Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[LadyForCamus]

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?

In order for a personal comment to qualify as poisoning the well, it must be preemptive.. That's what makes it a fallacy. Simon was simply commenting on Steve's reasoning.  

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...g-the-Well

What do you mean, 'what's the context'?  Lol.  This is about the most straightforward question I've ever asked you, RR. No "context"
necessary to weigh in; just your evaluation of the available information. What's so hard about that?

Do you find the testimony of the Bible to be reliable, high-quality testimony?  Why, or why not?

Your glaring evasion of this question in favor of speculation about my motives (boy, does THAT sound familiar) speaks volumes, my friend.  

And, Steve is special pleading because he has failed to distinguish his religion's supernatural stories as better evidenced (thus different enough to disqualify it from the fallacy) than other religion's stories, which was his assertion.  All he did was say, "We'll assume as such for the sake of the argument," which is no different than saying, "for the sake of the argument, let's assume it's not special pleading."

[Astonished]

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.

But fuck us when we point out all your other mistakes, jackass.

[vorlon13]

Rebecca bears testimony that the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ and is the word of God:

The Book of Mormon, as it says on the cover, is another testament of Jesus Christ, and it is the missing piece of the puzzle. The Book of Mormon itself I think-- yeah, it really does answer all those questions that I had and other people had, I guess, about the Bible. The Bible, I think there are a lot of things that seem to be missing, and some contradictions, and some bits and pieces that just don't really make sense. But as soon as you put the Book of Mormon into it, everything just makes sense and it becomes a whole story.
You know, it's a book that you can pick up. And if you pray about it, you can feel the Spirit at any time whilst reading it. And I think that's pretty special, that God is willing to give you confirmation that what you're reading is true. And so that's what makes it different to any other book.

[TheBeardedDude]

Steve, you ever going to present to us your super secret sources for contemporary accounts of 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?

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.

And for the record, if you've been reading along; Steve was the one who started name-calling.  Not me. I recall the words, 'stupid', and 'obnoxious' from him, before I retaliated.  I've been consistently addressing the argument, and asking him to clarify his position.  He's the one who's attitude went from haughty to sour in a matter of pages (wonder why that was?).  So, this:  'all you atheists do is personally attack and avoid discussion' is demonstrably false in this thread as it pertains to me, personally.

[TheBeardedDude]

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.

And for the record, if you've been reading along; Steve was the one who started name-calling.  Not me.  I recall the words, 'stupid', and 'obnoxious' from him, before I retaliated.  I've been consistently addressing the argument, and asking him to clarify his position.  He's the one who's attitude went from haughty to sour in a matter of pages (wonder why that was?).  So, this:  'all you atheists do is personally attack and avoid discussion' is demonstrably false in this thread as it pertains to me, personally.

The statement is demonstrably false in this thread for the majority of respondents. Steve got his feelings hurt when he contradicted himself in his very own thread, he literally engages in special pleading for Christianity while simultaneously claiming he isn't. I guess he didn't like having that called out, probably because his interests center around preaching and not conversation/debate. Steve (and RR too) presume that they have a lot to teach us, but nothing to learn. So they presume that they will do just that, teach us. Except what they have to teach is erroneous, demonstrably false, and unwanted. You can't teach bullshit to people who know bullshit when they smell it.

[LadyForCamus]

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence. Therefore: no special pleading," is one of the laziest arguments I have seen put forth by an apologist on these forums in two years. Why did he think that we were simply going to grant him that assumption, unchallenged?

[TheBeardedDude]

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence.  Therefore: no special pleading," is one of the laziest arguments I have seen put forth by an apologist on these forums in two years.  Why did he think that we were simply going to grant that assumption, unchallenged?

It was pretty dumb to put it forth. If atheists already accept it as evidence, then why would we be atheists? 

The only thing I can think of is that it is irrelevant if we accept his central claim or not. Because he isn't here to discuss or debate it, he is here to preach it. And if we reject it, then at least he can pretend he is a "good" christian out there trying to lazily convert the heathens to the light. Except he probably doesn't realize that lazily and dishonestly evangelizing for Jesus, is doing him no favors within his own theology and religion. He is supposed to be a good messenger for Christ, but he is only being an insulting and belittling prick. He is being lazy for Jesus. He is being dishonest for Jesus. He is being an average "Christian" for Jesus.

[RoadRunner79]

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence.  Therefore: no special pleading," is one of the laziest arguments I have seen put forth by an apologist on these forums in two years.  Why did he think that we were simply going to grant him that assumption, unchallenged?

I believe that his assumption he asked for was that testimony was evidence. And given the nature of the topic, about special pleading, I don't think that assuming his views on testimony is unreasonable in this circumstance.

---

And for the record, if you've been reading along; Steve was the one who started name-calling.  Not me.  I recall the words, 'stupid', and 'obnoxious' from him, before I retaliated.  I've been consistently addressing the argument, and asking him to clarify his position.  He's the one who's attitude went from haughty to sour in a matter of pages (wonder why that was?).  So, this:  'all you atheists do is personally attack and avoid discussion' is demonstrably false in this thread as it pertains to me, personally.

The statement is demonstrably false in this thread for the majority of respondents. Steve got his feelings hurt when he contradicted himself in his very own thread, he literally engages in special pleading for Christianity while simultaneously claiming he isn't. I guess he didn't like having that called out, probably because his interests center around preaching and not conversation/debate. Steve (and RR too) presume that they have a lot to teach us, but nothing to learn. So they presume that they will do just that, teach us. Except what they have to teach is erroneous, demonstrably false, and unwanted. You can't teach bullshit to people who know bullshit when they smell it.

I can speak for myself thanks! And I find your assumptions to be incorrect (at least as far as I am concerned).

Also, I am still curious where this special pleading is supposed to have occurred?

[vorlon13]

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence.  Therefore: no special pleading," is one of the laziest arguments I have seen put forth by an apologist on these forums in two years.  Why did he think that we were simply going to grant him that assumption, unchallenged?

Jesus told him so ??