Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[The Grand Nudger]

Steve believes that it isn;t special pleading when christians do it.  

[vorlon13]

Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?


This makes no sense what so ever.  You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true.  In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true.  Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading.  Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction.

"Why am I not surprised that you would stick with your echo chamber?"

Why are you on an atheist forum complaining about atheists backing up atheists on said atheist forum? 

"This makes no sense what so ever.  You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true.  In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true.  Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading.  Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction."

Making it clear, yet again, that you didn't read any of the discussions explaining how it is special pleading.

Accepting the claims of Christianity as true, but not the claims of (we will stick with Mormonism) of another religion when they have literally the exact same type of "evidence" (personal testimony that is asserted to be unquestionably true and unquestionably derived from interactions with a god) and quantity of "evidence," is the very definition of special pleading.

Mormon evidence is superlative in many ways. Most was published in a timely fashion, dates and names of the folks involved are known and have been known since the actual events and even before. Even locations where events happened are known.

Evidentiary requirements postulated by non-Mormon Christians in regards to evaluating their own claims are met emphatically by the Mormons. Hands down. It's really over whelming.

[TheBeardedDude]

Steve believes that it isn;t special pleading when christians do it.  

It's special special pleading

[The Grand Nudger]

-and that's how you know it's true.  It's twice as special as anyone else's pleading.

[TheBeardedDude]

-and that's how you know it's true.  It's twice as special as anyone else's pleading.

mind = blown

[RoadRunner79]

I don't know how else to say it to you RR.  To ask your interlocutors to 'assume for the sake of the argument that there is evidence for my religion' so that you can say, 'therefore, it's not special pleading because my religion has evidence,' is entirely circular.  He's failed to make a case for excusing Christianity from special pleading, which is what he set out to do.

With this reasoning, anyone would be equally valid in saying that you are special pleading, merely on the basis of disagreement.  You demanding that your interlocutors deny testimony as evidence is special pleading.  And thus the whole claim is subjective.

If you look at the definition for special pleading [here]
You will see that special pleading involves a person asserting a standard or principle, and then making an exemption to that standard without adequate justification for that exemption.  Not that you assert the standard, and they disagree with it.

This is also, why I have sought to go back to basics about what is evidence and similar posts, rather than talking about specifics based on the principles.  And this (combined with lack of time, and overall being tired) is why I was ignoring your question about the quality of the testimony in the scriptures.  Because in the end, you can just dismiss it anyway, and go back to testimony is not evidence.

[Brian37]

I don't know how else to say it to you RR.  To ask your interlocutors to 'assume for the sake of the argument that there is evidence for my religion' so that you can say, 'therefore, it's not special pleading because my religion has evidence,' is entirely circular.  He's failed to make a case for excusing Christianity from special pleading, which is what he set out to do.

With this reasoning, anyone would be equally valid in saying that you are special pleading, merely on the basis of disagreement.  You demanding that your interlocutors deny testimony as evidence is special pleading.  And thus the whole claim is subjective.

If you look at the definition for special pleading [here]
You will see that special pleading involves a person asserting a standard or principle, and then making an exemption to that standard without adequate justification for that exemption.  Not that you assert the standard, and they disagree with it.

This is also, why I have sought to go back to basics about what is evidence and similar posts, rather than talking about specifics based on the principles.  And this (combined with lack of time, and overall being tired) is why I was ignoring your question about the quality of the testimony in the scriptures.  Because in the end, you can just dismiss it anyway, and go back to testimony is not evidence.

Same problem with every follower of every religion. NO EVIDENCE!

We cant dumb it down any further for you. 

"Because I say so" is not an argument.

There is only ONE method that is universal in settling disputes between competing claims and that is scientific method.

This is just blather on your part, word salad, and mental masturbation. Now, get it in a lab, get it tested and falsified and independently peer reviewed then you can get a patent and a Nobel Prize. None of what you or Steve have posted constitutes neutral scientifically proven evidence. We are not being unfair to either of you, our argument would be the same no matter whom or the religion they claim.

We've seen the same tactics from all the world's major religion's followers. When they cant con someone with holy writing, they try to debunk science, when they cant debunk science they try to get it to point to their club. Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists pull this crap too. It does not work when you or Steve or anyone of any religion does it.

You have a claim you like, so what, get in line, take a number.

[LadyForCamus]

"This makes no sense what so ever.  You can have evidence for both, and contrary views can not both be true.  In a trial, the attorneys both present their evidence (one side for the defense and one side for the prosecution) it's not logical to believe that both are true.  Also, reasons where given, why they where thought to not be comparable. From what I seen concerning Joseph Smith there was given reasons why his testimony could be questioned, as well as the difference in circumstances of the testimony (personal vs private) You can disagree, but that does not make it special pleading.  Now if one is saying that testimony is not evidence but says that it is for just Christianity or the story of evolution, then that would be special pleading, unless it is accompanied by justification for the distinction."

Making it clear, yet again, that you didn't read any of the discussions explaining how it is special pleading.

Accepting the claims of Christianity as true, but not the claims of (we will stick with Mormonism) of another religion when they have literally the exact same type of "evidence" (personal testimony that is asserted to be unquestionably true and unquestionably derived from interactions with a god) and quantity of "evidence," is the very definition of special pleading.

It seems like an overly simple view, to only base it on the type of evidence, and not look at the details and context further.   Also, where did you get these "unquestionably" remarks?  At best, if you think the evidence is equal; you get to an agnostic position.  And again, just because you disagree, doesn't make it special pleading.  I think that you are trying to evaluate an overly simplified view, that doesn't represent what Steve believes.

I think you haven't been reading the thread, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

[TheBeardedDude]

It seems like an overly simple view, to only base it on the type of evidence, and not look at the details and context further.   Also, where did you get these "unquestionably" remarks?  At best, if you think the evidence is equal; you get to an agnostic position.  And again, just because you disagree, doesn't make it special pleading.  I think that you are trying to evaluate an overly simplified view, that doesn't represent what Steve believes.

I think you haven't been reading the thread, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think that your observation is spot-on as it is the same observation several others have also made.

[RoadRunner79]

With this reasoning, anyone would be equally valid in saying that you are special pleading, merely on the basis of disagreement.  You demanding that your interlocutors deny testimony as evidence is special pleading.  And thus the whole claim is subjective.

If you look at the definition for special pleading [here]
You will see that special pleading involves a person asserting a standard or principle, and then making an exemption to that standard without adequate justification for that exemption.  Not that you assert the standard, and they disagree with it.

This is also, why I have sought to go back to basics about what is evidence and similar posts, rather than talking about specifics based on the principles.  And this (combined with lack of time, and overall being tired) is why I was ignoring your question about the quality of the testimony in the scriptures.  Because in the end, you can just dismiss it anyway, and go back to testimony is not evidence.

Same problem with every follower of every religion. NO EVIDENCE!

We cant dumb it down any further for you. 

"Because I say so" is not an argument.

There is only ONE method that is universal in settling disputes between competing claims and that is scientific method.

I disagree with your assertion that the scientific method is the only method of settling disputed claims.  I'll wait for you to settle it, using the scientific method!