Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Minimalist]

Bible stories are a house of cards which can't survive having many cards removed.

[Crossless2.0]

I love that point in a theist's thread when all their convoluted apologist scaffolding begins to collapse in on itself.

Yeah, that tends to happen when you build your house on sand.

Of course, the contractor must have been telling you the truth when he insisted that it was really rock.  

[LadyForCamus]

Yes it is an assertion of fact, not an actual fact, in order for it to be fact it would need to be verified. So Testimony absent verification cannot be fact, therefore it cannot be evidence, since you defined evidence as "facts that support a conclusion". 

If your just going to let people assert their own "facts" without verification, you put yourself in a position in which you can't determine what is actually true. Your actually a walking example of special pleading because you accept these unverified claims of Christianity as fact, but you don't apply that same standard to the claims of the various religions.

Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification. We know a large number of people believed the same as the assertions (not because of them) -more verification.

You can't simply claim special pleading.  Illustrate how there are similar circumstances in some other religion. Back up your argument.

Nope.  Right in your OP is your claim that Christianity is inherently different from all other religions, and as such, not subject to special pleading.  The burden of proof is yours, and after sixty some odd pages, you've demonstrated nothing except your willingness to lie and question-beg in the name of the lord.  Bravo.

[Minimalist]

Xtianity:

[Pat Mustard]

Bullshit apologist speak

Is there any other kind?

Fucking bullshit apologist speak.

[Astreja]

So you don't believe John 14:12?  

Two problems with that. First, Jesus was talking to his disciples, second, it is very clear that Jesus would be the supernatural cause of any effect.

So you don't view yourself as a modern-day disciple of Jesus, then?

[Minimalist]

Apparently jesus was full of shit which is no surprise seeing as how he is already 1900 years late coming "back."

Oh, wait.  I know the fucktard answer to that one.... "Any day now...... any day now....."

So you see when telling shit like J 14:12 he is only speaking to his "disciples" but when he is speaking to his homies and says "some of you will not taste death" before I get my sorry ass back here then he is speaking to EVERYONE.

You need the special Jesus Freak De-Coder Ring in order to tell the difference.

[KevinM1]

"Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Millions of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear. Yet, no one actually believes he removed it from our plane of existence. Multiple people can testify to some event, and still be wrong. How can you not grasp this basic idea?

[I_am_not_mafia]

You can have the same story printed by many different newspapers yet if they all got the story from the same source who lied, then all those printed articles will be too. Counting the number of assertions is not evidence of the veracity of the story. You need to consider the source of each one and how interdependent they all are.

[Whateverist]

I'm pointing out that you defined evidence as facts that support a conclusion and you just acknowledged that claims of the testimony may not be fact, therefore by your own standards for evidence that you set up testimony would not count as evidence. Then you said in the OP that testimony will be considered evidence for religions, which i'm pretty sure is special pleading.

Testimony is an assertion of fact.

Provided someone is testifying truthfully, then at best they are asserting what they think is true.

If you want to believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact.

Fixed that for you (with my bolded).