bunch of people singing . It's not for me. But at least there not going for deluded lie that they get a special magic sky land when they die or following crazy magic book full of bullshit .And are doing it for social reasons .

[SteveII]

For there to be special pleading, you need the circumstances to be the same (or similar) and treat them differently.

Do you imagine that all the authors, all the surviving text making claims about public events-

A claim about a public event is just that.  A claim.  We have zero external corroboration for these supernatural claims, and after two thousand years I wouldn't even consider them claims anymore.  They're stories.  This is why we tell you that the Bible IS the claim, not the evidence.

Several things wrong here. It does not matter how you want to characterize the information we have. The information serves to make the circumstances between Christianity and Mormonism different so therefore no special pleading can occur. 

-existing churches before any of the writings are similar to one person's claims of what happened to him when he was all by himself?

So a bunch of people made supernatural claims and birthed a religion two thousand years prior to Joseph Smith doing the exact same thing, but since your cult came first and contained more claimants, that makes it somehow categorically different?  The total number of people telling a story has no bearing whatsoever on its truth.  

You are mixing two different things. The fact that it is possible that Christianity might not be true does not have anything to do with the subject of special pleading. --Even if your mischaracterizations are true, there is no special pleading. 

If you think this is similar, your bias and/or intellectual honesty is so far out of whack there is no sense in continuing debating this issue.

If you think two thousand year old, unverifiable hearsay regarding supernatural claims is in some way special, or more legitimate than the supernatural claims of one man who we at least know for a fact existed, then the bias is yours.  And the pleading is...ya know...special.  😉

I will say it again in case you missed it above: Even if your mischaracterizations are true, there is no special pleading. The information, mode, quantity, timeframe and context are so different, by the definition of special pleading, there could not be any.

---

"Paul" doesn;t claim to have met any jesus, he tells a story of having a vision of christ on a road.

Who were the witnesses to this vision?  No one.  God spoke to "Paul" in a voice only understood by him.  Somehow, Saul the Hater immediately recognizes that this is The Lord, and addresses him as such.

You don't even know your own silly fucking stories Steve.  The only qualitative difference between Joe Smith and "Paul" and their respective stories, is that Joe Smith was an actual person.

What are you talking about?! I never claimed Paul was an eyewitness. 

If the only thing we had were Paul's letters and Joe's book, then you would have a point. That is not all we have so you don't have a point.

[The Grand Nudger]

You claimed that pauls stories were different than joes, in attempting to make an excuse for your special pleading.

God spoke to him privately, as he did to Joe Smith.

Are you now having trouble remembering the lies you've told about the stories you don't know?

[I_am_not_mafia]

My response to that is; welcome to the club...

My response to this is that it shows that religion does not own a monopoly on certain human needs and drives, as much as it would like to. Religions try to own morality by telling us that it all comes from their own particular god, but atheists and humanists are moral creatures too. Religions keep their paying members coming back for more by providing 'fellowship', i.e by satisfying a human need to be part of a pack and like with recreational drugs manipulating the same neurological mechanisms. But you still feel these needs even if you are no longer religious because you don't stop being human once you leave a religion. Atheists who never regularly went to church satisfy their desire for reward and pack instincts through other means, but ex-theists often have a lifetime of religious conditioning and need to satisfy their human drives via particular means. It's more like they are weaning themselves off an ingrained habit. When I gave up eating meat I started eating lots of fish instead. When I gave up dairy I started drinking milk substitutes. When I gave up chocolate I started cramming myself full of dates.

The human brain isn't a logical or rational thing. It creates associations through conditioning. If you recognise this then it becomes easier to change your behaviour and thought processes over time.

[Amarok]

My response to that is; welcome to the club...

Nope different club all togather moron . No matter how much you kind tries to pretend otherwise.

---

If going to church on Sundays is a waste of time and money for believers, then what is it to unbelievers?

A social activity . And the fact your dumbass can't tell the different between a lunatic cult the worships a magic undead man .And spends every sunday praising a imaginary friend  so they can get into magic la la land and be a psychopath deities bottom bitch  for eternity . To a bunch of people most likely from   religious backgrounds who gather for companionship and don't  do any nor believe any of the bullshit above is mind blowing.

[TheBeardedDude]

You claimed that pauls stories were different than joes, in attempting to make an excuse for your special pleading.

God spoke to him privately, as he did to Joe Smith.

Are you now having trouble remembering the lies you've told about the stories you don't know?

#Savage

The irony of a thread about how accepting Christian "evidence" isn't special pleading, becoming a thread devoted to christians resorting to special pleading, is hilarious 

[SteveII]

You claimed that pauls stories were different than joes, in attempting to make an excuse for your special pleading.

God spoke to him privately, as he did to Joe Smith.

Are you now having trouble remembering the lies you've told about the stories you don't know?

No I did not. I have always discussed the entire body of information that we have is different than Joe's entire body of information. If you can't see that in post after post after post, you have real comprehension problems. 

BUT...let's suppose we don't have the 50 or so posts where I was clear. Are the circumstances of just Paul the same as Joe's? Not at all:

1. Paul had been persecuting Christians and knew very well what they claimed for years. 
2. Paul's vision led to a change of heart on whether these existing claims were true--not proposing/discovering a new set. 
3. He spent years with the apostles and other early Christians--implying a training period to develop his knowledge/reasoning/etc. because
4. Paul's letters were on Christian living and were applications of the claims he did not make up and that his recipients already believed.

Joe? His claims went from not existing one day, to existing only in his head, to him sharing his writings with others. Where are the similarities again? 

This is not rocket science. While you are often obnoxious, you are not stupid. Why play stupid here? You know very well that your statement "God spoke to him privately, as he did to Joe Smith" and therefore special pleading, ignores the actual circumstances that must be examined for a claim of special pleading to stick.  Making statements like may work with the average ignorant-of-the-facts atheist on AF echo chamber, but are intellectually dishonest.

[Huggy Bear]

Nope different club all togather moron .

lol

[SteveII]

You claimed that pauls stories were different than joes, in attempting to make an excuse for your special pleading.

God spoke to him privately, as he did to Joe Smith.

Are you now having trouble remembering the lies you've told about the stories you don't know?

#Savage

The irony of a thread about how accepting Christian "evidence" isn't special pleading, becoming a thread devoted to christians resorting to special pleading, is hilarious 

#YouDontHaveCriticalThinkingSkills