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?

[Realworldjack]

So then, I am not insisting the resurrection to be a matter of fact, (although I am convinced it is a matter of fact) rather, I am insisting the facts, and evidence my belief rests upon, would be matters of facts.

Talk about having an each-way bet. All of those alleged facts and so-called evidence do not lead to the fact of a resurrection, just to the opinion that it is a fact. Big deal. They lead others to the opinion that it is not a fact.

I think you have just made the point I have been attempting to make for quite some time now. In other words, it is a fact that we have facts, and evidence to support the resurrection. Some folks look at these facts, and evidence, and come to the conclusion that the reports of the resurrection is true. Some folks look at these same facts, and evidence and come to the conclusion the reports would be false. Still others may look at these facts, and evidence, and come to the conclusion that we do not have enough evidence to conclude the matter one way, or the other.

The point is, we are all in the same exact boat, where all any of us can do, is to explain what it is we believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have, along with why we believe as we do, with none of us being able to demonstrate the position we hold would be the correct position. Now, you can call this an, "each way bet", but in reality is is simply a fact.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #143]

and I stand by my comment regarding some theists and the happy to promote the science on the rare occasion it aligns with their religious notions.

You can stand by your comment all you want!

Please note, I didn't ask for your permission.

The problem is the fact that I have never once suggested, that those on either side, should never appeal to science, which is what your comment seems to be suggesting.

I didn't say you did.

What I'm saying is that some theists are fine with science when it goes their way.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #153]

Please note, I didn't ask for your permission.

Please note! I was not giving you "permission". Rather, I was simply stating a fact.

What I'm saying is that some theists are fine with science when it goes their way.

Right, and what I am attempting to understand is, if science is a legitimate field of study, and science has demonstrated something which may back the argument of a theist, then what is the problem?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #153]

Please note, I didn't ask for your permission.

Please note! I was not giving you "permission". Rather, I was simply stating a fact.

What I'm saying is that some theists are fine with science when it goes their way.

Right, and what I am attempting to understand is, if science is a legitimate field of study, and science has demonstrated something which may back the argument of a theist, then what is the problem?

Not that you make such arguments, but I'm reminded of folks who reject the ToE, or are young earth types.

Of course disagreement is not necessarily bad, I just note some theists would accept scientific consensus for some things, and not for others.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #153]

Please note, I didn't ask for your permission.

Please note! I was not giving you "permission". Rather, I was simply stating a fact.

What I'm saying is that some theists are fine with science when it goes their way.

Right, and what I am attempting to understand is, if science is a legitimate field of study, and science has demonstrated something which may back the argument of a theist, then what is the problem?

Not that you make such arguments, but I'm reminded of folks who reject the ToE, or are young earth types.

Of course disagreement is not necessarily bad, I just note some theists would accept scientific consensus for some things, and not for others.

OH? So then, we are not talking about facts, which science has demonstrated? Rather, we seem to be referring to Christians appealing to the opinion of what most scientists believe? Okay, so exactly what would most scientists believe to be true, which a Christian can appeal to, in order to back the argument they are making?

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #144]

While I would love to respond to everything you say here, I find that it tends to get us going back, and forth between too many points at one time, and the conversation gets bogged down at that point many times. Therefore, if you do not mind, allow us to focus upon one of your comments here, and if, and when we hash this out, then maybe we can go back into the rest of what you have to say. So then, let us start here,

This implies you have evidence which you can show me to support that such is not a matter of faith but of fact.

You see, you have really messed this up, badly. When one says, "my belief in the resurrection is not a matter of faith", this is not in any way equivalent to saying, "the resurrection is a matter of fact". While I am convinced the resurrection to be a fact, I am not insisting that it is indeed a fact, nor am I insisting that you consider it to be a fact. Rather, what I am insisting is, there are indeed facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, and one can use sound reason, and logic in order to believe the resurrection did take place.

I am certainly fine with you believing the resurrection to be false, or doubting the resurrection. The problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist, there would be no facts, and evidence to support of the resurrection, and that it would be and unreasonable, and illogical belief, when they cannot demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.

So then, I am not insisting the resurrection to be a matter of fact, (although I am convinced it is a matter of fact) rather, I am insisting the facts, and evidence my belief rests upon, would be matters of facts.

I am aware that you are insisting that there are what you call 'facts' and you rest your beliefs upon those 'facts' but until one is granted access to those things you are referring to as 'facts' how is one to examine the evidence until such evidence is placed on the table to be examined?

So far what you have offered in this example, is a claim that such facts exist, and are what you lay your faith upon. [why you find it reasonable to have faith in said story.]

Thus, one can only [at such point] accept that you have a claim-based opinion...so one can only respond "opinion noted - but what of that?"

Statements of fact are different to claims of fact, as they are backed by fact of evidence which supports said statements.

So far as your "Allow me attempt to explain something to you" and your list of things you don't require faith in, you haven't actually provided the evidence you imply that you have, so have not 'explained' anything which can be supported by said lack of evidence.

You claim to have facts. Please present these for examination [critique]. Then at least we have something to 'hash out'.

[JoeyKnothead]

Not that you make such arguments, but I'm reminded of folks who reject the ToE, or are young earth types.
Of course disagreement is not necessarily bad, I just note some theists would accept scientific consensus for some things, and not for others.

OH? So then, we are not talking about facts, which science has demonstrated? Rather, we seem to be referring to Christians appealing to the opinion of what most scientists believe?
...

Yes.

I simply made note that some theists will accept science, or scientific opinion, while rejecting it elsewhere.

Iay implysay ademay otenay atthay omesay eiststhay illway ceptacay iencescay, oray, ientificscay pinionoay, ilewhay ejectingray itay whereelseay.

That's the only other language I have to tell that.

I find myself having to say the same thing over and over, and either you're never gonna understand it, or I just don't have the words that'll get you to understand it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #157]


My friend there have been book volumes written on both sides, dealing with the facts, and evidence concerning Christianity. In fact this debate has been raging for thousands of years. If there were not facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims, there would be nothing to debate. Therefore, for one to seem to want to insist, there would be no facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims, is for one to simply believe what it is they would rather believe.

With it being the case, that book volumes have been written on this very subject, I highly doubt we will be able to cover even a fraction of the evidence involved. So then, allow us to simply start at the beginning with the fact that we do indeed have the reports of the resurrection, coming from multiple sources.

Now of course, you may want to argue that you believe the reports to be false, fiction, fabrications, etc., however, unless you can demonstrate this to be the case, then these reports would remain to be, facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims.

[Realworldjack]

Not that you make such arguments, but I'm reminded of folks who reject the ToE, or are young earth types.
Of course disagreement is not necessarily bad, I just note some theists would accept scientific consensus for some things, and not for others.

OH? So then, we are not talking about facts, which science has demonstrated? Rather, we seem to be referring to Christians appealing to the opinion of what most scientists believe?
...

Yes.

I simply made note that some theists will accept science, or scientific opinion, while rejecting it elsewhere.

Iay implysay ademay otenay atthay omesay eiststhay illway ceptacay iencescay, oray, ientificscay pinionoay, ilewhay ejectingray itay whereelseay.

That's the only other language I have to tell that.

I find myself having to say the same thing over and over, and either you're never gonna understand it, or I just don't have the words that'll get you to understand it.

Okay, so exactly what would most scientists believe to be true, which a Christian can appeal to, in order to back the argument they are making?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #157]


My friend there have been book volumes written on both sides, dealing with the facts, and evidence concerning Christianity.

Yes - I hope I come across as intelligent enough to realize that fact RWJ.

In fact this debate has been raging for thousands of years.

Yes it has. Along that timeline I appreciate that there have been natural instances of new awareness based upon new data. The new data is hashed out, spin and rinse and repeat...

If there were not facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims, there would be nothing to debate.

Preaching to the choir. It is what I wrote myself, in other words...

Therefore, for one to seem to want to insist, there would be no facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims, is for one to simply believe what it is they would rather believe.

I myself am not insisting there are [or are not] facts pertaining to the claims. I am simply responding to a Christian [you] who appear to claim that there are facts.
I am quite happy to say that I have never had any facts presented to me in which to make the call and so remain agnostic in that regard.
That is why I was hoping that you might present your evidence in order that I could ascertain whether I have heard these things claimed as facts already. If so, I have already debunked said claims of facts and moved on...but always open minded for new data which might present itself.

You appear to be pointing at old data as if somehow its existence proves it must be matter of fact.

If you are simply saying that you became a Christian because you accepted that the claim of fact was truth and did not require proving itself, then - understandably, that is all you are going to offer anyone else.

To which [such offer made to me] I politely decline on account of lack of evidence for said claim of truth.

With it being the case, that book volumes have been written on this very subject, I highly doubt we will be able to cover even a fraction of the evidence involved. So then, allow us to simply start at the beginning with the fact that we do indeed have the reports of the resurrection, coming from multiple sources.

Well that is new data to me. I was under the impression that the only source for the whole story, was the bible.
I am surely happy to review these other sources you claim exist.

Now of course, you may want to argue that you believe the reports to be false, fiction, fabrications, etc., however, unless you can demonstrate this to be the case, then these reports would remain to be, facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims.

All I want to do is critique the evidence once it is tabled. Until then, there is nothing to see here in the claim being made, as to said truth of said claims.