Is There A Double Standard?

[bluegreenearth]

When reviewing various arguments from theists and non-theists, I often wonder if the people launching objections to these arguments on either side of the debate would apply the same level of skepticism towards their own arguments. Please describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where a non-theist or theist failed to apply the same level of skepticism towards their own argument as they did for the counter-argument. Alternatively, describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where the objection to an argument offered by a non-theist or theist also applied to the counter-argument but was unjustifiably ignored or dismissed.

The debate will be whether a double standard was most likely exhibited in the described scenario or not.

If a double standard was exhibited, was it justifiable and how?

[Rational Atheist]

I always liked Russell's view that mind and matter could be different ways of describing the same thing. But idk the true answer of course.

[William]

We are not built to know the true answer

[John Bauer]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

Please describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where a non-theist ... failed to apply the same level of skepticism towards their own argument as they did for the counter-argument.

... If a double standard was exhibited, was it justifiable and how?

A particular non-theist (let's call him Joe) has published numerous posts in various subforums here demanding that theists support their claims with empirical evidence. When Joe makes a strong claim of his own, a theist demands that Joe support his claim. Joe not only fails to do so but also engages in various logical fallacies in an attempt to avoid his own epistemic standards (argument from silence, red herring, and special pleading).

Do you want names and links? Or does this suffice?

[JehovahsWitness]

I was reading the Watchtower Society's Insight on the Scriptures article on Hades and ran across this gem:

The remaining text in which Hades is used is found at Luke 16:22-26 in the account of “the rich man” and “Lazarus.” The language throughout the account is plainly parabolic and cannot be construed literally in view of all the preceding texts. Note, however, that “the rich man” of the parable is spoken of as being “buried” in Hades, giving further evidence that Hades means the common grave of mankind.

Heads I win, tails you lose, eh?

Are you implying there is something circular in the reasoning ? If so what?


JW

[Difflugia]

Are you implying there is something circular in the reasoning ? If so what?

Who said anything about circularity? This thread's about double standards.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you implying there is something circular in the reasoning ? If so what?

Who said anything about circularity? This thread's about double standards.

so are you implying the passage displays double standards? If so, what?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]
A particular non-theist (let's call him Joe) has published numerous posts in various subforums here demanding that theists support their claims with empirical evidence. When Joe makes a strong claim of his own, a theist demands that Joe support his claim. Joe not only fails to do so but also engages in various logical fallacies in an attempt to avoid his own epistemic standards (argument from silence, red herring, and special pleading).

Do you want names and links? Or does this suffice?

It is not necessary to provide names or links.

If it is the case that this non-theist makes positive claims without providing sufficient supporting evidence for them, then it would exhibit a double-standard. However, it is important to distinguish between conceptual and empirical claims because each of those requires a different type of supporting evidence. If the non-theist is making an empirical claim, then empirical supporting evidence is required to support it. If the non-theist is making a conceptual claim, then it is necessary for it to be supported by conceptual evidence. So, it wouldn't be necessary for the non-theist to provide empirical evidence for a conceptual claim if that is what occurred.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #15]

Before you begin plowing through this response and subsequently reply with your usual antagonistic and sarcastic remarks, I am asking you to carefully consider the content I've provided here and take extra time to ponder these nuanced philosophical concepts.

As you can easily see, I have done as you requested, and have taken extreme "extra time to ponder" what it is you have to say here. In fact, it has been months, and I have taken these months in order to consider what all would have to be involved in order for one to go to such extremes? After all these months, all I can come up with, is that this is a "dodge."

The bottom line here is this. I am convinced Christianity is true, based upon the evidence available. With this being the case, I own no burden. If you are convinced Christianity is false based upon the evidence, then you own no burden. I have no problem with the conclusions you come to, and do not insist you are in error. Are you insisting that I must be in error? I highly doubt you would be, because you would not be able to demonstrate this to be the case. So.........? Where is the double standard?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #15]

Before you begin plowing through this response and subsequently reply with your usual antagonistic and sarcastic remarks, I am asking you to carefully consider the content I've provided here and take extra time to ponder these nuanced philosophical concepts.

As you can easily see, I have done as you requested, and have taken extreme "extra time to ponder" what it is you have to say here. In fact, it has been months, and I have taken these months in order to consider what all would have to be involved in order for one to go to such extremes? After all these months, all I can come up with, is that this is a "dodge."

The bottom line here is this. I am convinced Christianity is true, based upon the evidence available. With this being the case, I own no burden. If you are convinced Christianity is false based upon the evidence, then you own no burden. I have no problem with the conclusions you come to, and do not insist you are in error. Are you insisting that I must be in error? I highly doubt you would be, because you would not be able to demonstrate this to be the case. So.........? Where is the double standard?

As best as I can determine, you do not appear to be exhibiting a double standard in the specific scenario you've described above.

I am curious, though, how would a convinced Christian and a convinced non-Christian have arrived at conclusions contradicting each other based upon the evidence available if neither person is in error?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #30]

I am curious, though, how would a convinced Christian and a convinced non-Christian have arrived at conclusions contradicting each other based upon the evidence available if neither person is in error?

I have not suggested that "neither person is in error"? In fact, it seems to be common sense to know that if we come to completely different conclusions, then at least one of us, must, and have to be in error, and it could be both. There is a tremendous difference between explaining what it is I believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have, along with why I believe as I do, as opposed to insisting that I must, and have to be correct, and anyone who disagrees with me must, and has to be in error. You see, wen can "agree to disagree", but in the end we can agree that one, if not both of us is in error.