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
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #211

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:28 am "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"
Except that you are reluctant to table those facts and that evidence which convinced you of the truth of the resurrection. 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. I maintain that religious beliefs become ingrained through indoctrination and that influences how one sees, and is willing to see, any alleged evidence that may support those beliefs or tear them down.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

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 #212

Post by Realworldjack »

brunumb wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:12 am
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:28 am "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"
Except that you are reluctant to table those facts and that evidence which convinced you of the truth of the resurrection. 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. I maintain that religious beliefs become ingrained through indoctrination and that influences how one sees, and is willing to see, any alleged evidence that may support those beliefs or tear them down.
Except that you are reluctant to table those facts and that evidence which convinced you of the truth of the resurrection.
You continue to say this same thing, over, and over, when the fact is, I am on this site almost daily, with over 2000 posts, and have talked about what it is I believe, along with why it is I believe as I do, many, many times, and even still, I have not exhausted all the reasons there would be for belief. Again, for one to ask such a thing, sort of demonstrates one who is under the impression that this subject is just that simple, when the fact of the matter is, there have been those on both sides, who have been debating this very subject for thousands of years now. Therefore, for one to be under the impression that another could possibly throw out a few "bullet points" in order to explain the reasons for the belief they have, sort of demonstrates one, who is simply looking for easy answers.

I mean, if you think it is all that simple, then all you have to do is to give us the reasons for your doubt, and I will guarantee you that we will go back, and forth, discussing, and debating the issues, and in the end we will more than likely end up right where we are now, with what you refer to as a, "stalemate". And again, I am fine with the "stalemate". In fact, this is exactly one of the things I have been arguing for.

So then, we can continue to discuss, and debate, and in the end we can agree that neither one of us has demonstrated our case. The problem comes in when, one side begins to insist that the other has no facts, or evidence, and could not possibly be using sound reason, and, or logic to come to the conclusions they have. When this occurs, the one who is doing the insisting, owns the burden to demonstrate this to be the case, and thus far, those who are doing the insisting, have failed.
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.
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"?
I maintain that religious beliefs become ingrained through indoctrination and that influences how one sees, and is willing to see, any alleged evidence that may support those beliefs or tear them down.
It is absolutely a fact, that many, many Christians have simply accepted what they believe without question, and this certainly would in fact influence the way they look at the evidence. But, how in the world would this demonstrate that there would be no facts, and evidence in support of the claims? As an example, if I simply accept without question, that the earth revolves around the sun, because this is what I have been taught, would this somehow dictate there must not be any reason to believe the earth revolves around the sun? In the same way, simply because there are many Christians who really don't know what they believe, nor why they believe it, does not translate into, it is because there would be no facts, and evidence in support.

Next, although what you say above would be true of many Christians, it does not explain those whom I have referred to who were at one time unbelievers, and atheists, who were very much opposed to Christianity, with some even speaking out against it, who claim to have become convinced by the facts, and evidence. So let us look at this a moment.

I bring up these folks, only in order to counter your argument that the Christian beliefs must be the result of indoctrination. So then, when I bring up someone such as Butterfield, whose life for years, clearly demonstrates just how opposed she was to Christianity, we have those who seem to want to ignore the life she was actually living for years, along with ignoring anything she has to say for herself, and seem to want to insist that we can trace her conversion back to the fact that she attended a "Catholic School" which she claims to have rejected long ago, and her life clearly demonstrates as much.

Moreover, we have those who seem to want to insist that her conversion must have stemmed from some sort of "lingering guilt" she had about being a lesbian, when it is her claim that she was perfectly happy as a lesbian, and thought it to be the "cleaner, more moral choice". Therefore, it does not seem to matter who it is which is brought up, if we can in any way tie them to any sort of religious exposure at all, then we can ignore anything they have to say for themselves, and more importantly the way they were actually living for years, and we can be confident that we can tie it back to some sort of religion they were expose to? How is this not a "double standard"?

With this being the case, allow us to move on to one who was a life long atheist, who was brought up in an atheist home, who talks about how they would never believe anything until, or unless it could be demonstrated by the scientific method. This person did not even own a Bible, until they were a grown adult, married with at least one child. In fact, when this person got her first Bible as an adult, she did not even know there was an Old, and a New Testament. Her name is Jennifer Fulwiler, and she does a fantastic job of describing her mind set as an atheist, along with her conversion process.

Of course, I am sure that you, and others will find some sort of complaint against what she has to say as well, which sort of demonstrates to me the "double standard". In other words, we do not question in the least that it may not have been the thinking process which led the many on this site who were former Christians who went on to reject Christianity. However, for some reason, if it happens to be a former atheist, who converts to Christianity, then it could not have possibly been the thinking process which led them to such conclusions. How is that not a "double standard"?

Before we move on here, allow me to stress the fact that I do not bring these folks up in any way in order to demonstrate Christianity would be true. Rather, it is to refute your position that Christian beliefs must, and have to be indoctrinated, which seems to insinuate that no one could ever be convinced by the facts, and evidence.

With that being said, allow me to demonstrate what I believe to be another "double standard". We have many here on this site who claim to have been convinced Christians at one time, who have now rejected Christianity. We celebrate the idea that these folks were somehow able to shake off their indoctrination, and use the thinking process in order to arrive at the truth. However, those of us who were brought as Christian, who claim to have honestly set down using the thinking process, to actually examine what we were indoctrinated to believe, if we do this, and become convinced Christianity is true, then it really was not the thinking process which led us to these conclusions. Rather, it must, and has to be that we could not shake off our indoctrination? In other words, it seems to me, the only way one can demonstrate they have actually used the thinking process, is if they reject what it is they were indoctrinated to believe. Unless of course, one turns from atheism, to Christianity. If this occurs then we must question the thinking process.

The question? How is this not a "double standard"?
Last edited by Realworldjack on Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 #213

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to William in post #0]

In order for us to keep from getting bogged down on so many different points, let's just take one thing at the time.
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.
Exactly how have you determined these reports to be "hearsay"? First, let us look at the definition,

hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
Learn to pronounce
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

Okay, now let us look at some facts. It would be a fact, we have letters which were written by Paul. It is a fact, Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. It is a fact that Paul not only mentions the other Apostles, (who would have known Jesus) he also says he meet with them. It is a fact, Paul traveled around planting numerous Churches. It is a fact, Paul mentions some of the other men who traveled with him on these journeys. It is a fact, Paul mentions one by the name of Luke as being with him in more than one letter. It is a fact, Paul authored letters which were clearly written while he was under arrest. It is a fact, in one of those letters written while in prison, Paul just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me".

Moving on. It is a fact, we have two long, and detailed letters which are addressed to a Theophilus. In the first letter to this Theophilus, the author tells Theophilus, that he has "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", as if he were alive at the time to have actually done such an investigation. In the second letter, the author begins by telling Theophilus, of the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. However, when the journeys of Paul begins, we here nothing of what the Apostles in Jerusalem are doing, but rather only hear of the actions of Paul, and only hear again about the other Apostles, when, and if Paul were to come in contact with them. Moreover, this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the actions of Paul, as if he is actually there to witness the events he records.

With all this being the case, can you imagine why this author begins the letter with telling of the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to begin to focus upon the actions of Paul, once his journeys begin, only referring to the Apostles in Jerusalem, when, and if Paul comes back in contact with them again? Of course you can! Because you see, if this author was indeed a traveling companion of Paul, as the evidence clearly suggests, then he could only focus on the actions of Paul, and could not have possibly reported on what the other Apostles were doing, until, of unless, Paul were to come in contact with them.

Now, as we turn our attention again to the letter from Paul which would have been authored while Paul would have been imprisoned, in which he just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me", and we couple this with the fact that the author of the second letter to Theophilus, just so happens to end this letter with Paul being under arrest, we have pretty strong evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul.

Therefore, with all these facts, it is very reasonable to conclude, the two letters to Theophilus would have been authored by one who would have been alive at the time of the events which he records.

So then, the question is, how have you determined these reports would have been, information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor?

Moreover, and more importantly, even if this reports could be demonstrated to be hearsay, (which they cannot) this would not demonstrate the information would be false, nor that there would be no reason to believe them.

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 #214

Post by William »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #214]

HEARSAY;

"information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
Exactly how have you determined these reports to be "hearsay"?
I have determined it by aligning the meaning of the word with the action the word describes.
Okay, now let us look at some facts. It would be a fact, we have letters which were written by Paul.
Agreed.

It would also be a fact that what Paul writes may not be fact.
It is a fact, Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus.
The fact has no relevance to The Subject. Indeed, everything you point to as fact re Paul has no relevance to whether or not The Subject is actual factual, as far as how you are using these facts.

FACT
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"

information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
"even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts"

LAW
the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.

Your pointing out that Paul seems to have a travelling companion has what to do with The Subject?

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 #215

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to William in post #215]

I have determined it by aligning the meaning of the word with the action the word describes.
NO! I am asking how you have determined the accounts we have in the NT would not have been authored by those who would have witnessed what they were recording, but instead were authored by those who were simply passing on information which they received from others, which they could not substantiate? As I stated, the author of the first letter to Theophilus, tells Theophilus he had "investigated carefully everything from the beginning", as if he was attempting to assure Theophilus, that he had indeed substantiated what he was reporting.
It would also be a fact that what Paul writes may not be fact.
Sure! But what evidence do we have which would support such a conclusion? Next, what advantage would Paul gain, by referring to someone as being with him, when this person would not have been with him? I mean, he was addressing this letter to an audience at the time. So even if he were to have lied about most everything else, what would be to gain by referring to one as being with him, when in fact this person was not with him?
The fact has no relevance to The Subject.
It absolutely does! If we know Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and we have strong evidence which would suggest the author of the letters to Theophilus, would have been a traveling companion of Paul, then we have an author who would have been alive at the time of Jesus, who could have very well substantiated what he recorded, the way in which he assured Theophilus that he had. The point is, we cannot insist these reports would be the authored by those who were simply passing on what others passed on to them, unless we can demonstrate this to be the case, and this has not been demonstrated in the least.
FACT
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Okay? So, we know it to be a fact that Paul authored letters. We know it to be a fact that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. We know it to be a fact that we have very good reason to believe the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul. We know it to be a fact that the author of the letter to Theophilus assures Theophilus, that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" as if he would have been alive to do such an investigation. Therefore, how would one establish that what the author of the letters to Theophilius was communicating, would have simply been what had been passed on to him, and could not have possibly substantiated what he was communicating?

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 #216

Post by William »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #216]
NO! I am asking how you have determined the accounts we have in the NT would not have been authored by those who would have witnessed what they were recording, but instead were authored by those who were simply passing on information which they received from others, which they could not substantiate?
SO! Why didn't you just say that [in so many words] in the first place?

My point remains the same, as I am not arguing that those who actually authored the stories were or were not the ones who experience [witnessed] the events reported, first hand.
I do have to consider that the stories might well be works of fiction created by religious priesthood.

SO - in that - I cannot agree that the works are facts or fiction, because I [and you] do not know this to be the case.

Which is why I have to hold the argument [for the time being] that those who believe the stories are fact, believe so on account of faith and not fact.
As I stated, the author of the first letter to Theophilus, tells Theophilus he had "investigated carefully everything from the beginning", as if he was attempting to assure Theophilus, that he had indeed substantiated what he was reporting.
I have to include my understanding of how folk who want other folk to believe in what they tell other folk, [as 'The Truth"] is a tactic common to shysters [and in some countries, perfectly legal] and thus, I am required to investigate any possible evidence which could support the stories told are indeed true accounts of actual events and penned by eyewitnesses.

Until such evidence comes along which can be investigated, in order to believe the stories, I [and you] must do so on faith - not fact.
William wrote:The fact has no relevance to The Subject.
The point is, we cannot insist these reports would be the authored by those who were simply passing on what others passed on to them, unless we can demonstrate this to be the case, and this has not been demonstrated in the least.
Nor need it be, as it is not relevant to our current position. I am not arguing that the stories themselves were or were not penned as true accounts of actual events by the very one(s) who experienced these things they claim to have experienced.
My argument is that we can only take their stories as hearsay, because we did not witness those events. What we each DO with the hearsay depends upon our faith in the stories being true, our faith that the stories being false, or in our lack of faith due to the nature of the evidence.
I have already stated what my position on these matters, is.

You appear to be happy to dedicate words to Paul's biblical activity, but have yet to produce anything on what I [at least] agreed to put focus into...namely that 'glue' which holds Christianity together...The Subject.

I can only presently assume that you are using Paul as some type of lead-up to The Subject, but if you do not provide a solid connect, then I am not interested in arguing with you about Paul's stuff.

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 #217

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to William in post #217]

Again, to keep from getting bogged down, let us focus on one thing at the time.
I do have to consider that the stories might well be works of fiction created by religious priesthood.
Okay? Let's just see how reasonable this would be?

So, we have the letters of Paul, along with the letters to Theophilus. I think it is reasonable to believe, the reason we have these letters, is because there was indeed a man named Paul, who planted Churches, and wrote letters to these Churches, along with letters he would have wrote to individuals. I think it would also be reasonable from reading the content of these letters, that Paul would have had those who traveled with him, and that he may well mention some of these folks who were his traveling companions in the letters he wrote. Next, we have the letters addressed to Theophilus, because the author did indeed live, and the evidence we have in both his second letter to Theophilus, along with the evidence inside the letters of Paul, it would be reasonable to believe that we have this evidence, because this author did indeed travel with Paul.

Okay, the other option is, some religious priests got together, and they wrote two long, and detailed letters, as if they were addressing one by the name of Theophilus. In these letters, they just so happen to put in evidence that the author would have been a traveling companion of Paul. Then, these same priests, sit down and write out letters under the name of Paul, and just so happen to include in these letters, the evidence which would also point to the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul.

Now, I would love to go on to think the rest of this through, but I think by now we should be able to see just how messy this would become. The question is, which one of these would be reasonable?

Well, if we simply read the letters of Paul, along with the letters to Theophilus the way in which they were written, I think we would all have to agree that it is very reasonable to conclude, that both Paul, and the author of the letters to Theophilus, were indeed real folk who lived, and authored these letters. On the other hand, one would have to leave the realm of reality, in order to believe that some priests got together, and wrote out two long and detailed letters as if they were addressing an individual name Theophilus, and then just so happen to write out letters under the name of some Paul, and somehow made the two authors supply evidence that the two of them traveled together?

The point here is, you certainly seem to understand that we do indeed have evidence which needs to be explained, and instead of going with the one which would be reasonable, you come up with a scenario which is completely unreasonable, which you pull from out of nowhere, without a shred of evidence to support it, and you want us to believe it could be a reasonable explanation?
Last edited by Realworldjack on Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 #218

Post by William »

Image
Last edited by William on Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:05 pm, edited 4 times in total.

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 #219

Post by William »

Realworldjack wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:41 pm [Replying to William in post #217]

Again, to keep from getting bogged down, let us focus on one thing at the time.
Again - I can only presently assume that you are using Paul as some type of lead-up to The Subject, but if you do not provide a solid connect, then I am not interested in bogging down with you about Paul's stuff.

As I wrote in post #207

"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."


Since then you have written 4,029 words in this thread alone, and you never used the word "Resurrection" [The Subject] once.

How am I to suppose that you actually want to focus on The Subject, when you clearly are avoiding even mentioning it?

So anyway - my observations re post #207 to do with The Subject - what say you?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #220

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:30 am You continue to say this same thing, over, and over, when the fact is, I am on this site almost daily, with over 2000 posts, and have talked about what it is I believe, along with why it is I believe as I do, many, many times, and even still, I have not exhausted all the reasons there would be for belief.
And still you are reluctant to produce any of the evidence here. You give some solitary examples of people who converted as refutation of my claim that the vast majority have their beliefs inculcated through indoctrination, usually when they are most susceptible or vulnerable. One swallow doesn't make a summer. Hearsay is not evidence. Some people get convinced for the flimsiest of reasons and we don't now what else is going on in their heads anyway. What evidence, in summary form will do, has convinced you that the resurrection really happened?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply