Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[TheBeardedDude]

#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

This is what is known as: the pot calling the kettle black 

[The Grand Nudger]

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 and 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? 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. 

Like I have said before. Joseph Smith's claims is the appropriate comparison (for once) to the atheist's favorite alien abductions.

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. 

Yeah you did, and you seem to know right where you did it too...what with launching an immediate attempt at apologist apologism.

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.

I get that you wish it did, but it doesn't.  Your references to fiction do not change what must be accepted before a rational discussion of "pauls" narrative can be had.  Paul, if he existed, was a man who had a private audience with god.  It's not just -similar- to one mans claim of what happened to him in private..it -is- one mans claim of what happened to him in private. That other stories in the same religious tradition are compatible with this story is common to all religions. That's kind of how religion is done......

Would you like to move on to the next story, some story which you feel escapes your own criticism? Suggestions?

[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?

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.

Someone still doesn't realize that the "entire body of information" that Joseph Smith and the Mormons have, includes the Christian body of "evidence" too. Do you not realize that Mormons are a protestant sect of Christianity? 

[The Grand Nudger]

Another sticky issue explored earlier in thread which Steve will feel compelled to launch a set of special pleading arguments for, for reasons™.

[TheBeardedDude]

Another sticky issue explored earlier in thread which Steve will feel compelled to launch a set of special pleading arguments for, for reasons™.

Special reasons? 

[Huggy Bear]

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.

Technically, By their own admission they are worshiping a god.

They literally state that the purpose of the Sunday assembly is to celebrate 'life'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/celebrate

celebrate


Synonyms and Antonyms of celebrate

1. to proclaim the glory of a personal essay that celebrates the single life Synonyms bless, carol, praise, emblazon, exalt, extol (also extoll), glorify, hymn, laud, magnify, resound

Related Words adore, belaud, deify, idolize, worship; acclaim, applaud, commend, compliment, hail, renown, salute; chant, cheer, eulogize, rhapsodize; cite; flatter; crack up, recommend, tout

god - a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically :one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

This kinda makes 'life' their god by definition.

Like I said, welcome to club buddy.

[The Grand Nudger]

You kind of left out the necessary personification that differentiates animism from deism (and it's derivative theism).  

So no, they don't worship god, technically or otherwise.  They worship life.  21st century retconning animists (if we wanted to be cruel about it).  Not deists, or theists.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

Technically, By their own admission they are worshiping a god.

They literally state that the purpose of the Sunday assembly is to celebrate 'life'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/celebrate

celebrate


Synonyms and Antonyms of celebrate

   1. to proclaim the glory of a personal essay that celebrates the single life Synonyms bless, carol, praise, emblazon, exalt, extol (also extoll), glorify, hymn, laud, magnify, resound

Related Words adore, belaud, deify, idolize, worship; acclaim, applaud, commend, compliment, hail, renown, salute; chant, cheer, eulogize, rhapsodize; cite; flatter; crack up, recommend, tout

god - a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically :one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

This kinda makes 'life' their god by definition.

Like I said, welcome to club buddy.

Utter pish. You're just trolling now.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Now" .....you say?  

[Harry Nevis]

Okay so...to re-cap, so that I can wrap my brain around all of what I've read here, and what I've been reading on my own to fill in knowledge gaps:

Have I got this timeline right enough that we all (Theist and atheist) more or less agree?

-Jesus died around year 30
-Paul's letters weren't written until around year 50
-Gospel of Mark -not until around 70
-Luke, Matthew (taken from Mark and hypothetical Q) approx. 80's/90's
-Then John

And the final version of the NT that we know today, after being picked over several times, wasn't solidified until around year 390ish?!

How, in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, could any rational person take the supernatural claims in this story seriously?  I mean, no one can even be sure that Paul himself ever met Jesus, and the gospel writers, whoever they were, came way too late!  But Christianity is somehow more "evidenced" than Mormonism?  Or any other religion?  What evidence?!  Stories passed down across a hundred or so years?  This is special pleading.  Cry me a river.   And it's even worse than I'd realized.

You were close enough up to the point of 390. Most scholars (including Bart Ehrman) believe the books are 99% as they were originally. They also agree the 1% difference does not change any important textual meaning. 

Do you have a citation for this?

---

Nah.  Shit like this:


infuriates me.  Fucking god can go fuck himself. 

I bet Huggy wanks to it, though.

Why does that infuriate you?

Because we can think about it.  Keep trying, you may get there one day.

---

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

Seems like an amazing waste of time.

Just like reading your fucking bible and pretending it is real.

As well as his posts.

---

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.

Nope.  Both claim that their book is the word of god delivered by their prophet(s).  Each claim should be considered in the same way.