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?

[Tcg]

So we have a person who can't be positively identified who says he was given information {snip: irrelevant}

No, what we have is a firsthand written testimony of an eyewitness. It rests for those hearing/reading it to decide if it is truthful or not. The witness's evident wish to remain anonymous to those not directly related to events is irrelent.

I don't think that you know what second hand means. If you testify to something then that's first hand. If I tell you something and you testify to it then that is second hand. We can't possibly know if person was an eyewitness as he is anonymous. That is, we don't know who he was. That's kinda relevant.

Not only that, there is no reason to assume that the so-called witness would wish to remain anonymous. Oh, and of course the additional fact that I can't find any reference to the word, "irrelent."


Tcg

[Realworldjack]

Nor, am I insisting that you, nor anyone else, "should all just set to believing em". You can believe what you want to believe. The problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist there would be no reason to believe as I do, when they cannot demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.

Without knowing the whys of your beliefs, we're lost as a cow at a square dance regarding any double standard, one way or the other.

The problem here is the overwhelming majority of manuscripts written by Mohammed's companions can be demonstrated to be addressed to particular audiences at the time who would have already been believers. Therefore, we would have to believe the authors, some 1500 years ago, who were addressing audiences at the time with no concern nor any idea of any sort of Quran, were writing down information which would have nothing to do with fact but were rather an attempt to psychologically manipulate the audience at that time, and these manuscripts were later refenced in a book we now refer to as the Quaran which continues to psychologically manipulate folks some 1500 years later who were never targeted?

Oh wait... never mind.

Okay, great! I am glad you brought this up.

The word "Koran" actually means, "recite". Mohammed is said to have received revelation from the angel Gabriel. Mohammed, could neither read, nor write. Therefore, when Mohammed would recite the revelation he received, scribes who were on hand would write these things down. So then, the writings we have in the Koran, were not addressed to anyone in particular. They were simply a copying of what one had to say.

In other words, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who are actually identified. We have the two letters addressed to Theophilus. We have the letters of Paul which were addressed to particular Churches at the time, along with letters to particular individuals.

The point is, we have letters contained in the NT, which is not at all what we have in the Koran. Moreover, the content of the NT is not at all focused upon the teachings of Jesus. Rather, just as the author of the letters to Theophilus tells, Theophilus, he is giving Theophilus, an account of historical events, and this account, leads up to the death, and resurrection of Jesus.

So then, while the Koran is said to have been revealed by the angle Gabriel, to the best of my knowledge, one would have to take the word of Mohammed concerning this to be the case. Next, while the Koran is focused upon how one should live their lives in order to please God, the Gospels are focused upon what is claimed to be historical events, in which one of the authors assures his audience, had been, "carefully investigated from the beginning". Moreover, what we have in the Koran, is claimed to have come from God, while the NT is not claiming to be information which came from God, but rather an account of historical events. In other words, the Gospels are accounts of historical events, which lead up to the resurrection, with the letters after the Gospels giving instruction to believers at the time, of how one should now live, in light of those events.

The bottom line is, the Koran is the result of scribes copying what Mohammed had to say, which means the writings in the Koran was not addressed to anyone in particular. On the other hand, what we have in the NT, are letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, with the authors simply living out their lives, and these letters we have, are the results of these authors living out their lives, in light of what they believed to be historical events, which could be investigated.

So while there are certainly those who love to make the comparison between the two, when we actually sit down and do the comparison, what we discover is, there is really no comparison in the least. On the one hand we have the Koran which is said to be revealed information addressed to no one in particular. On the other hand, the NT is the result of the authors simply living out their lives, not claiming the information was revealed to them, but rather claiming to have witnessed historical events. Historical events can be investigated. Whether one actually received certain revelations, not so much.

[Realworldjack]

Okay, well how about this? In response to his statements concerning the content of the NT being "spurious, religious propaganda, which do not consist of independently verified testimony" I had this to say,

Okay, here you make two statements of fact, which you need to be able to demonstrate. First, you need to demonstrate how you have determined that what we have contained in the New Testament would not be independent testimonies? How does one determine such a thing? Exactly how are you insisting the authors would have been connected? Simply because they report much the same thing, and have been contained in the same book, which they could not have possibly known about, does not in any way demonstrate they would be connected in any sort or way. You own the burden here to demonstrate what it is you seem to be insisting.

Next, you now own the burden to demonstrate how what we have contained in the Bible would be, "propaganda"? Because you see, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be easily demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else other than the intended audience at the time, and they most certainly could not have known about any sort of Bible. So exactly how would this be considered, "propaganda"?

As you can see, I left out the "spurious" part, but this would need to be answered as well. They have yet to give an answer. Now, do you believe that one who makes such claims would be obligated to demonstrate what they have claimed, when asked?

It depends on whether your interlocutor is requiring you to believe the claims are true, expressing the claims as a personal perspective, or asking you to rule-out the possibility that the claims are true:

• If you are being asked to believe the claims are true, then your interlocutor would have the obligatory burden.

• If your interlocutor is expressing the claims as a personal perspective, there is no obligatory burden to demonstrate anything because there is no expectation that you share the same perspective.

• If you are being asked to rule-out the possibility that the claims are true, and the claims are falsifiable, then you would have the obligatory burden to rule-out the possibility by providing the necessary disconfirming evidence.

This is pretty simple I think. Here is exactly what was said,

Unless, of course, you are counting on spurious accounts and letters which do not consist of independently verified testimony collated in a book of religious propaganda.

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT would be, "spurious", (not being what it purports to be; false or fake) would this person be obligated to demonstrate this claim to be correct?

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT, "do not consist of independently verified testimony" would this person be obligated to demonstrate this claim to be correct?

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT would be "religious propaganda" would this person be obligated to demonstrate this to be correct?

If you go on to claim that this person does not specify that he would be referring to the claims of the NT, then his points have no bight in the least. Therefore, he is referring to the NT as being, "spurious" (not being what it purports to be; false or fake) "not consisting of independently verified testimony" along with being, "religious propaganda", or there is no point to be made.

The question then is, does this person own the burden to demonstrate the claims they are making? Or, is it that they really do not specify it would be the NT they are referring to, and therefore have no real point?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm looking at this from a perspective Realworldjack is not here responding to. I just think I got me something to add...

...
The word "Koran" actually means, "recite". Mohammed is said to have received revelation from the angel Gabriel. Mohammed, could neither read, nor write. Therefore, when Mohammed would recite the revelation he received, scribes who were on hand would write these things down. So then, the writings we have in the Koran, were not addressed to anyone in particular. They were simply a copying of what one had to say.

So we examine such to determine if they correlate to facts and logic, and all such as that. No double standards from me.

In other words, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who are actually identified. We have the two letters addressed to Theophilus. We have the letters of Paul which were addressed to particular Churches at the time, along with letters to particular individuals.

I don't buy this line of argumentation.

Regardless the motivations, regardless the target audience, we're left with fantastical claims that can't be shown to be true, in amongst relatively mundane stuff about there was this town, and folks eat food, and how are we gonna send junior off to college.

In light of astounding claims that defy all we know about the world around us, we're prudent to dismiss the entire story until these sense assaulting tales can be shown to be truth. No double standard, owing to how that tooth that got it knocked loose in the bar fight there, grown men don't put it under their pillow and dream of their soon to be riches.

The point is, we have letters contained in the NT, which is not at all what we have in the Koran. Moreover, the content of the NT is not at all focused upon the teachings of Jesus. Rather, just as the author of the letters to Theophilus tells, Theophilus, he is giving Theophilus, an account of historical events, and this account, leads up to the death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Has every letter ever written been nothing but factual? Has nobody, in the entire history of letter writing never fudged the truth? Never told a single lie? Never got the details wrong?

When we look at "historical" accounts of dead folks hopping up, moving a giant rock out of the way, strolling through town ameeting and agreeting, and then rising up magically into the sky, we know those accounts must be embellished, fudged, made up, or the rantings of the delusional.

Dead folks don't have a double standard. They take pride... well maybe not pride, but they take their being dead seriously. They don't hop back up and say "just kidding". They have the honor and decency to stay dead. No double standards. They all toe the being dead party line.

It's not a double standard to dismiss an entire book of tales, where some of the claims within visit violence upon logic and fact, no matter how plausible, no matter how probable, no matter how convincingly told.

So then, while the Koran is said to have been revealed by the angle Gabriel, to the best of my knowledge, one would have to take the word of Mohammed concerning this to be the case.

Just as we're being expected to trust folks who are so long dead, we can't even dig their bones up to cross examine em, just in case bones could talk.

Next, while the Koran is focused upon how one should live their lives in order to please God, the Gospels are focused upon what is claimed to be historical events, in which one of the authors assures his audience, had been, "carefully investigated from the beginning".

We lack access to the evidence / witnesses such folks may have gathered, that a proper forensic analysis won't be had. In other words, we're expected to just assume their findings, their claims jibe with the evidence / witnesses we don't have to examine.

Moreover, what we have in the Koran, is claimed to have come from God, while the NT is not claiming to be information which came from God, but rather an account of historical events. In other words, the Gospels are accounts of historical events, which lead up to the resurrection, with the letters after the Gospels giving instruction to believers at the time, of how one should now live, in light of those events.

Ackshually, what we have are claims being reported from a long time ago, hence, claimed to be "historical events". We have no means to confirm the veracity of these alleged reports, except to note some folks are awful proud of em.

The bottom line is, the Koran is the result of scribes copying what Mohammed had to say, which means the writings in the Koran was not addressed to anyone in particular. On the other hand, what we have in the NT, are letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, with the authors simply living out their lives, and these letters we have, are the results of these authors living out their lives, in light of what they believed to be historical events, which could be investigated.

We can investigate historical claims regarding dead folks reanimatimg, and acting like nothing happened. In all cases we'll find dead folks stay dead. If these authors can get that'n so wrong, it puts in question anything else they tell.

So while there are certainly those who love to make the comparison between the two, when we actually sit down and do the comparison, what we discover is, there is really no comparison in the least. On the one hand we have the Koran which is said to be revealed information addressed to no one in particular. On the other hand, the NT is the result of the authors simply living out their lives, not claiming the information was revealed to them, but rather claiming to have witnessed historical events. Historical events can be investigated. Whether one actually received certain revelations, not so much.

I wanna close here by noting I'm posting from a different perspective from which Realworldjack was replying.

I'm not trying to play tricks, I think I've added something here.

And I do agree, in principle I guess, with the ideas laid out here, how one book might be considered "divine revelation", and the other'n "y'all ain't gonna believe this, bit I'm here to tell it".

In both cases however, it's my contention where errors of fact, and lack of corroborating evidence prevail, we just read em like we would any other poorly written fiction.

[Realworldjack]

I asked before if you thought the billions of people of different faiths reached their position through analysis of facts and evidence.

I have not interviewed these "billions of people of different faiths". I would have no way to know. Therefore, I do not simply assume how they would have arrived to the beliefs they hold.

This would not really be necessary if Christianity was true and all it took was the evaluation of the available facts and evidence.

I have given examples of those who would not have been through the indoctrination process you describe, who claim it was the facts, and evidence which convinced them. You will have to demonstrate how what they say would not be fact.

So you are happy to throw in a few examples where the indoctrination process allegedly did not lead to belief (never denied as a possibility) but are not prepared to offer an alternative for the billions of people of other faiths reaching their beliefs. Does that qualify as a double standard? If I understand correctly you claim to have reasoning behind your beliefs, but not that it means they are necessarily true. If that's the case then frankly I don't really care, and I'm wondering why anyone should care.

So you are happy to throw in a few examples where the indoctrination process allegedly did not lead to belief (never denied as a possibility)

If you have never denied this as a possibility, then what in the world would be the point? The fact of the matter is, I have agreed with you, over, and over, concerning the many, many, (maybe even a majority) of Christians, coming to, and maintaining their belief simply based upon what they were taught as a child. You seem to be under the impression that this fact that we agree upon, would cause the information to be, "most likely false".

Weighing up all that we know about Christianity, and the propagation of religious beliefs in general, I am saying that it is most likely false.

I am afraid this simply does not follow! In other words, how the majority of Christians come to the beliefs they hold, has no bearing whatsoever upon Christianity being, "most likely false".

Next, the reason I throw out the others who would not have been through the process you describe, is to demonstrate there are indeed facts, and evidence in support of the claims, and there are Christians who have come to believe based upon the facts, and evidence involved. In other words, you seem to be bringing up how the vast majority come to believe, as if this would some how be evidence against there being facts, and evidence in support of the claims. The folks I bring up demonstrate this not to be the case.

The bottom line here again is, this tired, and worn out argument you continue to want to use, has been defeated. However, you continue to use it over, and over, when there is no point to be made.

but are not prepared to offer an alternative for the billions of people of other faiths reaching their beliefs.

How in the world am I not "prepared"? I have agreed with you over, and over, concerning how most people of faith come to believe. However, I happen to understand this would have nothing to do with what they happen to believe, being true, or false.

Does that qualify as a double standard?

How does my agreeing with you qualify as a "double standard"? I am not the one insisting all religions must be false. That would be you. I am also not insisting there would be no facts, and evidence in support of any religion. I do not have to insist upon these things, in order to understand if there would be facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims. Please explain where the "double standard" would be?

If I understand correctly you claim to have reasoning behind your beliefs, but not that it means they are necessarily true.

I am insisting there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims, and one can come to believe the claims, based upon the facts, evidence, and reason. I cannot insist the claims must, and have to be true, because I cannot demonstrate the claims to be true. You know like, we do in fact have the claims, and there are those who doubt the claims to be true, but they understand they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case, which causes them to confess they are not in any way insisting the claims must, and have to be false. I do not see a whole lot of difference between what I am saying, as opposed to the position these folks hold. In other words, both sides are sharing the position we hold, along with reason we may hold that position, but we stop short of insisting the position we hold, must, and has to be correct position.

If that's the case then frankly I don't really care, and I'm wondering why anyone should care.

I am not asking you, or anyone else to care about what I believe. Rather, I am asking those who want to insist there would be no facts, evidence, and reason in support of what it is I believe, to demonstrate their case, and thus far, this has not been accomplished. If you are not insisting, there would be no facts, evidence, or reasons in support of Christianity, then I am not addressing you.

Because you see, like you, "I don't really care", that there are those who doubt. I also "don't really care" to insist these folks would have no reason for their doubt. I begin to care, when these same folks seem to want to insist, there would be no facts, evidence, and reason to hold the position I have, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

[bluegreenearth]

This is pretty simple I think. Here is exactly what was said,

Unless, of course, you are counting on spurious accounts and letters which do not consist of independently verified testimony collated in a book of religious propaganda.

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT would be, "spurious", (not being what it purports to be; false or fake) would this person be obligated to demonstrate this claim to be correct?

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT, "do not consist of independently verified testimony" would this person be obligated to demonstrate this claim to be correct?

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT would be "religious propaganda" would this person be obligated to demonstrate this to be correct?

If you go on to claim that this person does not specify that he would be referring to the claims of the NT, then his points have no bight in the least. Therefore, he is referring to the NT as being, "spurious" (not being what it purports to be; false or fake) "not consisting of independently verified testimony" along with being, "religious propaganda", or there is no point to be made.

The question then is, does this person own the burden to demonstrate the claims they are making? Or, is it that they really do not specify it would be the NT they are referring to, and therefore have no real point?

The word "Unless" from the start of the quote suggests to me that the statement which follows it will be describing a logically possible criterion under which the line of reasoning it was responding to would be unreliable. Therefore, if it is a logical possibility that the NT could be "spurious accounts and letters which do not consist of independently verified testimony collated in a book of religious propaganda," then would it not be responsible to try and rule-out that possibility before accepting the line of reasoning which concludes the NT is a reliable source?

[Realworldjack]

I asked before if you thought the billions of people of different faiths reached their position through analysis of facts and evidence.

I have not interviewed these "billions of people of different faiths". I would have no way to know. Therefore, I do not simply assume how they would have arrived to the beliefs they hold.

This would not really be necessary if Christianity was true and all it took was the evaluation of the available facts and evidence.

I have given examples of those who would not have been through the indoctrination process you describe, who claim it was the facts, and evidence which convinced them. You will have to demonstrate how what they say would not be fact.

So you are happy to throw in a few examples where the indoctrination process allegedly did not lead to belief (never denied as a possibility) but are not prepared to offer an alternative for the billions of people of other faiths reaching their beliefs. Does that qualify as a double standard? If I understand correctly you claim to have reasoning behind your beliefs, but not that it means they are necessarily true. If that's the case then frankly I don't really care, and I'm wondering why anyone should care.

I think part of the realization is that a lot of Christians are claiming faith in [possible/glass half full] 'fact' rather than faith in [possible/glass half empty] 'fiction' by attempting to conflate belief with knowing.

They "know'" it is true/fact because they "believe" it is true/fact, as it sounds-out more convincing when worded that way.

aka; as "to still hold the cake one has eaten".


aka 'magic' /***

Do you mean, kind of like those who doubt the Christian claims to be true? In other words, they are not insisting the claims to be false, but are convinced the claims to be false, because they believe the claims to be false? Kind of sounds better worded that way, doesn't it?

The fact of the matter is, whether one would like to admit it, or not, something incredible occurred some 2000 years ago. So then, either these folks were simply reporting what they knew to be true, which continues to consume the lives of folks such as yourself, who spend hour, after hour, day, after day, month, after month, continuing to discuss these events, some 2000 years later? Or, there must, and has to be some other explanation which would explain how these folks were able to accomplish such a task, which continues to consume folks such as yourself for so long, which we have not identified as of yet?

Kind of makes one wonder, which side is it that believes in,


aka 'magic' /***
[/quote]

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #325]

In order to keep the conversation from getting bogged down, let us take one thing at the time.

I don't buy this line of argumentation.

Regardless the motivations, regardless the target audience, we're left with fantastical claims that can't be shown to be true, in amongst relatively mundane stuff about there was this town, and folks eat food, and how are we gonna send junior off to college.

In light of astounding claims that defy all we know about the world around us, we're prudent to dismiss the entire story until these sense assaulting tales can be shown to be truth. No double standard, owing to how that tooth that got it knocked loose in the bar fight there, grown men don't put it under their pillow and dream of their soon to be riches.

You seem to be admitting here, that the only reason we would have to dismiss the claims in these letters would be the "astounding" content? In other words, if we were to strip these letters of the "astounding", there would be no reason to doubt what was recorded. I am here to tell you there is a reason which motivated these folks to write letters amongst themselves, concerning these events. In these letters, we not only have the claims made, we also can know exactly how these folks were living out their lives, in light of the claims they were making for years. You use the word "fiction" to refer to these letters, and I cannot think of any sort of scenario in which these letters would be based upon "fiction" which would not be, "astounding". In other words, you seem to be rejecting the "astounding", by believing the "astounding".

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #325]

In order to keep the conversation from getting bogged down, let us take one thing at the time.

I don't buy this line of argumentation.

Regardless the motivations, regardless the target audience, we're left with fantastical claims that can't be shown to be true, in amongst relatively mundane stuff about there was this town, and folks eat food, and how are we gonna send junior off to college.

In light of astounding claims that defy all we know about the world around us, we're prudent to dismiss the entire story until these sense assaulting tales can be shown to be truth. No double standard, owing to how that tooth that got it knocked loose in the bar fight there, grown men don't put it under their pillow and dream of their soon to be riches.

You seem to be admitting here, that the only reason we would have to dismiss the claims in these letters would be the "astounding" content? In other words, if we were to strip these letters of the "astounding", there would be no reason to doubt what was recorded. I am here to tell you there is a reason which motivated these folks to write letters amongst themselves, concerning these events. In these letters, we not only have the claims made, we also can know exactly how these folks were living out their lives, in light of the claims they were making for years. You use the word "fiction" to refer to these letters, and I cannot think of any sort of scenario in which these letters would be based upon "fiction" which would not be, "astounding". In other words, you seem to be rejecting the "astounding", by believing the "astounding".

What I'm saying is that the inclusion of claims that can't be shown to be true - that defy what we know about the world, should lead us to conclude these tales are unreliable as to truth, or historical value.

If you can't think of any sort of scenario where these works would be based on fiction, you display an -ahem- astounding lack of imagination, and an astounding inability to see this problem through anything but the rose colored glasses of theistic hopes and prayers.

Further evidence the theist will hold fast to their god concept in spite of possible alternative explanations for tales of events that can't be shown to have occurred. Especially as relates to tales of the supernatural.

We shouldn't examine these "letters" on a table separate from the magical claims they contain. It's a common enough tactic to include references to true, albeit mundane stuff, in order to give credence to claims that make a farce of reality.

Plausibility ain't fact.

[bluegreenearth]

So while there are certainly those who love to make the comparison between the two, when we actually sit down and do the comparison, what we discover is, there is really no comparison in the least. On the one hand we have the Koran which is said to be revealed information addressed to no one in particular. On the other hand, the NT is the result of the authors simply living out their lives, not claiming the information was revealed to them, but rather claiming to have witnessed historical events. Historical events can be investigated. Whether one actually received certain revelations, not so much.

Is it your line of reasoning that all letters that are addressed to an individual person or a specific group of people by an anonymous author who testifies to having carefully investigated the claims of a charismatic leader from the beginning and proceeds to describe miraculous events surrounding this charismatic leader's life before closing with instructions to believers at the time of how they should now live in light of those events should be regarded as reliable sources?