Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity? 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

[GUBU]

We would accept christian evidence...



if any christian ever bothered providing some.
[/thread]

Edit: and no Steve you don't get to special plead your baseless assertions into evidence. Us telling you that the third hand "testimony" of 500 anonymous people isn't arguing overdefinitions, it's applying the one correct definition properly. If you don't like it fuck off back to christianforums or whatever other nuthouse you come from.

[vorlon13]

We have original uncontested* documents, penned by Joseph Smith in his own hand, in support of Mormonism. We have nothing like that in regards to Jesus.


*curiously, the Mormon hierarchy has an issue with the account of Joseph Smith's First Visitation he penned since it does not concur with the official church version of his First Visitation. I also note, failing to believe in the church's account is grounds for excommunication, raising the possibility, that if he were alive today, Joseph Smith would be excommunicated from the very church he established.

[snicker]

[TheBeardedDude]

I've never seen any evidence that provides consistent support for the central arguments of Christianity (that a god exists as well as those beliefs that require a god to exist). It would be special pleading to "accept" something as evidence of Christianity if comparable "evidence" isn't also accepted as evidence of any other religious and/or god claim.

[vorlon13]

So, in regards to the topic, does belief in Mormonism require special pleading in regards to their very own evidence which they themselves have called in to question ??

[vorlon13]

I've never seen any evidence that provides consistent support for the central arguments of Christianity (that a god exists as well as those beliefs that require a god to exist). It would be special pleading to "accept" something as evidence of Christianity if comparable "evidence" isn't also accepted as evidence of any other religious and/or god claim.

Excepting Jesus' double crucifixion. Evidence for both of them, on consecutive days, is compelling.

praise JESUS !!

[SteveII]

I've never seen any evidence that provides consistent support for the central arguments of Christianity (that a god exists as well as those beliefs that require a god to exist). It would be special pleading to "accept" something as evidence of Christianity if comparable "evidence" isn't also accepted as evidence of any other religious and/or god claim.

You have never "seen" or you do not find the information (I use this word to clear up any confusion) we have compelling? There is a huge difference in meaning. You might be unaware of the information we have or you might understand what we have and don't think it's compelling or proof for the existence of God. 

Give an example of this "comparable evidence" from another religion.

[Simon Moon]

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity? 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

The problem with this is, eyewitness evidence, even if there was some for Christianity, is notoriously BAD evidence.

And I am talking about eyewitness evidence for crimes that can be proven to have taken place, in the present, with no alleged supernatural events taking place.

You don't have anything like that for Christianity. All you have is alleged eyewitness accounts, from texts written a generation or more after the alleged events took place, by non-eyewitnesses.

[GUBU]

I've never seen any evidence that provides consistent support for the central arguments of Christianity (that a god exists as well as those beliefs that require a god to exist). It would be special pleading to "accept" something as evidence of Christianity if comparable "evidence" isn't also accepted as evidence of any other religious and/or god claim.

You have never "seen" or you do not find the information (I use this word to clear up any confusion) we have compelling? There is a huge difference in meaning. You might be unaware of the information we have or you might understand what we have and don't think it's compelling or proof for the existence of God. 

Give an example of this "comparable evidence" from another religion.

Not willing to either ansewr my refutation or bring evidence? Coward.

Oh, and if it's because I'm on ignore you're two times a coward.

[KevinM1]

Sees: thread title with the word 'testimony' in it. Thinks: "I bet Steve started this one."

It's fun always being right.