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?

[brunumb]

Again, would anyone like to talk about, "double standards"?

Yes. The way I see it, you demonstrate them in each response when you dismiss the same type of arguments that you use when they are presented back to you. You obviously see things differently.

You can settle everything in a flash by tabling a summary of the evidence that led to your belief for us to scrutinise. Until then the debate has simply reached a stalemate.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #182]

That someone who mighta not been real religious just kinda up and becomes em it, that in no way, shape, or form means that religion possesses it any more truth than when I tell the pretty thing I done brushed me my tooth.

Bringing up Butterfield's conversion had nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to demonstrate the truth of the claims of Christianity. Butterfield's conversion to Christianity does nothing to demonstrate the truth of Christianity, any more than the many here on this site, who testify to being convinced Christians at one time, who are now no longer Christians, demonstrates Christianity to be false.

Yeah, maybe I got me a bit fussed up on that'n. I'll crank up the tractor and plow it under soon as I can hitch me up the plow.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit in an attempt to deny I got me some fat fingers

I note Realworld jack is responding to someone else, but such ain't never been a problem to my butting in...

If I am understanding you correctly here, you seem to be saying, when it comes to Christianity, your experience has always ever been, one of the parties involved, fails to understand what constitutes sound reasoning, and logic? Would this be correct?

In regards to a double standard, I think it fair to consider on which basis disagreement might occur.

In Christianity, we have a belief in a god that can't be shown to exist. Then we have beliefs based on that non-proven god's opinions. So we see, some folks might well be consitent, might well be "non-double standarding", but in the final analysis, they're believing in that which cant be shown to be true.

I do not disagree with anything you say here. My point has been, this is exactly what we do here most everyday. As an example, right here on this thread, I am being accused of, appealing to numbers, and if I were in fact appealing to numbers, one would be correct to point out this fallacy in my thinking.

As one of em arguing about how argumtum ad populum is an errant argument, I point to claims such as, "Well here's this big ol bunch". My point being that no matter how many folks believe em something, we can consider such against "double standards".

Do Christians believe pancakes were sent to earth to help save folks from a vengeful god? I'd say not.

But they believe their unproven to exist god became him a man, got strung up, up and quit being dead, then went him down to the Awful Waffle.

They wanna declare there's no double standard in believing naught and naught is naught, so we oughtn pick on em too much for believing a god they can't show exists does him, and thinks him, stuff they can't show he does.

In other words, we are always ever here attempting to demonstrate where one may be guilty of things such as, faulty thinking and logic. Therefore, everyone here seems to be more than willing to place what they believe out there for all to see, and examine. I do not believe anyone here is attempting to hide from such evaluations, but rather embraces the exercise.

Yeah, we're here in this thread set with a bunch of Christians who'd declare their beliefs in that which can't be shown to be truth ougta be held up same as the beliefs of those who think if ya jump you out a tree, you'll find you a splat in your immediate future.

"I looked me at it, and I thought me on it, and I've come me to the belief god exists, and that yes, the tree jumping out of it, yeah, that'll make it a splat" is the very definition of a double standard.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

I did, but since you didn't offer any sort of support for the statement, I was somewhere between hyperbole and wishful thinking.

I simply made a statement of fact, and would be under the impression most would have known there were such folks as I had described, and low, and behold, I believe it would have been you, who demonstrated this to be the case, since you were able to supply one yourself with Lee Strobel. Of course, I am sure you have some sort of complaints concerning Strobel, just as it seems you have problems with Butterfield, and I am sure that anyone else I were to list, you would want to find some sort of complaint. However, this does seem sort of ironic, on a thread dedicated to "double standards"? In other words, you do not seem to have a problem at all with the many here on this site who claim to be convinced Christians at one time, who go on to claim it was the thinking process which caused them to reject Christianity? I do not see you quizzing them as to whether they were ever really true Christians, or whether it really would have been the thinking process which caused the change of mind? However, if one were to bring up someone who claims to have been an atheist, who goes on to claim they studied the facts, and evidence, and comes to a different conclusion than you have then, for some reason we cannot simply take their word for it, but rather we must question as to whether this would really be the case.

Would that be a "double standard"?

First, it looks to me like your "numerous" is you repeating the same Rosaria Butterfield about twice a year since 2016.

Correct. I could list more if you like, but I have used her because I am a little more familiar with her story, since I have read one of her books, and viewed some of her other material. Moreover, I believe she would be one of the better examples, since we do not have to simply take her word as to whether she would have been completely opposed to Christianity, since her actual life demonstrates this to be the case. Of course, we have to consider the fact, that while she was living such a life, in the back of her mind, she may have been holding on to the "liberal Catholic" school she attended.

But hey, if you are not satisfied with her, I could list others as well. I could list C. S. Lewis, Jeff Durbin, Jennifer Fulwiler, J. Warner Wallace, and even others. But again, I would imagine you would find fault with anyone I may list, because you seem to have convinced yourself that if there are those who come to a different conclusion than what you have come to, it cannot possibly be the thinking process which caused them to come to such conclusions, which is exactly one of the things Jenifer Fulwiler talks about. In other words, you seem to have convinced yourself, that you, and those who agree with you, have cornered the market on the thinking process, and that a thinking person could not possibly come to a different conclusion than that which you have come to. I am not under such a delusion.

Second, nothing you quoted above nor any of her articles support your assertion that she "became convinced by the facts, and evidence which supports the claims.

Well, that may be because you seem to have conveniently left out the part where I quoted, "In 1999, after repeatedly reading the Bible in large chunks for her research, Rosaria converted to Christianity". Of course this is the story as she tells it, I am sure you have a different explanation, and I guess we should take your word, over the actual story she tells?

It looks very much to me like she had an emotional conversion.

Oh really? Well you will have to explain this one to me, because here is a direct quote from Butterfield herself, referring to her conversion,

"Neither did I feel like the victim of an emotion earthquake, and collapse gracefully into the arms of my savior, like a holy and sanctified Scarlet O'Hara, having been claimed by Christ's irresistible grace". But again, I guess we should listen to you, because I am sure you know far better than the one who actually lived through it?

Everything I read emphasizes a friendship that she developed with a pastor in combination with a lingering guilt over having become an LBGTQ activist against the wishes of her conservative family.

Again, maybe you can share this with us as well, because after reading one of her books, along with other material about her, I cannot find where she has much to say at all concerning her family? In fact, I cannot find where she says anything concerning whether her family approved of her choices, or not? As far as what you claim to be "lingering guilt" concerning her choices, here again is a direct quote from Butterfield herself,

"After my tenure book was published, I used my post to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful, and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: aids activism, children's health and literacy, Golden Retriever rescue, our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few. Even if you believed the ghost stories promulgated by Robertson and his ilk, it was hard to argue that my partner and I were anything but good citizens and caregivers. The GLBT community values hospitality and applies it with skill, sacrifice, and integrity".

She also goes on to say, "My life as a lesbian seemed normal, I considered it, and Enlighted chosen path. Lesbianism felt like a more cleaner, and moral choice".

So again, this is what she has to say, but I guess we should ignore that, and instead take your interpretation?

People convert in both directions all the time. If conversion itself implies the truth of the proposition, then everything that people convert to is true.

You are exactly right, which is exactly why after sharing the story of Butterfield, I made sure in that same post to go on to say,

To be clear, I do not bring these things up thinking they somehow demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Rather, it does indeed demonstrate there are those who were "hardened, skeptical atheists" who claim to have become convinced by the facts, and evidence which supports the claims.

Did you miss that part? At any rate, what you say would also go as well, for the many here on this site, who claimed to have been Christians at one time and have now rejected it, correct? In other words, we can also say, their rejection, has nothing whatsoever to do with what the actual truth may be?

If you're looking to rely on the prevalence of a certain kind of conversion ("convinced by the facts, and evidence"), you haven't offered any cases in which that appears to be true

Of course not! Because, we cannot possibly allow these folks to speak for themselves. Rather, we somehow know better than they do what actually occurred to them.

Just what is it that you think needs explaining and why do you find it inexplicable?

I am not exactly sure what you are asking here, but to the best I understand it, allow me to reply in this way. I have no desire at all to convince you, nor anyone else to believe as I do, concerning Christianity. I have no problem with what it is you may believe concerning Christianity, nor the way in which you have come to those conclusions. I also have no problems, and even welcome those who may want to point out where they think I may be using faulty thinking, logic, and, or reason. My problem comes in where there are those who seem to want to insist there would be no facts, evidence, reason, or logic involved, in my conclusions, when they can in no way demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.

[JoeyKnothead]

I might need to change me my username to Buttinsky, but here we go...

I simply made a statement of fact, and would be under the impression most would have known there were such folks as I had described, and low, and behold, I believe it would have been you, who demonstrated this to be the case, since you were able to supply one yourself with Lee Strobel. Of course, I am sure you have some sort of complaints concerning Strobel, just as it seems you have problems with Butterfield, and I am sure that anyone else I were to list, you would want to find some sort of complaint. However, this does seem sort of ironic, on a thread dedicated to "double standards"? In other words, you do not seem to have a problem at all with the many here on this site who claim to be convinced Christians at one time, who go on to claim it was the thinking process which caused them to reject Christianity? I do not see you quizzing them as to whether they were ever really true Christians, or whether it really would have been the thinking process which caused the change of mind? However, if one were to bring up someone who claims to have been an atheist, who goes on to claim they studied the facts, and evidence, and comes to a different conclusion than you have then, for some reason we cannot simply take their word for it, but rather we must question as to whether this would really be the case.

Would that be a "double standard"?

Our problem here bocome one of folks declaring beilef on that which can't be shown to be true.
Sure, Christians come to believe em stuff, but how rational is it for em having done it?

There's it a fundamental difference in believing that which can't be show to be true, and holding onto handrails lest mean ol mister gravity sets upon us.

Correct. I could list more if you like, but I have used her because I am a little more familiar with her story, since I have read one of her books, and viewed some of her other material. Moreover, I believe she would be one of the better examples, since we do not have to simply take her word as to whether she would have been completely opposed to Christianity, since her actual life demonstrates this to be the case. Of course, we have to consider the fact, that while she was living such a life, in the back of her mind, she may have been holding on to the "liberal Catholic" school she attended.

And her story is about growing up in a Catholic environment, and don't it beat all, she ended her up religious.
We see, time and time again, those who get em brought up in religious belief, and don't this beat, but they end up religious.

But hey, if you are not satisfied with her, I could list others as well. I could list C. S. Lewis, Jeff Durbin, Jennifer Fulwiler, J. Warner Wallace, and even others. But again, I would imagine you would find fault with anyone I may list, because you seem to have convinced yourself that if there are those who come to a different conclusion than what you have come to, it cannot possibly be the thinking process which caused them to come to such conclusions, which is exactly one of the things Jenifer Fulwiler talks about. In other words, you seem to have convinced yourself, that you, and those who agree with you, have cornered the market on the thinking process, and that a thinking person could not possibly come to a different conclusion than that which you have come to. I am not under such a delusion.

problem here is folks possibly coming to believe in that which can't be shown to be truth.

Ther is, indeed, a "double standard" when we carry on about how proud we are for tje gullible, while not fretting them that ain't.

The theist is entirely and completely incapable of showing they speak truth regarding a god they can't show exist. Then have em them the temerity to fuss about "double standards".

I dare say, if the theist could show je speaks truth, this whole "double standards" argument woulda drowned it in Noah's flood.

Well, that may be because you seem to have conveniently left out the part where I quoted, "In 1999, after repeatedly reading the Bible in large chunks for her research, Rosaria converted to Christianity". Of course this is the story as she tells it, I am sure you have a different explanation, and I guess we should take your word, over the actual story she tells?

Who here, y'all raise your jands, is shoxked to find out someone raised em up in a religious environment would'm - now hang with me here - end em up being religious?

Oh really? Well you will have to explain this one to me, because here is a direct quote from Butterfield herself, referring to her conversion,

"Neither did I feel like the victim of an emotion earthquake, and collapse gracefully into the arms of my savior, like a holy and sanctified Scarlet O'Hara, having been claimed by Christ's irresistible grace". But again, I guess we should listen to you, because I am sure you know far better than the one who actually lived through it?

"Yeah, my having growed me up in me a religious environment, well how bout that?"

The fact remains, we've got us someone here declaring belief in that which can't be shown to be truth.

...
"After my tenure book was published, I used my post to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful, and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: aids activism, children's health and literacy, Golden Retriever rescue, our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few. Even if you believed the ghost stories promulgated by Robertson and his ilk, it was hard to argue that my partner and I were anything but good citizens and caregivers. The GLBT community values hospitality and applies it with skill, sacrifice, and integrity".

She also goes on to say, "My life as a lesbian seemed normal, I considered it, and Enlighted chosen path. Lesbianism felt like a more cleaner, and moral choice".

I notw a good many homesexuals dind comfort in rwligious teaching about how much they need em stones fetched their way. I wonder if they ain't about upset for being it.

Still, we're left with the declarations of someone brought em up in a religious environment, and don't that mean their belief in a god they can't show em exists, well y'all're being all double standardy about it.

We should never fuss about double standa4ss when f9lks set to belicing, or declaring as teuth, that which can't be shown ro be it.

You are exactly right, which is exactly why after sharing the story of Butterfield, I made sure in that same post to go on to say,

To be clear, I do not bring these things up thinking they somehow demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Rather, it does indeed demonstrate there are those who were "hardened, skeptical atheists" who claim to have become convinced by the facts, and evidence which supports the claims.

It matters not how hardened anyone is in their position, near much as how goofy they are in their beliefs.

If I, an atheist, started aswearing me up and down about a god I can't show exists, has him an opinion I can't show he does, folks rejecting my claims ain't being all double standardy, they're being rational, intelligent human beings.

Just cause one's proud about their beliefs, that doesn't mean folks are employing em a double standard when they point at em and laugh.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #199]

I thought that in the mean time I might as well be proactive and go over the post I made which you admit you have trouble understanding.

Well, as you can see, I am getting hit by many different fronts, and I am doing the best with the time I have. I do have a full time job, and a family, along with other responsibilities.

Firstly, when I say I am an Agnostic Theist I am signifying that I lean toward the idea that we exist within a Creation [therefore a Creator] as do all Theists.

Can you demonstrate this to be the case? What facts, and evidence can you present which suggests there would be a creator?

I am agnostic in regard to the Theist claims in the world - of which there are too many to count - to do with the nature of The Creator.

,

Does one have to know about any other religion at all, in order to understand if there may be very good reasons to believe one of them? I tell you what, I'll be glad to compare Christianity, to any other religion you would like, as far as the historical facts, and evidence is concerned.

The position [of AT] is not one which I was born into, but one which I have cultivated and fine-tuned over time...using whatever evidence presented itself as a device in which to - at least attempt - to get to The Truth of the matter [as to the nature of The Creator].

Good luck with that! I believe there are other folks who have attempted to ascend that ladder, which is why we have so many different religions.

What I was pointing to was the fact that - all said and done - Christianity is a faith-based religion.

You, and I have a very different understanding of Christianity, as we will continue to see. The Apostles, did not ask their audience at the time, to believe the resurrection, based upon faith. Rather, they were pointing to the evidence of things like the empty tomb. Moreover, these men used words such as, proof, judge, judgement, evidence, witness, eye witness, defense, testimony, and other such words, which one would hear in a courtroom on a daily basis. So while there may be certain things which Christians accept by faith, (such as forgiveness) this does not demonstrate that Christians are to accept the whole, by faith.

One is expected to obey, not to question and what one is expected to obey is what one is told is the [true] nature of The Creator [whom Christians name as "God"].

Again, we have a completely different understanding of Christianity. My understanding is, I have been set free from rules to "obey". In other words, my understanding of Christianity has nothing to do with teaching me how be a moral person. Rather, it teaches me that I have failed that test. Therefore, I am to let go of the chase after morality, which I can never obtain, with it list of rules, and grad hold of the righteousness of another.

My own studies on this have led me to see that the nature of the Christian's claim of The Creators Nature, does not fully align with what we know of nature through our experience as Human Beings [collectively].

I have no problem with that, nor do I care how you have arrived to such a conclusion.

Thus - those Christians [such as yourself] who claim to have faith-based beliefs

Again, while I have at least one "faith based" belief, my belief in the resurrection is not at all based upon faith.

and claim to have evidence supporting said beliefs can be assumed [by this Agnostic Theist - aka - "Me"], to have new data which previously hasn't been tabled.

We do not need new data, my friend! We have multiple sources which report a resurrection, and if I understand you correctly you have "debunked" these reports (expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). If you can deliver on this promise, I'm done with Christianity.

A theist can give me evidence which they believe is a true representation of the nature of The Creator, along with the reasons as to why they believe it is true, and I will then critique the information and return what I predict will be adequate argument to show that such beliefs are false.

I have not claimed to know what a "true representation of the nature of The Creator" would be.

Where I wrote that I accept the challenge, it had to do with your claim that thus far the only evidence you have brought forth, would be the reports of a resurrection by multiple different sources, all of which apparently exist within the one source called "the bible". [The Bible]

The Bible is a collection of different sources, my friend! The overwhelming majority of the NT can be easily demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea these letters would be read by anyone other than the intended audience. Moreover, the authors could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible.

What I meant by 'bullet points' had to do with you sharing your evidence [reports of a resurrection] being succinct as possibly.

Well, I'd say that is as "succinct as possible", isn't it? In other words, we have multiple reports of the resurrection, and if I understand you correctly you have "debunked" these reports, (exposed the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). So then again, if you can hold up your end of the bargain, I'm done.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #199]

I thought that in the mean time I might as well be proactive and go over the post I made which you admit you have trouble understanding.

Well, as you can see, I am getting hit by many different fronts, and I am doing the best with the time I have. I do have a full time job, and a family, along with other responsibilities.

Yes - I see that. It is up to you as to what is priority.

Firstly, when I say I am an Agnostic Theist I am signifying that I lean toward the idea that we exist within a Creation [therefore a Creator] as do all Theists.

Can you demonstrate this to be the case?

I don't know.

What facts, and evidence can you present which suggests there would be a creator

Based on what is evident about the Universe, it appears logical that it is being created through an intelligent agency.

I am agnostic in regard to the Theist claims in the world - of which there are too many to count - to do with the nature of The Creator.

,

Does one have to know about any other religion at all, in order to understand if there may be very good reasons to believe one of them?

No. It only helps one to see that there are similarities which are of interest as evidence. The similarities in no way show that a particular religion is therefore 'the one to believe in'.

I tell you what, I'll be glad to compare Christianity, to any other religion you would like, as far as the historical facts, and evidence is concerned.

Given your lack of time to dedicate, it is probably best not to go there right now. I am happy to just focus upon The Subject [claims re the resurrection]

The position [of AT] is not one which I was born into, but one which I have cultivated and fine-tuned over time...using whatever evidence presented itself as a device in which to - at least attempt - to get to The Truth of the matter [as to the nature of The Creator].

Good luck with that!

Thanks for the Pagan incantation. I accept it in the spirit it is given.

What I was pointing to was the fact that - all said and done - Christianity is a faith-based religion.

The Apostles, did not ask their audience at the time, to believe the resurrection, based upon faith. Rather, they were pointing to the evidence of things like the empty tomb. Moreover, these men used words such as, proof, judge, judgement, evidence, witness, eye witness, defense, testimony, and other such words, which one would hear in a courtroom on a daily basis. So while there may be certain things which Christians accept by faith, (such as forgiveness) this does not demonstrate that Christians are to accept the whole, by faith.

Hearsay. Members of the jury, I would ask you to note that the defense has not established anything of the sort in his argument, that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith. Use of words one will hear in a court of law accompanying the hearsay do not in themselves establish Truth.

Thus yes - One is expected to obey, not to question and what one is expected to obey is what one is told is The Truth.

My belief in the resurrection is not at all based upon faith.

Then kindly produce the evidence that supports the claim.

We do not need new data, my friend!

We do, if we are to establish that your claim that belief in the resurrection is NOT faith-based, is actually a true claim...and it is premature to be calling each other 'friend'.

We have multiple sources which report a resurrection, and if I understand you correctly you have "debunked" these reports (expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). If you can deliver on this promise, I'm done with Christianity.

Members of the jury - I have shown that the reports are hearsay. By law, hearsay of its own, is not fact, and thus for one to believe in the reports, one has to do so by faith rather than by any actual evidence which is not hearsay.

Where I wrote that I accept the challenge, it had to do with your claim that thus far the only evidence you have brought forth, would be the reports of a resurrection by multiple different sources, all of which apparently exist within the one source called "the bible". [The Bible]

The Bible is a collection of different sources, my friend! The overwhelming majority of the NT can be easily demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea these letters would be read by anyone other than the intended audience. Moreover, the authors could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible.

One still has to believe the stories on faith. What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - and one thing which does come across is that folk did not seem to recognize that the person claiming to have resurrected was the same person they had followed for all those months. I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena.

I would suggest that if you seriously want to continue this conversation, we do so in the Head to Head in order not to mix it in with the main topic of this thread, and also, so that it is kept in a place which can be easily referred to in the future.

[brunumb]

I might need to change me my username to Buttinsky, ......

Not at all JoeyKnothead. It's not one-on-one here. Any post is fair game so to speak. Spill your guts whenever you want.

[Realworldjack]

At any rate, after conversing with these folks for some seven years now, I can assure you, that I am even more convinced of the position I hold, after having done so.

If the examination of this evidence has convinced you to believe, why not do as others have suggested and present what you consider to be the most compelling aspects of that evidence here for closer scrutiny. Dot points would suffice. I have been on boards such as this for more than two decades and have still not seen anything remotely convincing. You may hold the key.

If the examination of this evidence has convinced you to believe, why not do as others have suggested and present what you consider to be the most compelling aspects of that evidence here for closer scrutiny.

My friend, I have been on this site for some 7 years now, and have posted over 2000 times. The point is, what I believe, and why I believe it, is on display almost daily, and you have commented on a number of my post. The problem is, while you may disagree with my conclusions, you have yet to be able to demonstrate that any of them would be incorrect.

Next, to continue to ask someone to give, "the most compelling aspects of that evidence" sort of demonstrates one who seems to be under the impression, that it is just that simple. In other words, there have been book volumes written on both sides of the equation, which seems to clearly demonstrate, that this thing is not as simple as, "giving my favorite reason for belief". The thing is, no matter which side of the equation you are on, I would hope, we have all put forth a lot of time, effort, energy, and thinking into what it is we all believe, and if one has done this, I cannot imagine they would be able to simply list a few things, and, or, give a few bullet points. It is not that simple in the least.

Of course, I can sort of understand one who may have been easily convinced of something at one point, who did not put forth a whole lot of thinking in order to be convinced as they were, who all of a sudden woke up one day, to come to the realization that they had not done a whole lot of thinking to be convinced, who then somehow decides, because I did not think about this before I became convinced, this somehow translates into my mind that what I was once convinced of must be false. Yeah, I can kinda understand one such as that, being under the impression that it is as simple as throwing a few "bullet points" out there. However, as Alan Jackson says, "But here in the real world, it's not that easy at all".

I have been on boards such as this for more than two decades and have still not seen anything remotely convincing.

And that demonstrates what, exactly? As I have already stated, I have been on this site for some 7 years now. I found here exactly what I expected to find, and my time here has done nothing but convince me even more of the position I had, before I arrived. SO WHAT?

You may hold the key.

The key to what? If you are talking about "the key" which may change your mind, I can assure you that it is not my aim, nor desire to convince you, nor anyone else to believe as I do concerning Christianity. Rather, I am simply demonstrating one can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic, in order to come to the conclusion that the Christian claims are true. Is this to say that I am convinced facts, evidence, and reason cannot be used in order to arrive to unbelief, or doubt? No! I am not saying this in the least. I am not concerned with whether anyone else has used facts, evidence, reason, or logic in order to arrive to what it is they may believe about Christianity. Therefore, I am not the one insisting that those who are opposed to me, could not have possibly used facts, evidence, reason and logic in order to arrive to the conclusions they have. However, there certainly seem to be those who seem to want to insist, that it is not possible for me, nor anyone else for that matter, to use facts, evidence, reason, and logic to arrive to the conclusions I have come to, when they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.



,

[Realworldjack]

Again, would anyone like to talk about, "double standards"?

Yes. The way I see it, you demonstrate them in each response when you dismiss the same type of arguments that you use when they are presented back to you. You obviously see things differently.

You can settle everything in a flash by tabling a summary of the evidence that led to your belief for us to scrutinise. Until then the debate has simply reached a stalemate.

Yes. The way I see it, you demonstrate them in each response when you dismiss the same type of arguments that you use when they are presented back to you.

Well, you need to demonstrate this to be the case! Because you see, I am not the one who is insisting those opposed to me could not possibly be using evidence, sound reason, and, or logic to arrive to the conclusion they have concerning Christianity. However, I do believe there are those here who certainly seem to be insisting that there would be no facts, or evidence in support of the Christian claims, and one could not possibly use sound reason, and, or, logic in order to come to the conclusion the Christian claims would be true, when they cannot demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.

So then, who is it really, who is doing the "dismissing"? Where exactly is the "double standard"? Is it with the one who is NOT insisting those who are opposed could not possibly be using, facts, evidence, sound reason, or logic? Or, would it be with those who are doing the insisting, but cannot demonstrate this to be anything other that an opinion they hold?

You obviously see things differently.

You are exactly right, and I have no problem with this in the least, and I do not go on to insist that those who may not see things in the same way that I do, do not have any facts, or evidence to support what it is they believe, nor do I insist they must be guilty of faulty reason, and, or logic. However, as already observed, there certainly seem to be those who have a problem with those who may not see things in the same way as they do, and will indeed go on to insist. So again, where is the "double standard"? Who is it really, who is doing the dismissing?

You can settle everything in a flash by tabling a summary of the evidence that led to your belief for us to scrutinise.

I have answered this in my previous post.

Until then the debate has simply reached a stalemate.

You are exactly right, which is exactly what I have been saying all along. In other words, I have continually said, "In the end we are all in the same boat, and all any of us can do, is to explain what we believe, along with the facts, evidence, and reasons as to why we believe as we do, with none of us being able to demonstrate what it is we believe". So then, I am fine with the "stalemate". Are you?