Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[KevinM1]

I don't think it is possible to have a serious discussion about why the hype surrounding the xtian religion is to be believed, while that surrounding other belief systems is not.  I think what we have here is 50+ pages of people being flabbergasted by Steve's -from our POV- impudence, but we also realize it his blind faith that blinds him.

Yup. Although the answer to the former is largely social inertia magnified by violent expansion and colonialism.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't know if it happened. I doubt because of 1) the lack of context of every other miracle ever performed (they had a specific purpose), 2) there are some rebuttal witnesses that said no, it did not happen, and 3) there was nothing on the line when people said "I saw it"--it did necessitate a call to action or any required change of belief.

Because of course, 1000's of people that can be interviewed moments after an event, are no where near as reliable as, 500 anonymous people, whose stories are not recorded for decades or more after the alleged events.

Move those stories 1800 years in the past, and somehow they become even more reliable.

That is a textbook example of special pleading. What is the title of this thread again?

Intellectual honesty is not quite your thing, is it Steve?

If you have an issue with what Steve is saying, perhaps it would be better to let him speak for himself. Straw manning, and poisoning the well are not exactly intellectual qualities either.

This is why with many atheist you need to keep things simple, on a very narrow topic, and it's difficult to have a discussion at all.
Rhetoric and sophism, are the norm, and they will overload you in all directions and inconsistencies, and then argue against not what you say.... but some distortion of it.

[Minimalist]

Simple is what you guys do best.  In fact, it is about all you can handle.

That's why we have people believing silly shit about "jesus."

[LadyForCamus]

Because of course, 1000's of people that can be interviewed moments after an event, are no where near as reliable as, 500 anonymous people, whose stories are not recorded for decades or more after the alleged events.

Move those stories 1800 years in the past, and somehow they become even more reliable.

That is a textbook example of special pleading. What is the title of this thread again?

Intellectual honesty is not quite your thing, is it Steve?

Straw manning, and poisoning the well are not exactly intellectual qualities either.

You do realize Steve DID speak for him self on the matter, and his answer is what Simon was responding to?  So, how is that a straw man?  And please identify the "poisoning the well" fallacy here, because I don't think you understand what it means.

In other news, I'm still waiting for you to answer a question I asked you pages ago.   I'll ask again.  Do you think that the testimony in the Bible is high quality, reliable testimony?  Why or why not?

[RoadRunner79]

Straw manning, and poisoning the well are not exactly intellectual qualities either.

You do realize Steve DID speak for him self on the matter, and his answer is what Simon was responding to?  So, how is that a straw man?  And please identify the "poisoning the well" fallacy here, because I don't think you understand what it means.

In other news, I'm still waiting for you to answer a question I asked you pages ago.   I'll ask again.  Do you think that the testimony in the Bible is high quality, reliable testimony?  Why or why not?

Yes... and other than the general topic, there is very little else, that corresponds to what Steve said.  And I do not think he is reflecting Steve's position in his assertions. 

As to poisoning the well.... I think that calling him intellectually dishonest qualifies, especially when it's concerning a straw man.  It may be somewhat disputable, but the repetition across the board is getting old.  It's more about attacking and discrediting the person, than the arguments and reasons presented.

As to your question.... I don't remember the context of the question, and frankly your feigning of interest only to criticize for discussing previously doesn't lend me to starting another discussion with you right now.

---

After this many posts.... I'm still trying to figure out where this supposed special pleading is occurring?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Straw manning, and poisoning the well are not exactly intellectual qualities either.

You do realize Steve DID speak for him self on the matter, and his answer is what Simon was responding to?  So, how is that a straw man?  And please identify the "poisoning the well" fallacy here, because I don't think you understand what it means.

In other news, I'm still waiting for you to answer a question I asked you pages ago.   I'll ask again.  Do you think that the testimony in the Bible is high quality, reliable testimony?  Why or why not?

Thank you for this post.  The poisoning the well fallacy seems like a variant of an ad hominem fallacy.

Via Bo Bennett's Logically Fallacious, I find the following fallacies to be interesting, especially as they relate to the common criticisms of  the theistic position that I've observed here on AF: special pleading; failure to elucidate; hedging; appeal to common belief; appeal to heaven; argument from age; proving non-existence; stereotyping. In addition, IMO, the following B-list fallacies are also interesting: amazing familiarity; argument by laziness; argument from design; argument to the future; fantasy projection; god wildcard fallacy; argument from inertia.

[Astreja]

What? How did Rome get involved?

Oh, come on, now!  Do I really have to remind you that in the Gospels, the Romans -- who were occupying Jerusalem -- were the ones who supposedly executed Jesus?

Why would a philosophy writer from another country (which did not have even one Christian church) who died a decade after Jesus know of or feel the need to comment? We don't even have all of his works. Not going any further down this rabbit trail.

At the time that Jesus supposedly lived, no country had a "Christian Church."  Alexandria did indeed have a Christian faction in later years; in fact, it was Christian monks who murdered the mathematician Hypatia.

Philo of Alexandria was a historian who was regularly in Jerusalem, and in contact with people in the Herodian dynasty.  If any of the Gospel events described in the run-up to the crucifixion  -- massive crowds in support of a miracle-working rabbi who was at odds with the local religious establishment -- had actually happened, Philo almost certainly would have written something.

Either there never was a Jesus for Philo to notice, or Jesus was just too insignificant for Philo to bother writing about.

[RoadRunner79]

Or Philo wasn't primarily a historical writer who covered the news on occasion.

[I_am_not_mafia]

This is why with many atheist you need to ...

What the fuck is it is with theists refusing to use the word "atheists"? Is it that they can't cope with there being more than one atheist?

No theist ever seems to explain why they do it when it's pointed out to them.

[RoadRunner79]

This is why with many atheist you need to  ...

What the fuck is it is with theists refusing to use the word "atheists"? Is it that they can't cope with there being more than one atheist?

No theist ever seems to explain why they do it when it's pointed out to them.

Don't know...perhaps just a slip.  Never noticed it before, but I'll try to pay more attention in the future.  Nothing intended by it, and thanks for catching my mistake.