Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Minimalist]

You gave a stunning example of it yourself, RR, when confronted with the 'miracles' of Vespasian you claimed you had to "look into it more" as opposed to the supposed miracles of jesus which you would never think to question.

THAT is special pleading.  YOUR shit is wrong but MY shit is right.

I don't think that your false assumptions constitute special pleading. You seem to be constructing an argument that I don't make in order to knock it down without difficulty.

I imagine I could find the post without too much difficulty.  After all, how many times does the word "Vespasian" exist on the board?

[RoadRunner79]

---

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 don't only look at it based on the "type" of "evidence." Please read what I have already written on this before straw manning me.

As for where did I get the "unquestionably" remarks, I get them from Christian theology. God's existence and the validity of the Bible are to be considered unquestionable evidence of a god if you are a christian. (I know this as a former christian)

And no, you don't get to assert if I should be an agnostic or an atheist. I think the evidence is all equally bullshit for all religions. I disbelieve them all, equally. That isn't what constitutes agnosticism. 

Disagreement isn't what makes it special pleading. This has already been explained multiple times by multiple people. 

No one can quite figure out what Steve believes because Steve constantly avoids questions while going back to the same special pleading arguments 

---

Sorry if I misunderstood. I was only loosely following the thread until recently, and went mostly off of what I saw the reason you gave in the immediate context (post)

[Amarok]

Steves still pushing this consistency bullshit. No the gospels are not consistent . And no before the gospels Christianity was a small constant infighting cult . Based on bastardizations of earlier beliefs. Just like every other religion ever.

[Minimalist]

What is more interesting is the inconsistencies considering that all of this bullshit was copied from one original story.  That means that the subsequent authors deliberately made changes to suit the particular audience they were addressing.  Its hard for modern people to comprehend the isolation that these groups would have lived in but how many of them would have even known that the others existed.  And, when they did come into contact, they apparently hated each other!

"Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense...".


Celsus c 180 AD

[LadyForCamus]

And as we've talked about before, not all claims are created equally.  Are they?

Wait, what? Are you saying that some testimony is evidence? I really can't follow you. You just clearly said that "No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1." There is a name for creating an exception for things without justification...it's coming to me...damn, lost it. 

I could have sworn we'd talked about this.  Testimony, by itself, is only evidence that a claim is being made, and I have said as much. No one here is disputing that Christianity makes claims.  It is not evidence for the truth of those claims.  And the more extraordinary the claim (such as those that defy what we know about the laws of physics and biology), the better the evidence should be in support of that claim. Do we often accept low risk and inconsequential testimony in the absence of corroborating evidence? Sure. We have to live daily life, after all.

[Minimalist]

Stevie is apparently a credulous old fool.  If he reads something he automatically thinks it is real.

Here you go, Stevie.

JESUS IS A MYTH!

[Simon Moon]

Wait, what? Are you saying that some testimony is evidence? I really can't follow you. You just clearly said that "No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1." There is a name for creating an exception for things without justification...it's coming to me...damn, lost it. 

I could have sworn we'd talked about this.  Testimony, by itself, is only evidence that a claim is being made, and I have said as much.  No one here is disputing that Christianity makes claims.  It is not evidence for the truth of those claims.  And the more extraordinary the claim (such as those that defy what we know about the laws of physics and biology), the better the evidence should be in support of that claim.  Do we often accept low risk and inconsequential testimony in the absence of corroborating evidence?  Sure.  We have to live daily life, after all.

Yep.

We live our lives, for the most part, using inference and induction. Today is very much like yesterday, this week is very much like last, etc. We humans are very good at it. It is an evolved part of our survival mechanisms.

Problems start to arise, however, when we try to use those tools on existential and supernatural claims. Seems that most theists, try to continue to use inference and induction, where they don't work. Where the best tools are demonstrable facts and deduction.

[RoadRunner79]

---

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?

I would agree, that it would be incorrect, to engage in rational discourse, over that which is subjective. However, I would disagree, that these things are unfalsifiable. Hence I don't understand nor share your concern and confusion. Perhaps you can clarify (or re-evaluate that they are unfalsifiable). I also think that you may have confusion on what my faith consists of. My faith is in God, not about God. I don't think that it is about taking a blind leap, and I don't advocate or think that people should have that kind of faith.

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

If it is a subjective matter, then I would agree. However I don't think that your statements here make much sense when it is objective whether talking about religion or just one's worldview in general.
Thanks for the very polite questions... I hope this helps.

[Simon Moon]

I would agree, that it would be incorrect, to engage in rational discourse, over that which is subjective.  However, I would disagree, that these things are unfalsifiable.  Hence I don't understand nor share your concern and confusion. Perhaps you can clarify (or re-evaluate that they are unfalsifiable).  I also think that you may have confusion on what my faith consists of.  My faith is in God, not about God.  I don't think that it is about taking a blind leap, and I don't advocate or think that people should have that kind of faith.  

So, for you, what would falsify your Christian beliefs?

If you believe they are falsifiable, you must have something in mind that would falsify them.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

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?

I would agree, that it would be incorrect, to engage in rational discourse, over that which is subjective.  However, I would disagree, that these things are unfalsifiable.  Hence I don't understand nor share your concern and confusion. [1] Perhaps you can clarify (or re-evaluate that they are unfalsifiable).  I also think that you may have confusion on what my faith consists of.  [2] My faith is in God, not about God.  I don't think that it is about taking a blind leap, and I don't advocate or think that people should have that kind of faith.  

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

If it is a subjective matter, then I would agree.   [3] However I don't think that your statements here make much sense when it is objective whether talking about religion or just one's worldview in general.  
Thanks for the very polite questions... I hope this helps.

Thanks for your response.  Out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying supernatural claims?

Regarding [1], my confusion lies in trying to establish the truth of supernatural claims via naturalistic tools such as human reason/logic.  Furthermore, if supernatural claims can be understood or falsified via naturalistic means, then are these claims really based in the supernatural? Is it more accurate to say that "supernatural" describes humanity's lack of knowledge about how reality works?  

In regards to [2], could you please clarify the following statement: "my faith is in God, not about God."

Regarding [3], if one's worldview/religious faith is falsifiable, then does that open the door to subjectivity?

Thanks for your polite answer, sir.