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?
Is There A Double Standard?
Moderator: Moderators
- bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
- 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 #381Nope. The available facts and evidence are too inadequate for me to conclude the resurrection claim is true or false.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:36 am [Replying to bluegreenearth in post #379]
I think I see what you are attempting to do here? You seem to be insisting the NT would not be a reliable source of information? The question now would be, are you insisting the reports of the resurrection contained in the NT, would be false?The conclusion that both competing sources are unreliable
Last edited by bluegreenearth on Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
- 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 #382Just to clarify, the purpose of the other thread is to described a method (i.e. systematic procedures, qualifying criteria, bias mitigation techniques, line of reasoning, etc.) an apologist used to conclude the resurrection claim from the NT is true, and then consistently apply that method to competing or contradictory supernatural claims from non-Christian sources. It is my understanding that an "argument" may not necessarily describe a method.Difflugia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:24 amIf you think that William Lane Craig's arguments don't represent apologists in general, then perhaps you could help that thread by offering a more representative set of arguments. The argument that the New Testament is reliable because Luke might have written some of it doesn't seem an improvement (I can't prove that Nephi didn't write some of the Book of Mormon, either), but maybe you have more.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:59 amIt seems you may have attempted to do this on another thread. On this particular thread, Mormonism is brought into the equation. However, as far as I can see, there is really no comparison between, Mormonism, and Christianity. Rather, it seems to be more of a critic of the apologetics of Craig. In other words, the verdict there seems to be that if Craig were consistent, he would have to believe Mormonism as well.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
- Location: real world
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 50 times
Re: Is There A Double Standard?
Post #383[Replying to Difflugia in post #380]
As I said, I know very little about Craig, or his arguments. Therefore, I could not in any way be arguing that, "Craig's arguments don't represent apologists in general". My argument is, no matter who it may be who is arguing, if they are simply giving arguments in support of Christianity, they are not arguing against, any other claims, (Mormonism included). In other words, if I am giving an argument as to the reasons to believe the Christian claims, I am not arguing that Mormonism would be false. I am also not insisting that if you were to use the same methodology with Mormonism, there would be no reason to believe Mormonism. This would not occur, until, or unless I were to address Mormonism.If you think that William Lane Craig's arguments don't represent apologists in general, then perhaps you could help that thread by offering a more representative set of arguments.
I have never made such an argument! However, there are those who attempt to make the argument, that the authors of what we call the "Gospels" could have been authored by those decades later, who would not have been alive at the time of the events recorded, and were simply passing down what had been passed on to them, through the decades. My argument, concerning the author of the letters to Theophilus, is in order to refute such arguments. So then, either you have misunderstood my argument, or this is some sort of tactic?The argument that the New Testament is reliable because Luke might have written some of it doesn't seem an improvement
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
- Location: real world
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 50 times
Re: Is There A Double Standard?
Post #384So then, is it your conclusion, that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could in fact be true?bluegreenearth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:46 amNope. The available facts and evidence are too inadequate for me to conclude the resurrection claim is true or false.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:36 am [Replying to bluegreenearth in post #379]
I think I see what you are attempting to do here? You seem to be insisting the NT would not be a reliable source of information? The question now would be, are you insisting the reports of the resurrection contained in the NT, would be false?The conclusion that both competing sources are unreliable
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3041
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3272 times
- Been thanked: 2020 times
Re: Is There A Double Standard?
Post #385It's definitely not the latter, so it must be the former. I'll stop trying to guess at what you mean.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:11 amSo then, either you have misunderstood my argument, or this is some sort of tactic?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
- Location: real world
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 50 times
Re: Is There A Double Standard?
Post #386Difflugia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:37 pmIt's definitely not the latter, so it must be the former. I'll stop trying to guess at what you mean.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:11 amSo then, either you have misunderstood my argument, or this is some sort of tactic?
So then, "It's definitely not the latter", meaning we can know it is not a "tactic"? But, for some reason when it comes to one who is opposed to the position you have, we can know it is a "tactic", correct?
And then,For reference, I want to point out a few of the perhaps less obvious bits of rhetorical sleight-of-hand that Craig employs here. First, a common tactic of his
In other words, if we are referring to the arguments Christians attempt to make, we can be certain there is "sleight-of-hand" and all sorts of "tactics" being employed, by these evil folks. However, why in the world would anyone have the impression that one who was once a convinced Christian, would have any reason whatsoever, to resort to such things? Can anyone spell, DOUBLE STANDARD?His second tactic is
Yeah, it is probably a good idea not to "guess". However, there was no need in guessing, because I have never made such an argument. Therefore, since you seem to admit you were mistaken, this could lead us to believe that you may in fact be mistaken concerning the arguments of, Craig? In other words, if Craig is simply making an argument for the reasons there would be to believe the Christian claims, this would not necessitate that he is arguing there would be no reasons to believe other competing claims. Next, if we were to go on to use his methodology with other competing claims, and come to the conclusion based upon this methodology, that there may in fact be reasons to believe these claims as well, does not in any way necessitate that he should also believe the other claims. That math just don't add!
SO????? Exactly what was it you think you have demonstrated on the other thread?
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3041
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3272 times
- Been thanked: 2020 times
Re: Is There A Double Standard?
Post #387Meaning that I'm telling you it's not a tactic on my part. That's only if you trust me to not lie to you, though.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:14 pmSo then, "It's definitely not the latter", meaning we can know it is not a "tactic"?Difflugia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:37 pmIt's definitely not the latter, so it must be the former. I'll stop trying to guess at what you mean.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:11 amSo then, either you have misunderstood my argument, or this is some sort of tactic?
No, in that instance it's just William Lane Craig. He's a professor of philosophy and professional debater, so I'd expect him to recognize logical fallacies. Maybe I shouldn't give him the benefit of that doubt, though.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:14 pmBut, for some reason when it comes to one who is opposed to the position you have, we can know it is a "tactic", correct?And then,For reference, I want to point out a few of the perhaps less obvious bits of rhetorical sleight-of-hand that Craig employs here. First, a common tactic of his
In other words, if we are referring to the arguments Christians attempt to make, we can be certain there is "sleight-of-hand" and all sorts of "tactics" being employed, by these evil folks.His second tactic is
What?Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:14 pmHowever, why in the world would anyone have the impression that one who was once a convinced Christian, would have any reason whatsoever, to resort to such things? Can anyone spell, DOUBLE STANDARD?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Craig's rhetoric is far easier to understand than yours is.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:14 pmYeah, it is probably a good idea not to "guess". However, there was no need in guessing, because I have never made such an argument. Therefore, since you seem to admit you were mistaken, this could lead us to believe that you may in fact be mistaken concerning the arguments of, Craig?
What?Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:14 pmIn other words, if Craig is simply making an argument for the reasons there would be to believe the Christian claims, this would not necessitate that he is arguing there would be no reasons to believe other competing claims.
What?Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:14 pmNext, if we were to go on to use his methodology with other competing claims, and come to the conclusion based upon this methodology, that there may in fact be reasons to believe these claims as well, does not in any way necessitate that he should also believe the other claims. That math just don't add!
That Willaim Lane Craig's standards for judging the resurrection narratives are low enough that if applied to the Book of Mormon, it should be considered genuine.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:14 pmSO????? Exactly what was it you think you have demonstrated on the other thread?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
- Location: real world
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 50 times
Re: Is There A Double Standard?
Post #388[Replying to Difflugia in post #388]
Let's go through the things you do not seem to understand one at the time. I said,
The point is, you seem to automatically assume that Craig is guilty of such behavior, but never seem to question the motives of those who agree with you? If you think I do the same, allow me to share with you something I posted to another member in January,
Let's go through the things you do not seem to understand one at the time. I said,
This seems pretty simple. You have outright accused Craig, of using tactics, and sleight of hand. This would mean that Craig knows what he is doing, and is intentionally attempting to deceive folks. However, I guess we are to suppose, the many, many, members of this site, who claim to have been convinced Christians at one time, would have no reason at all to hide behind the sort of tactics which Craig employs, because they have demonstrated such a love for truth, that this sort of thing would never cross their mind?realworldjack wrote:However, why in the world would anyone have the impression that one who was once a convinced Christian, would have any reason whatsoever, to resort to such things? Can anyone spell, DOUBLE STANDARD?
The point is, you seem to automatically assume that Craig is guilty of such behavior, but never seem to question the motives of those who agree with you? If you think I do the same, allow me to share with you something I posted to another member in January,
My point is, I do not assume those who agree with me, are honest folks who would never engage in such behavior. I also do not accuse those opposed of such things, unless it can be demonstrated. Therefore, unless you can demonstrate that Craig is indeed intentionally employing such tactics, and sleight of hand, you are only sharing your subjective opinion, as opposed to fact. This could in fact be interpreted as some sort of "tactic" or "sleight of hand" itself, but only by those who are quick to judge.realworldjack wrote:Okay, I think I may be beginning to understand now? All I can tell you is, there are those of us who would never think like this. In other words, when I hear of things like this which may support what it is I happen to be convinced of, I automatically begin to think about the fact that there are Christians, who will do whatever they can in an attempt to find some sort of support for Christianity, even to the point of being deceitful.
I also automatically begin to attempt to think like those opposed to Christianity, to see if there would be any sort of legitimate arguments against such things. The point is, I am extremely cautious when I hear, or read of such things, and am very slow, accepting whatever it may be. So, I never get excited when I hear such things, because I understand that whatever it is, it could have been manipulated.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3041
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3272 times
- Been thanked: 2020 times
Re: Is There A Double Standard?
Post #389Yes.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:50 pmLet's go through the things you do not seem to understand one at the time. I said,
This seems pretty simple. You have outright accused Craig, of using tactics, and sleight of hand. This would mean that Craig knows what he is doing, and is intentionally attempting to deceive folks.realworldjack wrote:However, why in the world would anyone have the impression that one who was once a convinced Christian, would have any reason whatsoever, to resort to such things? Can anyone spell, DOUBLE STANDARD?
Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:50 pmHowever, I guess we are to suppose, the many, many, members of this site, who claim to have been convinced Christians at one time, would have no reason at all to hide behind the sort of tactics which Craig employs, because they have demonstrated such a love for truth, that this sort of thing would never cross their mind?
- Who's supposing that?
- Who mentioned anything about people that used to be Christians, here or otherwise?
- What does this have to do with my claim about William Lane Craig?
It's not automatic. Whether you agree with me or not, I told you the reasoning that went into it.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:50 pmThe point is, you seem to automatically assume that Craig is guilty of such behavior,
Nobody else's motives would have any effect on Craig's. Why have you added them to the discussion?Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:50 pmbut never seem to question the motives of those who agree with you?
I didn't mention your motives, either. All I claimed about you is that you argued that Luke writing the Gospel of Luke and Acts implied that the New Testament was reliable. You then said you didn't. Therefore, when I tried to guess at what you meant, I must have had it wrong.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:50 pmIf you think I do the same, allow me to share with you something I posted to another member in January,
That's fair of you.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:50 pmMy point is, I do not assume those who agree with me, are honest folks who would never engage in such behavior. I also do not accuse those opposed of such things, unless it can be demonstrated.
As I said, I probably shouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt. "Never attribute to malice" and all that.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:50 pmTherefore, unless you can demonstrate that Craig is indeed intentionally employing such tactics, and sleight of hand, you are only sharing your subjective opinion, as opposed to fact. This could in fact be interpreted as some sort of "tactic" or "sleight of hand" itself, but only by those who are quick to judge.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- 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 #390First, you need to understand how I distinguish between what could in fact be true, what is factually possible, and what could be conceivably possible. From my perspective, a proposed historical claim could "in fact" be true if it describes a type of thing or event that I know is factually possible. I'll know when a type of thing or event being described is factually possible because those types of things or events will have been previously and reliably demonstrated to exist or occur in reality and are not just imaginary. As far as what could be conceivably possible, any imagined thing or event is conceivably possible. However, such speculation serves no practical purpose unless the imagined thing or event can be subsequently demonstrated to factually exist or occur beyond the imagination and in reality for me to justifiably infer the historical claim describing such a thing or event could in fact be true.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:16 amSo then, is it your conclusion, that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could in fact be true?bluegreenearth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:46 amNope. The available facts and evidence are too inadequate for me to conclude the resurrection claim is true or false.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:36 am [Replying to bluegreenearth in post #379]
I think I see what you are attempting to do here? You seem to be insisting the NT would not be a reliable source of information? The question now would be, are you insisting the reports of the resurrection contained in the NT, would be false?
In order to justifiably infer that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could "in fact" be true, a resurrection would have to be demonstrated to occur in reality under controlled conditions for me to know such an event is factually possible in the first place and not just imaginary. Since "the possibility" of a resurrection is not a fact, I have no justification to infer it would have been factually possible for a resurrection to have occurred in past. Therefore, I cannot responsibly infer that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could in fact be true. Please note that this is not equivalent to inferring the claims are false. However, the possibility for a resurrection to not occur in reality is a demonstrable fact. Accordingly, given this factual possibility, I can justifiably infer that the claims of the resurrection found in the NT could in fact be false. Again, please note that this is not equivalent to inferring the claims are false.
So, to summarize:
- Are the claims of the resurrection found in the NT true (or false)?
The available facts and evidence are too inadequate for me to conclude the resurrection claims are true (or false).
- Could the claims of the resurrection found in the NT be in fact true (or false)?
I would need to know a resurrection is factually possible to justifiably infer that the claims of resurrection in the NT could in fact be true. However, I can justifiably infer that the claims could in fact be false.
- Is a resurrection factually possible?
I have no clue because a resurrection has not been reliably demonstrated to occur in reality for me to know it is factually possible.
- Could a resurrection be conceivably possible?
If anything is conceivably possible, then a resurrection could be conceivably possible, but such speculation serves no practical purpose unless it can be subsequently demonstrated as a factual possibility.