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?

[JoeyKnothead]

Fair enough. However, if your response to the comparison was not to argue in favor of the NT being more reliable than the Koran, then what would be the significance of describing the differences between them?

A most cromulent question.

Why accept one religion based on the supernatural for another'n doing the same thing? Especially when they refer to the same god?

[bluegreenearth]

How about the fact that you were the first to attempt to make the comparison, by attempting to suggest the two would be pretty much the same. I never would initiate making the comparison, but am more than happy to do the comparison when there are those who would like to do so. What we ended up seeing was there is indeed a tremendous difference between the two. Does this demonstrate the one would be more reliable than the other? Well, I do not see how it would. However, when one decides they want to make such a comparison, in order to make the argument the two would be pretty much the same, I think it is worth the time to demonstrate just how different they really are.

I suppose it is understandable for you to interpret my post as an argument, but my post to JoeyKnothead was more about having a little fun with your line of reasoning than it was a legitimate objection to be considered. Nevertheless, I accept the differences between the Koran and the NT but also acknowledge where neither collection of texts have been demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable at helping their audiences to distinguish real things from imaginary things. For me, evidence is only useful if it supplies what I need in order to justifiably infer if a claim is describing a real thing or an imagined thing.

[bluegreenearth]

Why accept one religion based on the supernatural for another'n doing the same thing? Especially when they refer to the same god?

Apparently, it is supposed to make a difference if the anonymously written texts offered in support of a religious tradition that was centered around a charismatic leader were addressed to a named individual and if the unidentified author ensures his audience that he had investigated the described supernatural accounts from the beginning. In such cases, we are told it is justifiable to take the anonymous author at his word. Presumably, it is fortunate that Jesus never had anonymous scribes document his divinely revealed recitations which were focused on how no one in particular should live their lives in order to please God because then we would just have to take Jesus at his word.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #338]

What is so astounding about dead people staying dead?

You are making my point again, exactly! Because you see, if Jesus did in fact stay dead, we are still left with the astounding! This would mean, these ordinary men who followed Jesus, who had just watched their leader crucified as a criminal, before their very eyes, did not simply come to nothing, and fade away into history like many of the other followers of other so called Messiahs. Rather, somehow, someway, these men go on to convince thousands of folks at the time, that this Jesus, who was still dead, was alive, in the face of those whom we know would have had every reason to oppose such a message. However, not only were these men able to convince thousands at the time, this message they were proclaiming at the time, continues to consume the lives of millions, upon millions of folks still today, some 2000 years later, including yourself, who spends hour, upon hour, day, after day, attempting to refute what they had to say, based upon letters which they wrote among themselves some 2000 years ago. And yet, despite all those hours, upon hours, you have spent here on this site attempting to refute what these men had to say in letters amongst themselves, you still can in no way insist, that what they were proclaiming in these letters would be false.

Not only do these men not fade away into history, like many of the other followers, of other so called Messiahs, the name of Jesus they were proclaiming, may well in fact be the most well known name in the history of the world, with some of their own names like, Peter, John, James, Paul etc., being pretty close behind. So then, if Jesus did in fact remain dead, we are still left with, one to the most, if not the most astounding tales ever told. Therefore, I do not see how one can dismiss what these men were proclaiming, simply based upon the astounding, because any other explanation would be astounding.

But let's continue to think about this. There are indeed skeptical scholars, who would dearly love to demonstrate what these men were proclaiming to be false, but they simply cannot accomplish this task. Therefore, all they are left with, is to attempt to cast some sort of doubt. These skeptical scholars, cannot in any way demonstrate, that the writings we have would not have been authored by those they are attributed to, and so they simply attempt to cast doubt concerning who the authors may have been. They do this by proclaiming, that it is "POSSIBLE" (notice it is not a fact) that the authors of what is contained in the NT, COULD HAVE BEEN, those decades later who were simply passing on what had been passed on to them.

Now, why in the world would they want to do such a thing? Would it be because they have facts, and evidence to support such an idea? Well, not that I am aware of. The reason why they do this, is because they understand that it does not bode very well for their case, if these authors were actually alive at the time of the events, and were reporting upon what they themselves had witnessed.

But here is the thing my friend! Even if what they say would be true, in that what we have contained in the NT would have been written by those decades later, who would not have been around to witness the events recorded, we are still left with the astounding! Because you see, this would mean, the Apostles would not have been responsible for the content we have, but it would have been those decades later, who would not have been alive at the time, who for whatever reason decided to sit down to write these things out, which for whatever reason was past on to them, which for whatever reason no one before them ever sat down to write out, who were still somehow able to make the name of Jesus one of the most, if not the most well known names in the history of the world, which has continued to consume the lives of millions, upon millions of folks, including yourself, who continue to spend an enormous amount of time debating a subject of which you claim there would be no reason to believe. Now, that my friend is an astounding tale, and I don't care who you are!

But you see, these skeptical scholars have a problem. The problem they have is Paul. Because you see, there is no doubt that Paul existed. There is also no doubt that Paul would have been opposed to this movement in the beginning. There would also be no doubt that Paul would have converted, and would have been responsible for spreading this message all over the known world at the time. However, the major problem here would be, there is no doubt that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. Oh, and by the way, this Paul which we know existed, just so happens to mention meeting with the Apostles. You know, those folks who would have been alive, and followed Jesus?

But the problems do not end there my friend. They continue to get worse. Because you see, Paul, just so happens to mention certain folks who would have been traveling along with him on his journeys. Well, it just so happens, those very early on, just so happen to attribute the two letters addressed to Theophilus, to one by the name of Luke. Now, can you imagine one of the names which Paul mentions several times, as being with him on these journeys? That's right, you guessed it. That would be Luke.

Well my friend, it just so happens that the author of the second letter to Theophilus, just so happens to begin this letter only describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. However, for some odd reason, when the travels of Paul begins, we only begin to hear of the actions of Paul, and we hear nothing of the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless, Paul were to come in contact with them. Now, can you imagine why this may be? Well, of course you can! Because you see, if this author was traveling with Paul, he could not have possibly reported upon what the Apostles in Jerusalem were doing, until, or unless, Paul were to come in contact with them.

Okay now, we just so happen to have a letter written under the name of Paul, which clearly would have been authored while Paul would have been under arrest, and in this letter the author just so happens to mention to his audience, who would have been one by the name of Timothy that, "only Luke is with me". Keeping in mind this letter would have clearly been authored while Paul would have been under arrest, can you imagine where the author of the second letter to Theophilus ends this second letter? You guessed it! With Paul under arrest! Amazing, isn't it?

One thing I forgot to mention, is the fact that the two letters addressed to Theophilus clearly seems to be written to an individual named Theophilus. Of course, this as well does not bode well for the skeptical scholars, because this would mean the author would have been concerned about getting this message to one individual, as opposed to attempting to persuade the masses, (propaganda).

Well, I could continue on, and on, but I think we have enough to consider at this point. So, to begin with, exactly how far out do these scholars suppose the Gospels would have been authored? Because you see, we need to keep in mind, we have one by the name of Polycarp, who would have been a disciple of the Apostle John. So then, are we supposing these things got by, Polycarp? Was he in on it? Or, would these things have been written after he was gone? The question is, exactly how far out are we talking here, that the Gospels would have been written?

Of course, now we need to examine the solutions the critical scholars come up with in order to remedy the Paul situation, along with the problem of the author of the letters to, Theophilus. Well, in order to attempt to remedy the problem with the author of the letters to Theophilus, addressing one individual, their answer is to appeal to the meaning of the name Theophilus, which means, "lover of God", and their solution is to suggest, (not demonstrate) that the author could have been using the meaning of the name, to appeal to a wider audience.

When we arrive to the "we", and "us" passages in "Acts" where we might naturally come to the conclusion the author would have witnessed the things he is recording, we are to believe instead, this author would have been using a literary device. When we get to the letter of Paul being under arrest, where the author just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me", it just so happens this would be one of the letters which these scholars, just so happen to decide, that Paul would not have been the author. I mean, it is absolutely amazing, isn't it?

Again, I could continue, on, and on, and will if I have to. However, this post is already getting lengthy. Although I have authored very lengthy posts in the past, and will do so again if necessary, I have decided to keep my post as short as I can.

But here is the point. If you would like to believe what the scholars have to say, I have no problem with this in the least. Although I could definitely argue with these scholars conclusions, I will not do so at this time, because I am really not concerned with what it is you, and others may believe, concerning the content of the NT, nor how you may come to the conclusions you may have. In other words, I am not concerned with what it is you may believe concerning these things. However, when one seems to want to go on to insist that I would have no reason to hold the position I have, simply based upon what seems astounding, sort of demonstrates one, who chooses to reject what they would rather not believe. This is especially true, since the one who seems to be doing the insisting, cannot even convinced themselves, that the content of the NT would be false, and therefore hide behind the label of agnostic, in an attempt to avoid the burden, which they know they cannot bear.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #342]

Why accept one religion based on the supernatural for another'n doing the same thing? Especially when they refer to the same god?

A couple of things here. I am not accepting any religion based upon the "supernatural". It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "supernatural". Next, I have not rejected any other religion. I know very little about any other religion, or if there would be any reason to believe any of the other religions. However, I do not have to know a thing about any other religion at all, nor do I have to reject any other religion as being false, in order to understand if there would be very good reasons to believe the claims of Christianity.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #343]

I suppose it is understandable for you to interpret my post as an argument, but my post to JoeyKnothead was more about having a little fun with your line of reasoning than it was a legitimate objection to be considered.

I have no idea what you are talking about? What I do know is, my comment was not in response to something you may have said to another, but was rather in response, to your response to one of my post. In other words, I was responding to this comment of yours,

However, if your response to the comparison was not to argue in favor of the NT being more reliable than the Koran, then what would be the significance of describing the differences between them?

From here, I went on to point out the fact, that it was not me who brought up the comparison in the first place, but was rather you. Therefore, when I go on to make the comparison you were attempting to make, it would have nothing to do with attempting to demonstrate how one would be more reliable, than the other. Rather, it would be to demonstrate the real differences between them.

It seems sort of strange how there are those who want to initiate this sort of comparison, but when one takes up the challenge, what we discover is those who wanted to initiate the comparison, seem to quickly discover that while the comparison makes no difference whatsoever, it may be a comparison they should shy away from in the future, because it dose not seem to bode well for them to actually make the comparison, after all.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #343]

In my last post, I neglected to respond to all that was said. Allow me to correct that here.

Nevertheless, I accept the differences between the Koran and the NT

Of course you do now, because you have no choice. But for some reason a few post ago, you seem to be suggesting they were pretty much the same?

but also acknowledge where neither collection of texts have been demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable at helping their audiences to distinguish real things from imaginary things.

This is where one needs to keep in mind the differences between the two. The Koran, is a copying of what one had to say, not being addressed to any particular audience. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be letters, addressed to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing at the time, would have been read by anyone else besides the intended audience at the time. In other words, the authors were not addressing us. We are not the audience of these letters. Therefore, what was written at the time, to audiences at the time, could have very well been, "sufficiently reliable at helping their audiences to distinguish real things from imaginary things".

So then, when I read the content of the NT, I am not reading it as if I am the audience. Rather, I am reading it exactly the way in which it is written. At this point, we can attempt to determine if the audience at the time, accepted the content to be, "sufficiently reliable at helping them (their audiences) to distinguish real things from imaginary things". I believe the evidence overwhelming points to the fact that the audiences accepted these things as being real things, as opposed to imaginary.

I think one then needs to sit down in order to examine these reports, and determine what all would have to be involved in order for the content to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the content to be false. If you have done this, and have come to the conclusion you do not have enough information to make a determination, one way, or the other, which means you are not insisting the content to be false, along with acknowledging the content of the NT could in fact be reliable, I have no problem with this in the least. However, I really do not see how one who holds such a position, can, or would want to go on to insist that I would have no reason for the position I hold?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #338]

What is so astounding about dead people staying dead?

You are making my point again, exactly! Because you see, if Jesus did in fact stay dead, we are still left with the astounding! This would mean, these ordinary men who followed Jesus, who had just watched their leader crucified as a criminal, before their very eyes, did not simply come to nothing, and fade away into history like many of the other followers of other so called Messiahs. Rather, somehow, someway, these men go on to convince thousands of folks at the time, that this Jesus, who was still dead, was alive, in the face of those whom we know would have had every reason to oppose such a message. However, not only were these men able to convince thousands at the time, this message they were proclaiming at the time, continues to consume the lives of millions, upon millions of folks still today, some 2000 years later,...

I seem to have kinda locked us both into a subjective term here.

Let's replace "astounding" with "defies all we know about the world in which we inhabit".

We know that dead people do not reanimate ansd stroll about. That folks would declare they'd seen such is representaive of the delusional, or the dastardly. To then trust such folks before fact is indicative of someone who's thinker is woefully inadequate for the task.

...including yourself, who spends hour, upon hour, day, after day, attempting to refute what they had to say, based upon letters which they wrote among themselves some 2000 years ago. And yet, despite all those hours, upon hours, you have spent here on this site attempting to refute what these men had to say in letters amongst themselves, you still can in no way insist, that what they were proclaiming in these letters would be false.

I spend my time showing how Christians are utterly incapable of putting truth to their core claims / beliefs, because so many of em vote, murder in thier god's name, and enact legislation restricting the rights and freedoms of their own fellow citizens.

So many Christians seek to dismantle the very democracy that gave em the freedom to believe their goofy notions - as evidenced by the 6 Jan insurrection.

So yeah, if my taking the time to show how goofy are the claims that the Christian fails time, after time, after time to show are truth, I know I did me good.

Not only do these men not fade away into history, like many of the other followers, of other so called Messiahs, the name of Jesus they were proclaiming, may well in fact be the most well known name in the history of the world, with some of their own names like, Peter, John, James, Paul etc., being pretty close behind. So then, if Jesus did in fact remain dead, we are still left with, one to the most, if not the most astounding tales ever told. Therefore, I do not see how one can dismiss what these men were proclaiming, simply based upon the astounding, because any other explanation would be astounding.

Kinda hard to fade into history when Christians keep refering to em in support of claims the Christian can't show to be truth.

So, you do find the claim "dead people stay dead" to be astounding.

But let's continue to think about this. There are indeed skeptical scholars, who would dearly love to demonstrate what these men were proclaiming to be false, but they simply cannot accomplish this task.

It's called "ya cant prove a negative".

Therefore, all they are left with, is to attempt to cast some sort of doubt. These skeptical scholars, cannot in any way demonstrate, that the writings we have would not have been authored by those they are attributed to, and so they simply attempt to cast doubt concerning who the authors may have been. They do this by proclaiming, that it is "POSSIBLE" (notice it is not a fact) that the authors of what is contained in the NT, COULD HAVE BEEN, those decades later who were simply passing on what had been passed on to them.

I submit that when a claimant can't show they speak truth, that is where the casting of doubt occurs, not in the asking em to show they speak truth.

Now, why in the world would they want to do such a thing?

See above. For me it's about Christians using the government to infect society with their bigotry, among other reasons.

Would it be because they have facts, and evidence to support such an idea

Do you deny the fact that dead folks keep on abeing it?

Well, not that I am aware of. The reason why they do this, is because they understand that it does not bode very well for their case, if these authors were actually alive at the time of the events, and were reporting upon what they themselves had witnessed.

Are you ignorant of the fact that dead people stay dead?

But here is the thing my friend!

You're not my friend, and I'm not your friend. I'll not entertain yet another of your fairy tales.

Even if what they say would be true, in that what we have contained in the NT would have been written by those decades later, who would not have been around to witness the events recorded, we are still left with the astounding! Because you see, this would mean, the Apostles would not have been responsible for the content we have, but it would have been those decades later, who would not have been alive at the time, who for whatever reason decided to sit down to write these things out, which for whatever reason was past on to them, which for whatever reason no one before them ever sat down to write out, who were still somehow able to make the name of Jesus one of the most, if not the most well known names in the history of the world, which has continued to consume the lives of millions, upon millions of folks, including yourself, who continue to spend an enormous amount of time debating a subject of which you claim there would be no reason to believe. Now, that my friend is an astounding tale, and I don't care who you are!

Yeah, nobody ever came up with a story until this Jesus feller walked across the water.

Again, if Christians'd quite trying to legislate their beliefs, things may well be different.

Especially when it's built on the threat of eternal damnation, presented often to little kids who lack the critical thinking skills required to properly assess such threats and coercions.

But you see, these skeptical scholars have a problem.

As before, I submit that a claimant who can't show he speaks teuth is a far greater problem than the ones who ask him to try.

The problem they have is Paul.

Paul's dead. Not McCartney, the other Paul.

We have no means of knowing if he would have changed his thinking given the ensuing two thousand years of scientific advancement since he was kicking around dust in a pair of sandals.

Because you see, there is no doubt that Paul existed.

Of course the Christian ain't gonna doubt his existence.

There is also no doubt that Paul would have been opposed to this movement in the beginning. There would also be no doubt that Paul would have converted, and would have been responsible for spreading this message all over the known world at the time. However, the major problem here would be, there is no doubt that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. Oh, and by the way, this Paul which we know existed, just so happens to mention meeting with the Apostles. You know, those folks who would have been alive, and followed Jesus?

As I've stated time and again, belief is not fact.

If Paul believed the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

But the problems do not end there my friend.

That's twice now.

Let's get this straight, I am absolutely no friend of yours, and reject such a slander against my character.

I'll snip the rest of your post, as it should be clear to all, you're gonna trust people we can't cross examine over scientific fact.

And that fact is that dead people stay dead.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #342]

Why accept one religion based on the supernatural for another'n doing the same thing? Especially when they refer to the same god?

A couple of things here. I am not accepting any religion based upon the "supernatural".

I was speaking more generally, and pologize and retract any of it that doesn't apply to you.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "supernatural".

Yet you promote the Christian religion.

Do you think there's a god?

Do you think Jesus walked on water?

Do you think Jesus arose from the dead?

Do you think poking sticks in the ground will change the color of animals?

I've asked you these questions several times, but can't seem to get you give us an answer.

Next, I have not rejected any other religion.

As before, I was speaking generally and retract what doesn't apply to you.

I know very little about any other religion, or if there would be any reason to believe any of the other religions. However, I do not have to know a thing about any other religion at all, nor do I have to reject any other religion as being false, in order to understand if there would be very good reasons to believe the claims of Christianity.

Do you believe Jesus walked on water?

Do you believe Jesus rosemfrom the dead?

Do you beleive poking sticks in the ground will change the colors of animals?

Why does answering these questions seem so difficult if you so believe there's good reason to believe the claims of Christianity?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #349]


This conversation continues to get better, and better, as we go. In the end, you really have no real objective objections to the truth of Christianity. Rather, you appeal to science, and object to the behavior of Christians, neither of which have a thing in the world to do with Christianity being true, or false.

The topic we are debating, is outside the realm of science. Science, has not, and cannot demonstrate whether an historical event such as a resurrection has occurred. Science, has in no way declared the resurrection did not occur, because it cannot, because such a thing would be outside the realm of science. If science had demonstrated the resurrection did not occur, we would not be having the debate. Science can only tell us if a historical event would be scientifically possible. If science determines an historical event to be scientifically impossible, this in no way demonstrates that such an event did not occur. Rather, it simply tells us, if such an event did in fact occur, science would not be able to explain the event. So then, it seems you have put your faith in science, to answer a question which is not even in the realm of science, to be able to answer.

Your next objections simply seems to be the behavior of Christians, and I could not agree with you more. However, I do not see how the behavior of Christians would have a thing in the world to do with the content of the NT being true, of false? Allow me to give an example which will demonstrate that I not only agree with what you say concerning the behavior of Christians, I have actually took actions against such behavior.

If you will recall, a good number of years back, the Southern Baptist Convention, decided to boycott Disney World for their decision to cover the same sex partners of their employees. Of course, other denominations followed suit, with the one I was a member of at the time. At a statewide conference, when the motion was brought to the floor to send a letter of protest to Disney World, on our behalf, I stood on the floor of this statewide conference and asked, "what do we as Christians, have to do with Disney World"? I went on to say, "Disney World does not name the name of Christ, so what business do we have with what Disney World decides to do"? I also said, "there are other organization who do name the name of Christ, who are preaching, and practicing, in ways we should be opposed, and I would be more than happy to confront these folks, but I do not see what we would have to do with those outside".

So, as you can see, I not only agree with you, I have actually demonstrated I agree with you, but I do not see how any of this would have a thing to do with demonstrating to me that I would have no reason to hold the position I have?