Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Harry Nevis]

People believe crystals can heal them based on personal testimony (bullshit information is still information). Who gives a shit? It doesn't mean they are correct. Stories only tell us what you believe, not that what you believe is valid or true or meaningful. You assert otherwise, so back up your claims or acknowledge your logically fallacious bullshit and admit you don't believe for any logical or valid or evidence-based reason.

Or don't and just keep preaching the same drivel as if you are anything other than a simpleton who has been indoctrinated into a cult

Don't expect any more replies from me. You suck at discussion and frankly your reasoning skills, subject knowledge, and character are lacking in measures that make any more attempts futile.  Congrats on finding a forum where you can get kudos for being you.

Go home then, you fucking baby.  You offer nothing in the way of evidence for anything except christianity exists.  Big fucking deal.  You've shown where you put the bar for reasoning skills, subject knowledge and character.

[LadyForCamus]

My rage boner is hard as a stone right now. Please take a photography class. That "evidence" could be virtually any source of light or reflected light.

Mmmm...rage boners...

[Minimalist]

Paul is as fucking phony as "jesus."

Even xristards know this.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail...ical-paul/

What can we reliably know about Paul and how can we know it? As is the case with Jesus, this is not an easy question. Historians have been involved in what has been called the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” for the past one hundred and seventy-five years, evaluating and sifting through our sources, trying to determine what we can reliably say about him.[/url] As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[url=https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/#note02][ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are [i]four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.[/i]

F. C. Baur died in 1860 so this is not exactly news except to idiots who have their heads firmly shoved up their asses.

[vorlon13]

So Paul retconned Paul who retconned Paul who retconned Paul who retconned Jesus ??


Shit, how's that supposed to work ?

[Astreja]

You should buy yourself Ben Goldacre's Bad Science he delves into placebo quite deeply in an engaging and accessible way.

Added to my reading list.  Thanks!

[Minimalist]

"Paul" ( Paulus or Paullus) was a Roman cognomen ( nickname - it means "small" ) and almost exclusively used by the patrician Aemillian clan.  It seems unlikely that some smelly jew from Tarsus would have become a member of the Roman nobility.

[Astreja]

"Paul" ( Paulus or Paullus) was a Roman cognomen ( nickname - it means "small" ) and almost exclusively used by the patrician Aemillian clan.  It seems unlikely that some smelly jew from Tarsus would have become a member of the Roman nobility.

Makes a good bookend of absurdity alongside people writing in Koine Greek about some Jewish chap in Roman-occupied territory.

[Harry Nevis]

We are familiar with the claim of such an event.  We also marvel at the gullibility of morons who think it really happened!

Really? last I looked no one has proven that God doesn't exist, so until then there is always the possibility those claims are true...

Like I said, you guys are quick to dismiss scientific evidence when it contradicts with your world view.

So stop pretending to care about evidence when it's clear there is no amount of evidence that you would accept.

You haven't given any scientific evidence for us to dismiss.  Grow up.

---

No one has proven Zeus doesn't exist either. You going to start worshipping him too?

If anyone has evidence for Zeus, let him present it. I on the other hand have presented evidence that was examined scientifically, by a world renowned expert mind you, and his conclusion gets dismissed out of hand by you bunch of yokels, proving that you atheist are no different than fundamentalist Christians in your psychology.

---

He concluded it was the Holy Spirit?  How, scientifically, did he do that?

[SteveII]

It would be nice to have more evidence. However, there is no way to know what "third-party" evidence there was and was lost to history (what percentage of documents do you think survived the sacking of Jerusalem or even the normal hazards of the first couple of centuries?).

If that is supposed to be an argument in favor of your claims, it's an argument from ignorance. And you know what that's worth. 'Maybe there's evidence that would back me up but it's lost' is something I would never say, because, frankly, it's pitiful. [1]

There is no rebuttal evidence.

What do you imagine rebuttal evidence would look like? [2] Pliny saying 'I heard there were no dead people walking around Jerusalem the other day'? Without corroboration, all you've got are assertions and claims; and they're in the form of hearsay, to boot.

It becomes a matter of opinion as to the weight you put on the evidence we have and what is or is not compelling. There is no proof. Most Christians believe because of a variety of reasons and not just because the first century Christian docs are unassailable proof.

In the thread on testimony as evidence, I maintained that testimony alone is not evidence at all, but an assertion or claim. There may be elements within the testimony that make it more or less plausible, and there may be other testimony it can be compared to that allow us to evaluate the plausibility better. That analysis can be evidence, but the testimony in itself is exactly what you are trying to determine the truth of. For mundane claims of little consequence, we usually take people at their word, because it makes living with each other easier and usually doesn't matter. You're not making a mundane claim of little consequence though, are you? [3]

 
However, germane to the subject, Christians do have way more to consider in their cumulative case for their beliefs than do other religions.

More is not necessarily better. One verifiable miracle that accomplishes the physically impossible would be worth more than the entire Bible plus the entire history of all Abrahamic religions in establishing the existence of the supernatural. [4]

1. I am not making any argument about what the evidence concludes. I was undercutting your argument that there would be 3rd party evidence. 
2. Could be anything related to the events in question (i.e. nope--I was there). In fact it could be anything that would support an alternate theory (i.e. someone that reconsidered their part in the conspiracy when things got serious). 
3. I understand your point about evidence. However the point is testimony is the only type of information conveyed to us about historical events. To dismiss it entirely is not a tenable solution because you would have toss out billions of things we believe to be true about history. If you are going the route of the testimony of the NT contains miracles and is therefore an exception, then you are begging the question. For those following along, it would be question begging because you would be saying the testimony of miracles is not true because miracles can't happen--setting up a circular argument that never allows for the possibility of a miracle. 
4. The people of the NT claim they verified the miracles. I choose (because of a cumulative case for Christianity) to take them at their word. I don't think believing those that claimed to have verified is unreasonable--especially since there is no evidence to weigh against them.

[Minimalist]

Obviously he said so and since Huggy wants to believe in shit he readily accepts shit.