Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

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 think that people did not live into their 70s and 80s in the first century? John is thought to have been in his mid-90s. 

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.

[Huggy Bear]

Nah.  Shit like this:

Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. - Psalm 116:15

infuriates me.  Fucking god can go fuck himself. 

I bet Huggy wanks to it, though.

Why does that infuriate you?

[Minimalist]

[Huggy Bear]

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

[LadyForCamus]

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 think that people did not live into their 70s and 80s in the first century? John is thought to have been in his mid-90s.

I mean...sure?  I've no idea what the average life span was in the first century but, "we don't know that the Gospel writers couldn't have known Jesus," is not evidence supporting that any of them did.  Do you think such speculation advances your case for the truth of the NT claims of Jesus?  

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.

-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.  

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.  😉

[Minimalist]

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.

[Whateverist]

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

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.

[Crossless2.0]

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

Meh. People will do any silly thing to attend the occasional potluck.

[Huggy Bear]

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

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

"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.