Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Huggy Bear]

You mean the one where I included Carl Sagan explaining how interaction with a being from another dimension would work? Which in turn vindicates the Audio recording?

You mean the one where you invoked Carl Sagan in support of your little theory about the Holy Spirit, but then admitted that he would not accept your supernatural claim based on the available evidence?  Yeah, I remember.  That's called, colloquially, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No no, I said he wouldn't know what to call it, observing the data, he would undoubtedly recognize it as supernatural.

Supernatural - departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

---

You mean the one where I included Carl Sagan explaining how interaction with a being from another dimension would work? Which in turn vindicates the Audio recording?

But you don't care about facts, LFC you never do...
https://atheistforums.org/thread-41513-p...pid1213780


Your bias is clear...

Vindicates?  Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

I used the word properly bud...

[I_am_not_mafia]

really LFC, really? And you guys say you don't believe in imaginary things.

We don't and you do

I wouldn't even say imaginary. At least if you imagine something then you can picture it in your mind's eye know what you are imagining. Theists don't even imagine. They just picture a fuzzy blob and do some hand waving if you ask questions about the specifics of what they believe in.

[Amarok]

No no, I said he wouldn't know what to call it, observing the data, he would undoubtedly recognize it as supernatural.

1. He's dead so we will never know what he thought of it .
2. I guessing no because he unlike you he was not an idiot.
3.reread this statement it makes no sense .

I used the word properly bud...

Nope if you did the statement you used it in would not exist.

[Minimalist]

One more time:

I think Huggy needs a cold shower!

---

Continuing with Noll's destruction of the so-called testimony bullshit.

The key question is this: given that the Gospels produced
after Paul’s time are constructed from literary motifs common to the
ancient Near East, so that the Jesus who speaks and acts in these Gospels
is, for the most part, generic, performing common miracles and espousing
common teachings, why was this literature promoted as though it were
eyewitness testimony?


Pg. 265

[LadyForCamus]

You mean the one where you invoked Carl Sagan in support of your little theory about the Holy Spirit, but then admitted that he would not accept your supernatural claim based on the available evidence?  Yeah, I remember.  That's called, colloquially, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No no, I said he wouldn't know what to call it, observing the data, he would undoubtedly recognize it as supernatural.

Undoubtedly, huh?  I wonder why it is then, that this picture has not been named by the modern scientific community as conclusive evidence of supernatural.

[Amarok]

No no, I said he wouldn't know what to call it, observing the data, he would undoubtedly recognize it as supernatural.

Undoubtedly, huh?  I wonder why it is then, that this picture has not been named by the modern scientific community as conclusive evidence of supernatural.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

And if yer a prod, about 1650 for finalising the bible. They're still revising the english versions of the rcc one.

[Whateverist]

We don't and you do

I wouldn't even say imaginary. At least if you imagine something then you can picture it in your mind's eye know what you are imagining. Theists don't even imagine. They just picture a fuzzy blob and do some hand waving if you ask questions about the specifics of what they believe in.

Even though they know beyond a shred of doubt just what their God expects of them and us, and are happy to tell us. (As to how It will do that .. strange, mysterious and -they hope- eternally painful ways.)

[Huggy Bear]

No no, I said he wouldn't know what to call it, observing the data, he would undoubtedly recognize it as supernatural.

Undoubtedly, huh?  I wonder why it is then, that this picture has not been named by the modern scientific community as conclusive evidence of supernatural.

Because maybe the scientific community is too busy praising Satan...

[Redbeard The Pink]

The all powerful Judeo-Christian god, the ancient Canaanite war god, the supposed creator of the universe, did not lift one finger to save nine people in a church, IN A CHURCH, HIS CHURCH, from a white racist asshole.   There is some evidence for you.  What is one to think?  Either this supposed being does not exist, or it is a monster, or a racist, or both.

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? - Romans 8:32


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

Death cult! Death cult! Everyone join the death cult!