Is There A Double Standard?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Is There A Double Standard?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #411

Post by William »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #410]

This thread is specific to the question of double standards and I see no reason as to why you forgot to mention that I made it plain in the course of our interactions, that if we were to focus on the subject of the resurrection I would want to do so in a thread created for that to happen for the two reasons I gave, which were;

1: So as not to mix subjects in this thread.
2: So that whatever we then argued, would be easier to access for future reference.

Perhaps if you are too busy to give the evidence you claim to have, you should not make such claims in the first place.

Fortunately, there is another Christian who also implies that the resurrection is fact-based, so there is currently a tentative move toward answering this question regarding Belief in The Resurrection being Faith, or Fact Based.

In the mean time I still have had no evidence that belief in the resurrection is anything other than something folk believe in on/through faith.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #412

Post by bluegreenearth »

William wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:02 pm Fortunately, there is another Christian who also implies that the resurrection is fact-based, so there is currently a tentative move toward answering this question regarding Belief in The Resurrection being Faith, or Fact Based.

In the mean time I still have had no evidence that belief in the resurrection is anything other than something folk believe in on/through faith.
Since the available facts and evidence are too inadequate on their own to serve as a reasonable justification for a confident belief in "The Resurrection", must faith be required to conclude the available facts and evidence are perfectly sufficient to serve in that capacity?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #413

Post by William »

bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:30 pm
William wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:02 pm Fortunately, there is another Christian who also implies that the resurrection is fact-based, so there is currently a tentative move toward answering this question regarding Belief in The Resurrection being Faith, or Fact Based.

In the mean time I still have had no evidence that belief in the resurrection is anything other than something folk believe in on/through faith.
Since the available facts and evidence are too inadequate on their own to serve as a reasonable justification for a confident belief in "The Resurrection", must faith be required to conclude the available facts and evidence are perfectly sufficient to serve in that capacity?
Perhaps. Or maybe not, I don't know.

What does the Bible say about faith? Is there any mention of Christians requiring faith?

Answering these questions might help us find an answer to that question.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #414

Post by Realworldjack »

bluegreenearth wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:34 am As William has stated, I think we have arrived to the "stalemate" I have predicted all along.
I wouldn't call it a stalemate because you still haven't demonstrated your methodology is reliable. I'm also waiting for you to provided a logical justification for your confident belief in the claims of the resurrection from the NT as opposed to those people who have a logically justified lack of belief. After all, if lacking belief in the claims of the resurrection from the NT is logically justified on account of the available facts and evidence being too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief, then the same set of facts and evidence can't also be perfectly sufficient for logically justifying a confident belief. To suggest otherwise would be to affirm a logical contradiction where the available facts and evidence are both perfectly sufficient and too inadequate to affirm a confident belief.
I wouldn't call it a stalemate because you still haven't demonstrated your methodology is reliable.
Allow me to attempt to explain this one more time. There have been book volumes authored concerning the methodology used to come to this conclusion. Moreover, this debate has been raging for some 2000 years now, with neither side being able to demonstrate the position they hold. The methodology I used was almost a three year process. Therefore, you are asking me to write a book volume here, in a single post, which sort of demonstrates one who is under the impression that it is all so simple. In other words, although this debate has been raging for thousands of years, with book volumes being authored by those on both sides, describing the methodology being used, you seem to be under the impression that one should be able to throw out some sort of simple methodology?

You actually refute this idea yourself, by the enormous amount of time you spend here on this site, on top of the vast amount of work you have performed in "members notes". This amount of work you have put forth, sort of demonstrates one who clearly understands it is not that simple in the least. In other words, you have indeed put forth an enormous amount of work, but in the end, all you have really done, is to share with us, your subjective opinions. Because you see, it is my understanding, one who holds the agnostic position, is not making any sort of claims which must be demonstrated. This leaves such a one, with sharing their subjective opinions, which would not have to be demonstrated to be fact.

With this being the case, I have suggested that you go on to examine some of the folks who have actually authored these book volumes, more than one of which who are scientists, in order to save the time and space it would take in order to examine the methodology I have used. One of these scientists, actually claims to have come to the conclusion of a creator, simply by the study of science itself. He goes on to claim to have gone from this, to the actual study of the different religions of the world, and by doing this, he became a convinced Christian, years before he ever met the first Christian. In fact, I have actually suggested that you would not even have to read anything these folks may have authored, and could rather listen to what they have to say concerning the methodology they have used, on places such as "youtube" in order for you to demonstrate how their methodology would be flawed. You seemed to have promised to do this, but thus far, all I hear is "crickets"?

Moreover, I have given you credit for the extensive amount of work you have put forth in the "members notes" concerning, Alister McGrath. However, after reading most all of your "members notes" posts, it all comes down to the subjective. In other words, while I would love to respond to everything you have posted in "members notes" this would be an extensive amount of work, but in the end, you have not demonstrated anything in the least, and your arguments, are not at all convincing to me.'

Therefore, it seems extremely simplistic to me, for one to acknowledge the fact that we have the claims, who goes on to acknowledge that they cannot in any way demonstrate the claims to be false, who does not give us any other explanations as to why we may have the claims, who goes on to seem to want to insist, that I must doubt the claims?
After all, if lacking belief in the claims of the resurrection from the NT is logically justified on account of the available facts and evidence being too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief, then the same set of facts and evidence can't also be perfectly sufficient for logically justifying a confident belief.
Again, the first thing I would point out here is, we are dealing with the subjective. While, "lacking belief" may be logically justified, it has not in any way been demonstrated to be, "on account of the available facts and evidence being too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief". This is simply an opinion. In other words, it may be your opinion that, "the available facts and evidence are too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief", but this is not something which you have demonstrated to be a fact.

You seem to have taken the position as an agnostic. Those who take such a position, usually go on to insist, they are not making any sort of claims which must be demonstrated. Therefore, when one says, "the available facts and evidence are too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief", they are making a claim, which must be demonstrated, or they must admit this is simply an opinion they hold, which cannot be demonstrated.

I am not making any sort of claims, which I cannot demonstrate to be fact. The claims I make, which can be demonstrated to be fact, are the same facts, I have used to come to a confident belief. I am not insisting that you, nor anyone else must share the position I hold. Rather, I allow others to examine the same facts, and evidence, to come to whatever conclusion they think best. It seems to me, it is the one who holds the agnostic position who is making claims which they cannot demonstrate, and then going on to insist that I must, and have to share the same position they have come to.

The whole point here is, we have indeed come to a "stalemate" which is what I have been saying all along. In other words, it has always been my position, that all we can do, is to share what it is we believe concerning these things, along with the facts, and evidence in support, with neither of us being able to demonstrate our case. I as a Christian acknowledge this to be the case, and am fine with it. It seems to be those opposed, who seem to have the problem?

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #415

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to William in post #406]

As an agnostic, I do indeed offer some other explanations [variables] as to why the story of the resurrection might be a work of fiction.
(as can be verified in the thread "Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based")
The first thing I will point out here is that you admit, the resurrection "MIGHT be a work of fiction". It is nowhere close to being a demonstrable fact. Next, I fail to see where you have offered any other explanations? Rather, all you seem to have done, is to point out that there were those, who did not recognize Jesus at first. What would be the explanation?
You actually refused to participate with me in exploring those variables
This is "fake news". What I refused to do is to participate in two different threads. I have been right here all along. You are now back, and I am engaging with you.
the very ones which allow me to remain agnostic about the resurrection


You are certainly "allowed to remain agnostic". I have no problem with this in the least. I am not the one insisting that you come around to my way of thinking concerning the resurrection. I am also not insisting you would have no reason to be agnostic. Rather, it seems to be you, (the agnostic) who seems to be insisting that I must come to your way of thinking, and that I would have no reason to believe as I do.
so for you to make the claim that this has not happened when the evidence clearly shows that it has indeed happened, does not lend any credence to your abilities to be able to tell fact from fiction and be intellectually honest anyway.
What I have just demonstrated is, you have reported what would be, "fake news". I never refused to address your objections. Rather, I plainly explained to you, I would be more than willing to do so, but I was not willing to do this, if I had to do so, between different threads. So, who is it really who is having the trouble determining fact, from fiction?
For me to pardon such an obvious fallacy on your part, would be akin to turning a blind eye to false statements, or even rewarding you for having made them.
Exactly what, "fallacy" and "false statements" would you be referring to?

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #416

Post by Realworldjack »

William wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:02 pm [Replying to Realworldjack in post #410]

This thread is specific to the question of double standards and I see no reason as to why you forgot to mention that I made it plain in the course of our interactions, that if we were to focus on the subject of the resurrection I would want to do so in a thread created for that to happen for the two reasons I gave, which were;

1: So as not to mix subjects in this thread.
2: So that whatever we then argued, would be easier to access for future reference.

Perhaps if you are too busy to give the evidence you claim to have, you should not make such claims in the first place.

Fortunately, there is another Christian who also implies that the resurrection is fact-based, so there is currently a tentative move toward answering this question regarding Belief in The Resurrection being Faith, or Fact Based.

In the mean time I still have had no evidence that belief in the resurrection is anything other than something folk believe in on/through faith.
This thread is specific to the question of double standards and I see no reason as to why you forgot to mention that I made it plain in the course of our interactions, that if we were to focus on the subject of the resurrection I would want to do so in a thread created for that to happen for the two reasons I gave, which were;

1: So as not to mix subjects in this thread.
2: So that whatever we then argued, would be easier to access for future reference.
I assure you that I did not "forget to mention" this. Rather, I had no reason to mention it. You started a different thread. I explained plainly to you, that I have enough trouble keeping up in one thread, and was not willing to leave this thread, in order to be stretched between two different threads. Therefore, you can either wait until I am finished with this thread, or you will have to engage me on this thread. You are now back, and as promised, I am more than willing to deal with your objections.

I mean lets go back through this. I was here on this thread. You came into the conversation, and I was conversing with you here. You then go on to open another thread. I go to that thread, in order to explain to you that I was not going to get involved in two different threads. You are back here now, and I am conversing with you. How does one interpret this to be, "I refuse to participate with you"? It can only be in your imagination!
Perhaps if you are too busy to give the evidence you claim to have, you should not make such claims in the first place.
Or, "perhaps" I am too busy to continue to repeat the same things over, and over? Therefore, allow me to share with you a link from this very thread, where I go on to supply some facts, and evidence in support of what it is I believe. I think this will answer many of your objections.

viewtopic.php?p=1043496#p1043496

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #417

Post by William »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #417]
, I had no reason to mention it. You started a different thread. I explained plainly to you, that I have enough trouble keeping up in one thread, and was not willing to leave this thread, in order to be stretched between two different threads.
Your points about the resurrection here in this thread [which is about Double Standards], I have no interest in answering hereabouts, because as I said, it is best not to mix up the two subjects and information on the subject of the resurrection has its own thread, for that purpose. To keep it in the one place, nice and accessible for future reference.
Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based
That thread is ticking along nicely.

Meantime, I will leave you to your arguments about double standards, so as not to stretch you out beyond the capacity to handle.
more than just one thread at a time.

Image

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #418

Post by bluegreenearth »

Realworldjack wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:58 am Allow me to attempt to explain this one more time. There have been book volumes authored concerning the methodology used to come to this conclusion. Moreover, this debate has been raging for some 2000 years now, with neither side being able to demonstrate the position they hold. The methodology I used was almost a three year process. Therefore, you are asking me to write a book volume here, in a single post, which sort of demonstrates one who is under the impression that it is all so simple. In other words, although this debate has been raging for thousands of years, with book volumes being authored by those on both sides, describing the methodology being used, you seem to be under the impression that one should be able to throw out some sort of simple methodology?
I suspect you are conflating "methodology" for conducting research with specific and detailed "instructions" or "directions" for achieving a particular conclusion. A methodology describes a basic contextual framework for conducting research and does not involve a detailed description of the specific outcomes the researcher achieves when applying the methodology to a particular claim. For instance, a multi-year effort to obtain, translate, and read through the earliest manuscript copies of a particular text which are available in the archives could be summarized in the overall methodological approach as "Step 1: Conduct a literature review of the earliest manuscript copies of the targeted text." Since I am seeking to evaluate the reliability of the methodology by applying it consistently to competing or contradictory claims, it is not at all necessary for me to know what specific manuscripts were reviewed or what information was contained in each of those manuscripts. All I need to know is that conducting a literature review of the earliest manuscript evidence was one of the steps in the methodology that was used. From there, I could consistently apply Step 1 and the remaining steps of that methodology to the investigation of any competing or contradictory claims.

It shouldn't be too difficult for you to describe your basic methodology in similar terms.
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:58 am Moreover, I have given you credit for the extensive amount of work you have put forth in the "members notes" concerning, Alister McGrath. However, after reading most all of your "members notes" posts, it all comes down to the subjective. In other words, while I would love to respond to everything you have posted in "members notes" this would be an extensive amount of work, but in the end, you have not demonstrated anything in the least, and your arguments, are not at all convincing to me.'
First of all, my "member notes" are precisely that and not intended for use as arguments to convince anyone else of anything. Secondly, the content of those particular "notes" were merely an early attempt on my part at identifying potential critical thinking questions, logical fallacies, and/or other errors regarding the arguments presented by McGrath in his book and should not be interpreted as a defense of any counter-argument.
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:58 am Therefore, it seems extremely simplistic to me, for one to acknowledge the fact that we have the claims, who goes on to acknowledge that they cannot in any way demonstrate the claims to be false, who does not give us any other explanations as to why we may have the claims, who goes on to seem to want to insist, that I must doubt the claims?
I do not recall myself insisting that you must doubt the Christian claims. I've only provided an explanation and justification for me to doubt the Christian claims.
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:58 am Again, the first thing I would point out here is, we are dealing with the subjective. While, "lacking belief" may be logically justified, it has not in any way been demonstrated to be, "on account of the available facts and evidence being too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief". This is simply an opinion. In other words, it may be your opinion that, "the available facts and evidence are too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief", but this is not something which you have demonstrated to be a fact.

You seem to have taken the position as an agnostic. Those who take such a position, usually go on to insist, they are not making any sort of claims which must be demonstrated. Therefore, when one says, "the available facts and evidence are too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief", they are making a claim, which must be demonstrated, or they must admit this is simply an opinion they hold, which cannot be demonstrated.
How would "lacking belief" be logically justified if the available facts and evidence are perfectly sufficient to support a confident belief? Is it not the case that the available facts and evidence are either perfectly sufficient to logically justify a confident belief or they are not? How else could a lack of belief be logically justified if not on account of the available facts and evidence being too inadequate?
Realworldjack wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:58 am I am not making any sort of claims, which I cannot demonstrate to be fact. The claims I make, which can be demonstrated to be fact, are the same facts, I have used to come to a confident belief. I am not insisting that you, nor anyone else must share the position I hold. Rather, I allow others to examine the same facts, and evidence, to come to whatever conclusion they think best. It seems to me, it is the one who holds the agnostic position who is making claims which they cannot demonstrate, and then going on to insist that I must, and have to share the same position they have come to.

The whole point here is, we have indeed come to a "stalemate" which is what I have been saying all along. In other words, it has always been my position, that all we can do, is to share what it is we believe concerning these things, along with the facts, and evidence in support, with neither of us being able to demonstrate our case. I as a Christian acknowledge this to be the case, and am fine with it. It seems to be those opposed, who seem to have the problem?
Repeated from above: I do not recall myself insisting that you must doubt the Christian claims. I've only provided an explanation and justification for me to doubt the Christian claims.

The "stalemate" you want to invoke does not apply to the investigation of the claim that your methodology is reliable unless you are refusing to submit your methodology for critical analysis. I suppose I could try to find one of your earlier posts and attempt to breakdown your argument into its methodological components, but then you might accuse me of constructing a straw-man. So, it would be best for you to provide me with your methodology instead.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #419

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #415]

Did you enjoy your trip to the mountains? Was the cabin a rental or your own vacation property?

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #420

Post by bluegreenearth »

Realworldjack wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:58 am With this being the case, I have suggested that you go on to examine some of the folks who have actually authored these book volumes, more than one of which who are scientists, in order to save the time and space it would take in order to examine the methodology I have used. One of these scientists, actually claims to have come to the conclusion of a creator, simply by the study of science itself. He goes on to claim to have gone from this, to the actual study of the different religions of the world, and by doing this, he became a convinced Christian, years before he ever met the first Christian. In fact, I have actually suggested that you would not even have to read anything these folks may have authored, and could rather listen to what they have to say concerning the methodology they have used, on places such as "youtube" in order for you to demonstrate how their methodology would be flawed. You seemed to have promised to do this, but thus far, all I hear is "crickets"?
That exchange took place in the context of a discussion about indoctrination and psychological manipulation techniques. You asked me to investigate if the referenced individual was using psychological manipulation techniques in order to become convinced of the Christian claims. I did indicate that I would consider watching his YouTube video, but then I remember pointing out the following:
...if it is your perspective that such an outcome would simply demonstrate how someone could succeeded in acquiring a belief in Christianity without having to include psychological manipulation techniques in his line of reasoning, then I don't understand the point of me conducting the investigation because I never claimed this outcome couldn't occur and ruling-out psychological manipulation wouldn't be sufficient on its own for me to responsibly conclude this particular belief acquisition process is reliable.
From there, the topic of our conversation gradually moved on to the methodology you are using. For the time being, I'm only interested in your own methodology and not the methodology being used by someone who I'm not in conversation with. I've created a separate thread where you could post that other apologist's methodology and apply it consistently to competing or contradictory claims if you are interested.

Post Reply