Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[vorlon13]

Do you imagine that beating that inane drum means anything to anyone? You sound ignorant and foolish EVERY time you say it.

Has it ever been addressed?  I don't remember anyone explaining it.

It doesn't have to be explained (from the believers viewpoint). They are to rejoice in His word. It suits an omniscient, eternal, all powerful omnipotent deity to have His believers believe in His ordained double crucifixion for His only begotten son, and that's all that matters. Recorded inerrantly in His perfect book, The Bible, it inspires Belief and Fealty in His Word !!!

[Minimalist]

I certainly did, Huggy.  I fucking love this one!

[T]here is no independent evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament. All external evidence for his existence, even if it were fully authentic (though much of it isn’t), cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels. None of it can be shown to independently corroborate the Gospels as to the historicity of Jesus. Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives.

[Amarok]

Last check no one dismissed it . And are huggy arguing all Wikipedia articles are equal?. Good so you can point out salient sources and why they matter right huggy? And last I checked none of us needed to rely on a wiki article.

[vorlon13]

so why can't we get any actual believers here, instead of all these heretics trying to PROVE things and destroy belief ??

[vorlon13]

BTW, that was one of those Religion 101 things they tell you in Sunday School.


Sheesh, did everyone else sleep through all that ??

[Amarok]

I certainly did, Huggy.  I fucking love this one!

[T]here is no independent evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament. All external evidence for his existence, even if it were fully authentic (though much of it isn’t), cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels. None of it can be shown to independently corroborate the Gospels as to the historicity of Jesus. Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives.

Now watch the article be "dismissed " by huggy

[Whateverist]

Yeah, they're all special pleading but I felt like I needed to throw him a bone.

But all religions engaging in special pleading, doesn't mean that they don't all engage in it. So it isn't true that: "Thats why accepting eye witness testimony for any one of them is not special pleading." It precisely IS special pleading.

I thought that was what I just said in what you quoted. Am I missing something?

[LadyForCamus]

It is obvious that more is better.

By your own protestations I thought we weren't discussing likelihood of truth here; only differentiation?  This is where the question-begging comes in, but I'll get to that.

 First, 'It's a fact because it's obvious,'  is neither an argument, nor evidence.  You're simply re-asserting that more testimony of a supernatural claim equals better evidence for that claim.  Further, we have provided examples which demonstrate this assertion to be patently false.  So, as of right now, you have failed to foster a case for why Christianity is different from other religions so as to excuse it from special pleading, because the reason you've put forth for what differentiates it (it has more testimony, which means better evidence, therefore different) has not been supported; only asserted.

Now in addition to more, you have different kinds (categories) of information (refer to letters a through k below for the different kinds of information). Other religions don't have other kinds of information to consider to support the initial (often singular) claim.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.  What you have is a bunch of people telling the same supernatural story to other people, and then those people telling more people.  Often the details of the story don't even agree with one another.  That's all one category, Steve:  here-say.  No different from any other religion.

and more specifically the list of points in letters a through k below. There is absolutely no circular arguments because again, there is a list of reasons to infer the conclusion.

This is where the question begging comes in.  A through K are not reasons; they're rationalizations for believing in a supernatural claim without evidence.  Testimony of a supernatural event is not the evidence, it's the claim. And, this is exactly why you prefaced your entire argument with:

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume testimony is evidence."  

In other words, "Let's assume, in defense of special pleading charges, Christianity is better evidenced than other religions."

You knew full well that without that unsupported assumption built in, your argument collapses into a big empty circle; a NON-argument.  So, let's look at it again, shall we?:  

'It's not fallacious to accept Christianity as more likely to be true, because Christianity is more likely to be true.'

Absent any actual evidence, which supports the truth of Christian supernatural claims, this is 100% begging the question. I mean, you could say, 'it's not fallacious to accept Christianity over other religions because it is better evidenced,' but you'd still have to back up your assertion/assumption of ancient testimony as evidence.

Evidence/facts/information along can never convince anyone of anything. It will always need the application of reasoning as to the conclusion.

You have no evidence, and your reasoning is fallacious.

Off topic and I don't have time.

*shrugs*   You brought it up; not me. I thought maybe you had something in the way of actual evidence to share.

[TheBeardedDude]

But all religions engaging in special pleading, doesn't mean that they don't all engage in it. So it isn't true that: "Thats why accepting eye witness testimony for any one of them is not special pleading." It precisely IS special pleading.

I thought that was what I just said in what you quoted. Am I missing something?

I was clarifying that the initial statement of: "Thats why accepting eye witness testimony for any one of them is not special pleading" wasn't true and that your latter statement: "Yeah, they're all special pleading but I felt like I needed to throw him a bone" is much better.

[LadyForCamus]

Double post; sorry for all the editing on that last one. I still have trouble with the quotation formatting, lol.