Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Harry Nevis]

Ahh..

Unable to refute the evidence presented so we start with ad homenim attacks...

Carry on

OK.  Fuck You.

---

Jospeh Smith was an eye witness to the miracle of the golden tablets, has second hand testimony from angels, and we have secondary evidence that Joseph Smith was indeed the author of the material -- that's something we don't have for any of the alleged authors of the bible, nobody can verify that 1 Peter was written by Peter.  You're treating the evidence of the religion of Mormonism according to a different standard than your own.  When Joseph Smith offers eye witness testimony, then it's all in his head.  When an anonymous author of the bible offers second hand testimony, why then it's "paleographic gold".  That's de facto an example of you special pleading the evidence of Christianity.  When you dismiss other religions for reasons that you don't equally apply to your own, that sure as hell is special pleading.  A similar argument could be made for Mohammed.

Your comparison is way way off. Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of. 

The 9 authors of the NT wrote down what happened in public. Tens of thousands of people would have been affected in some way by the events they relate. We have historical evidence that some significant number of people acted on their belief that the events of the NT happened (even before the gospels were written): there are churches across the Roman Empire before 50 AD. 1 Peter? Are you kidding me? That's 5 chapters out of 260. 

In addition, your use of the term 'anonymous' is inaccurate and often used in an attempt to poison the well. Do you actually think that the people who received the first copies of the gospels received them on their doorsteps and did not know where they came from? Get real. They would have known exactly who the editor was and where the information came from. The name of the editor is unimportant to pass along. The only concern was the apostle's name who provided the input.

So, your comparison is nonsense and your charge of special pleading unsupported.

They wrote down what they believed happened.  You give the bible a level of trust that I'm sure you give to no other book or collection that is so old.  You WANT it to be true.

[Huggy Bear]

Okay, so 'gullible' it REALLY is then, Huggy.  People saw it with their own eyes after they were explicitly directed to do so.  The pastor literally TELLS the audience that there is a light hovering over someone's head, and he doesn't even stop there.  He baldly suggests to them,  "just like in the picture," specifically so that none of his rapt believers miss the biblical parallel he's trying to draw. This is common stage hypnotism.  Highly suggestable folks who are eager to believe are easy to manipulate.

Shame on you for being taken by such foolishness.  Please, quit while your behind.

So we've gone from stage magic to stage hypnotism? NONE OF WHICH EXPLAIN THE PICTURE! You can't psychologically fool a mechanical device

If you want to claim that the picture is just a "glitch" as Astreja put it, that does not explain why there is eye witness accounting of it.

If you want to claim that people were "hypnotized" into seeing something that wasn't there, that does not explain why there is a thoroughly vetted picture.

Try as you guys might, you can't attempt to debunk one without acknowledging the other.

And to answer your earlier question:

Since your own scientific source determined only that the cause of image was light, how did you reach the conclusion that the source of the light was the Holy Spirit?

Jesus returned back to the form he was at the beginning of creation, which was light. When Paul saw Jesus, he saw a light...

To be clear the examiner of the photo never said the light was supernatural in the official report (no scientist would), it was his personal opinion that the light was supernatural, meaning there was no scientific explanation for why it appeared on film.

William Branham stated that the light was the Holy Spirit, He said he's seen that light all his life, even before he ever was a christian.

In the audio recording I posted



if you turn on the caption you'll see Branham state:

I'm just waiting. If He don't tell me, I can't say a thing.

also

Can't you see that Light? Looky here. The amber Light like you see in the picture… There It is right over the lady. It's moving around. Forgive me if I ask you that. This is another dimension. I realize that I'm in an auditorium. And I realize I'm looking at a woman, and she's praying, and I'm watching her. I never see her in my life. But I can… If I would to tell you by the Holy Spirit what you're praying about, you'll know whether it's the truth or not.

Then Braham goes on to tell people their names and what they're thinking (at the beginning of the clip, in the interest of transparency, he pointed out all the people he knew).

Branham never claimed to have any special powers, there is something there that is showing him these things.

The Carl Sagan states in the video (in his example of interacting with being from another dimension, in this case 2d creature (square) interacting with a 3d creature (apple)).

Starting at around 3:04

So the square, as time goes on, sees a set of objects mysteriously appear from nowhere, inside a closed room and change their shape dramatically. His only conclusion could be that he's gone bonkers.

Well the apple might be a little annoyed at this conclusion, and so in not a friendly gesture from dimension to dimension, makes a contact with the square from below and sends our flat creature fluttering and spinning above flatland.

At first the square has no idea whats happening, he's terribly confused this is utterly outside his experience, but after a while he comes to realize that he his seeing inside closed rooms in flatland, he's seeing inside his fellow flat creatures, he is seeing flatland from a perspective no one has ever seen it before to his knowledge.

Getting into another dimension provides as an incidental benefit a kind of x-ray vision.

Does not Carl Sagan describe what Branham was describing in the audio clip? Did not Branham state that he entered another dimension?

This is another dimension. I realize that I'm in an auditorium. And I realize I'm looking at a woman, and she's praying, and I'm watching her. I never see her in my life. But I can…

If I would to tell you by the Holy Spirit what you're praying about, you'll know whether it's the truth or not. You're praying about a rupture. That is right. Also an intestinal trouble, complications. If that is right, raise up your hand like this? If I'm a stranger to you, raise you other hand up. There's a certain sign of His resurrection.

She touched something. Is that right?

What about you all? Do you believe? Spinal trouble.

I don't know you, do I? We're strangers to one another. You got trouble in your spine. What if God would tell me who you were, would you believe me to be His prophet? Miss Hollanbach. That's right. That helped your friend setting next to you. I don't know you either, but God knows you. But you're not praying for yourself; you're praying for somebody else. If I tell you what it is, would you believe me to be His prophet? You're praying for a nephew that's an alcoholic. That's right. Raise your hand.

Carl Sagan described it perfectly, why is it so hard for you guys to see it?

[TheBeardedDude]

Ahh..

Unable to refute the evidence presented so we start with ad homenim attacks...

Carry on

OK.  Fuck You.

---

Your comparison is way way off. Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of. 

The 9 authors of the NT wrote down what happened in public. Tens of thousands of people would have been affected in some way by the events they relate. We have historical evidence that some significant number of people acted on their belief that the events of the NT happened (even before the gospels were written): there are churches across the Roman Empire before 50 AD. 1 Peter? Are you kidding me? That's 5 chapters out of 260. 

In addition, your use of the term 'anonymous' is inaccurate and often used in an attempt to poison the well. Do you actually think that the people who received the first copies of the gospels received them on their doorsteps and did not know where they came from? Get real. They would have known exactly who the editor was and where the information came from. The name of the editor is unimportant to pass along. The only concern was the apostle's name who provided the input.

So, your comparison is nonsense and your charge of special pleading unsupported.

They wrote down what they believed happened.  You give the bible a level of trust that I'm sure you give to no other book or collection that is so old.  You WANT it to be true.

I, for one, sincerely believe that the Hobbit was written by Bilbo Baggins and is an accurate first-hand account of the adventures of Gandalf, Bilbo, and the Dwarfs.

[SteveII]

I never did get an answer from SteveII on this post, so I'll ask it again:
Christians, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Saul of Tarsus' head?


Get it yet?

My question was in regard to what actually counts as evidence that claims are true, as opposed to evidence of what people believe. If Joseph Smith's "evidence" doesn't convince you of Mormonism, why in the world does Saul of Tarsus' "evidence" convince you of the validity of Christian claims?

Since the answer is of interest to others...

Paul refers to events that happened to other people in public. He names them. Those people wrote stuff down too. People mentioned him in their writings. He wrote letters to people who already believed the gospel story. There is a web of details, content, timing, location, and corroboration to consider.  

Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison (for a change) to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of.


So, the comparison is so bad as to be nonsense.

[RoadRunner79]

This is a big difference, that I find when looking at other religious accounts.  Quite often (and I think out of necessity) the events happen isolated in a cave or out in the woods somewhere to only one person, or they occurred a long long time ago, in a far away land.  And when they are not, I am able to take the information into consideration to form an intelligent conclusion.  No need to deny the evidence and call the people liars or delusional.  But to look at all the evidence, and form an intelligent conclusion.

I do think the argument of anonymity is interesting.  Often, because the same people who make this case, will quite often contradict themselves shortly after.

---

What is the question that you had or the comment, that you think is being ignored.

"What is the question that you had or the comment, that you think is being ignored."


Probably something along the lines of the one I have asked multiple times now (for instance in this post: https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1618334)

Here is the question

Christians, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Saul of Tarsus' head?

The answer is yes... there are a number of other people who wrote and others corroborated what Paul taught (both from Peter, and the early Church)

This is the point that was being made.  The core of the Gospel doesn't rely on the single testimony about something that happened hidden away in a cave for it's source.    Would you agree, that it is different in this respect from most other religious accounts?

[TheBeardedDude]

"What is the question that you had or the comment, that you think is being ignored."


Probably something along the lines of the one I have asked multiple times now (for instance in this post: https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1618334)

Here is the question

Christians, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Saul of Tarsus' head?

The answer is yes... there are a number of other people who wrote and others corroborated what Paul taught (both from Peter, and the early Church)

This is the point that was being made.  The core of the Gospel doesn't rely on the single testimony about something that happened hidden away in a cave for it's source.    Would you agree, that it is different in this respect from most other religious accounts?

Other people who wrote about Jesus...long after Jesus supposedly lived. There are no contemporary accounts. So while there are many people who believed the same things as Paul and/or believed Paul, that doesn't corroborate the claims coming from Paul's head. So no, there is no more reason to believe Saul of Tarsus than Joseph Smith, and yet some do choose to believe one over the other (special pleading).

---

I never did get an answer from SteveII on this post, so I'll ask it again:
Christians, are you serious? Do you think there is evidence to consider outside Saul of Tarsus' head?


Get it yet?

My question was in regard to what actually counts as evidence that claims are true, as opposed to evidence of what people believe. If Joseph Smith's "evidence" doesn't convince you of Mormonism, why in the world does Saul of Tarsus' "evidence" convince you of the validity of Christian claims?

Since the answer is of interest to others...

Paul refers to events that happened to other people in public. He names them. Those people wrote stuff down too. People mentioned him in their writings. He wrote letters to people who already believed the gospel story. There is a web of details, content, timing, location, and corroboration to consider.  

Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison (for a change) to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of.


So, the comparison is so bad as to be nonsense.

And there is the special pleading. So while the delusions of one man are unacceptable, they are acceptable for another. This is an excellent example of Christian special pleading.

[SteveII]

Here is the question


The answer is yes... there are a number of other people who wrote and others corroborated what Paul taught (both from Peter, and the early Church)

This is the point that was being made.  The core of the Gospel doesn't rely on the single testimony about something that happened hidden away in a cave for it's source.    Would you agree, that it is different in this respect from most other religious accounts?

Other people who wrote about Jesus...long after Jesus supposedly lived. There are no contemporary accounts. So while there are many people who believed the same things as Paul and/or believed Paul, that doesn't corroborate the claims coming from Paul's head. So no, there is no more reason to believe Saul of Tarsus than Joseph Smith, and yet some do choose to believe one over the other (special pleading).

---

Since the answer is of interest to others...

Paul refers to events that happened to other people in public. He names them. Those people wrote stuff down too. People mentioned him in their writings. He wrote letters to people who already believed the gospel story. There is a web of details, content, timing, location, and corroboration to consider.  

Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of things that happened only to him. No one else was there. This is actually a good comparison (for a change) to the alien abduction example atheists are so fond of.

So, the comparison is so bad as to be nonsense.

And there is the special pleading. So while the delusions of one man are unacceptable, they are acceptable for another. This is an excellent example of Christian special pleading.

Perhaps a refresher...

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.

The only circumstances that were similar in this situation were that something was written. Everything else was different. So, we have one similarity and hundreds of dissimilarities. Therefore the circumstance were not even close to being similar and therefore no special pleading can occur.

[Harry Nevis]

Other people who wrote about Jesus...long after Jesus supposedly lived. There are no contemporary accounts. So while there are many people who believed the same things as Paul and/or believed Paul, that doesn't corroborate the claims coming from Paul's head. So no, there is no more reason to believe Saul of Tarsus than Joseph Smith, and yet some do choose to believe one over the other (special pleading).

---

And there is the special pleading. So while the delusions of one man are unacceptable, they are acceptable for another. This is an excellent example of Christian special pleading.

Perhaps a refresher...

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.

The only circumstances that were similar in this situation were that something was written. Everything else was different. So, we have one similarity and hundreds of dissimilarities. Therefore the circumstance were not even close to being similar and therefore no special pleading can occur.

You have no reason to believe anything in the bible except that you have a strong emotional want to believe it.

[RoadRunner79]

Here is the question


The answer is yes... there are a number of other people who wrote and others corroborated what Paul taught (both from Peter, and the early Church)

This is the point that was being made.  The core of the Gospel doesn't rely on the single testimony about something that happened hidden away in a cave for it's source.    Would you agree, that it is different in this respect from most other religious accounts?

Other people who wrote about Jesus...long after Jesus supposedly lived. There are no contemporary accounts. So while there are many people who believed the same things as Paul and/or believed Paul, that doesn't corroborate the claims coming from Paul's head. So no, there is no more reason to believe Saul of Tarsus than Joseph Smith, and yet some do choose to believe one over the other (special pleading).

That sounds like a claim, in need of support.

[TheBeardedDude]

Other people who wrote about Jesus...long after Jesus supposedly lived. There are no contemporary accounts. So while there are many people who believed the same things as Paul and/or believed Paul, that doesn't corroborate the claims coming from Paul's head. So no, there is no more reason to believe Saul of Tarsus than Joseph Smith, and yet some do choose to believe one over the other (special pleading).

---

And there is the special pleading. So while the delusions of one man are unacceptable, they are acceptable for another. This is an excellent example of Christian special pleading.

Perhaps a refresher...

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.

The only circumstances that were similar in this situation were that something was written. Everything else was different. So, we have one similarity and hundreds of dissimilarities. Therefore the circumstance were not even close to being similar and therefore no special pleading can occur.

They are literally the same thing. Joseph Smith makes claims of visions and conversations with God and claims to have been divinely-inspired to write about Jesus. Saul of Tarsus does literally the exact same thing. One is accepted, the other not. Both have the same level, type, and quantity of evidence to back-up their claims (none at all).

So yeah, it is literally a textbook example of special pleading. Thank you for demonstrating it well 

---

Other people who wrote about Jesus...long after Jesus supposedly lived. There are no contemporary accounts. So while there are many people who believed the same things as Paul and/or believed Paul, that doesn't corroborate the claims coming from Paul's head. So no, there is no more reason to believe Saul of Tarsus than Joseph Smith, and yet some do choose to believe one over the other (special pleading).

That sounds like a claim, in need of support.

What "claim" are you referring to? The paucity of contemporary accounts of Jesus? I've never encountered any. The closest anyone seems to be able to get is a reference by Josephus (who doesn't provide any corroborative details of the gospel accounts), who never met Jesus and never witnessed anything Jesus did (so not a contemporary source). Saul of Tarsus lived at least a generation after Jesus died, so he's not a contemporary. And while the gospels exist, the earliest any of them has been dated to (as far as I am aware) is ~70CE, so none of the gospels are contemporary accounts in any verifiable way (and we don't even know who wrote much of them).