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?

[Realworldjack]

Is this to say, you cannot demonstrate the reports of the resurrection in the NT to be false?

I cannot demonstrate the reports to be false, though, they could be false.

So - while not an example of a double standard, is this an example of a stalemate?

And if so, then the stalemate points to belief in the resurrection being faith-based rather than fact based.

And as well,, non-belief in the resurrection also can be regarded as faith-based.

Thus [logically] one is best to remain agnostic in relation to the story of the resurrection, if one does not want faith-based beliefs and wants to remain in the logical position.

So - while not an example of a double standard, is this an example of a stalemate?

I believe it would be a "stalemate", and this is what I have been saying from the very start. In other words, I have been convinced by the evidence that the Christian claims in the NT are true. However, I go on to admit, that I cannot in any way demonstrate the claims to be true. I also do not insist I must, and have to be correct. Nor, do I insist there would be no reasons to come to a different conclusion than I have come to. I also do not insist that those who may have arrived to different conclusions are irrational, and, or, illogical. Rather, since I understand all that would be involved, this causes me to understand why there would be those who are opposed. Therefore, as a Christian, I cannot in any way condemn, or ridicule, those who may disagree with the position I hold, since I can understand their position.

The problem comes in, when there are those opposed, who seem to want to go on to insist, I would have no valid reasons to come to the conclusions I have, when they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be, anything other than an opinion they hold. I mean, can you even imagine? Here we have a Christian, who has conceded ground to those opposed, because this Christian clearly understands the difference between those things which can be demonstrated to be true, as opposed to those things one believes to be true, and it is the unbeliever, or, one who lacks belief, who are the ones who go on to insist, the Christian who concedes such things, would have no reason to believe the claims, when they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion?

The point I am making is, I agree with the unbeliever, that the Christian has not demonstrated what they believe to be fact. However, the unbeliever, or, the one who claims to, "lack belief" has not in any way demonstrated the claims in the NT would be false. They also have not demonstrated there would be no valid reasons to believe the claims. And yet, they are the ones who seem to be doing the insisting, and they cannot demonstrate what it is they seem to be insisting.

So then, I have no problem with those who may hold a different position than the one I hold. However, there certainly seem to be those who want to insist they have a problem with the position that I hold, but they continue always to be unable to demonstrate their case.

And if so, then the stalemate points to belief in the resurrection being faith-based rather than fact based.

I don't think so! If my belief would be based upon faith, then there would be no facts involved at all. However, there would be a number of facts involved in the belief I maintain. The first fact of course, would be the fact, that we have multiple, disconnected testimonies, (unless of course you would like to demonstrate how they would have been connected) of a resurrection. Moreover, we have the letters of Paul, who we know would have been alive during the life of Jesus. We also know that Paul mentions having been in contact with the Apostles, who would have been followers of Jesus during his life. We also have very strong evidence in support, of the author of the letters to Theophilus, being a traveling companion of Paul, which would mean this author would have been alive at the time of the events recorded. Therefore, with the facts we have considered thus far, we can have confidence, that the majority of what has been contained in the NT, would have been authored by those who would have been alive at the time of the events recorded.

These are just a few of the facts, my belief is based upon. Those opposed cannot in any way demonstrate my belief would be unfounded. There must, and has to be some sort of explanation for the facts, and evidence we have, and yet those opposed cannot offer any sort of explanation of the facts, and evidence we have, which would not be an extraordinary tale. Rather, all they seem to have to offer is their doubt, and then seem to want to go on to insist that I share in this doubt.

And as well,, non-belief in the resurrection also can be regarded as faith-based.

This would be true, if one is simply dismissing the claims based upon the extraordinary. However, there are those who do not believe the claims to be true, who have based such a belief upon facts. If these folks have based their belief upon facts, then the belief they hold, would not be faith based, but rather fact based.

faith
/fāTH/
Learn to pronounce
noun

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Now, I do not like the use of the word "proof" in this definition. Rather, I would prefer the word, "evidence". However, if we look at the definition provided for, "proof", it works just fine.

proof
/pro͞of/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:

evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

So then, as we can see, one can have a belief which would be faith based, which would mean there would be no facts, and evidence involved in such a belief. Or, one can have a fact based belief, which would be based upon the facts, and evidence involved, as opposed to faith.

Thus [logically] one is best to remain agnostic in relation to the story of the resurrection

I have no problem with those who claim to simply doubt. The problem comes in, when these folks seem to want to go on to insist that I must share in their doubt, when they offer no other explanation of the facts, and evidence we have. Rather, all they have to offer, is their doubt.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of folks here on this site, who seem to be insisting that I share in their doubt, go on to insist, to have been completely convinced Christians at one time. They now would have us believe, they are no longer Christians, not because they are now convinced Christianity would be false, but rather simply based upon doubt. They then go on to spend hour, after, hour, day, after day, month, after month, year, after year, here on this site, not insisting Christianity would be false, but rather simply sharing their doubt, and insisting that I must share in this doubt.

This kind of makes one wonder, if we were being intellectually honest, if these folks would have to admit, they are really convinced the Christian claims to be false. However, since they completely understand they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case, they retreat to agnosticism, in order to avoid the burden of proof. Because you see, it is far easier to hide behind agnosticism, than to have to defend the position one truly holds.

The alternative to this would be, to state confidently what it is you believe, along with the facts, and evidence to support such a belief, while not insisting one must, and has to be correct, going on to admit, one could in fact be in error, and in this way one would avoid the burden of proof, because one is not insisting those opposed have no valid reasons for the belief they hold, and is also not insisting those opposed must, and have to be irrational, illogical, and, or, unreasonable.

So then, please pardon me, if I happened to doubt, if these folks are truly "agnostic" toward the Christian claims.

[Realworldjack]

Is this to say, you cannot demonstrate the reports of the resurrection in the NT to be false?

I cannot demonstrate the reports to be false, though, they could be false.

As William has stated, I think we have arrived to the "stalemate" I have predicted all along.

[JoeyKnothead]

So, picking back up from some of my posts Realworldjack mighta missed, with snippenings from a couple posts…

Paul is a good example here, relating information provided by others.

That is not exactly accurate, but if I give you that one, you still cannot demonstrate the rest would not have been eyewitnesses.

Please present these other eyewitnesses for cross examination. As we're discussing double standards, I seek to explore if there's any conflicts in their testimony, and how we might consider those conflicts.

Because if we cannot even agree upon the most basic of facts, then we really have nothing left to discuss, unless of course you would like to debate, the facts, and evidence in support of the existence of Jesus?

As you propose his existence is "fact", surely there's some confirmatory data to share.

I was alive during the time of Bugs Bunny.
Do you believe me when I say ol Bugs there is real?

Another sign of desperation. Because, I am certain you would not really want to compare Jesus, to "Bugs".

I seek to determine whether or not you believe me when I say…

I was a live during the time of Bugs Bunny.

So I ask again…

Do you believe me when I say ol Bugs there is real?

I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior. Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?

Did You know MLK personally?
Did you spend any time with him?
Would there be any other facts, and evidence other than what you had to say?
Are you making such a claim?
What's the point?

I knew him personally.
We spent many a day walking together.
He was a preacher, as evidenced by all that preaching he used to do.
Yes, I make all the above claims.
The point is to see if you believe me when I say…

I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior.

And to ask again…

Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?


So there's mostly what I was agetting at, and of course folks have the thread to fetch on back through for fuller context.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #404]

Please present these other eyewitnesses for cross examination. As we're discussing double standards, I seek to explore if there's any conflicts in their testimony, and how we might consider those conflicts.

Allow me to attempt to demonstrate just how silly this argument is, and why I really do not want waste time, energy, and space having such a discussion. Do you believe, George Washington was the President of the United States? Or, are you agnostic toward this question? If you are convinced GW would have been the President, then what is it that has convinced you this would be a fact? It is certainly not because you have, or can interview him, nor anyone else in history who has made the claim. There are no eyewitnesses to interview. If you remain agnostic toward this claim, you are destroying any possibility of us being able to be certain about anything which would have happened in the past.

So then, either you are convinced certain events have indeed occurred in the past, based upon the facts, and evidence we have available, without having to interview those personally, who may have been involved? Or, you remain agnostic toward such things, and hold the position that we cannot know anything for certain about the past? If you remain agnostic toward such claims, you are going against historical scholars who are convinced we can know certain things about the past, beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon the facts, and evidence which have been left behind.

With that being said, if there were no miraculous events involved in the letters contained in the NT, and these letters rather, simply gave an account of the life of Jesus, and how he gained a following, got himself in trouble with the authorities, and was crucified, dead, and buried, end of story, there would be no reason to doubt the content of these letters, which sort of demonstrates the only reason there is for any sort of doubt, would be the miraculous events, which seems to be the only argument you have supplied thus far.

As you propose his existence is "fact", surely there's some confirmatory data to share.

How about the fact that, Jesus, has been one of the most, if not the absolute most written about figure in the history of the world? Moreover, there are not too many serious historical, or Biblical scholars who doubt his existence? That would be extraordinary concerning one who never existed. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming, for one to attempt to make such an argument, would be to commit intellectual suicide, removing themselves from the conversation.

I seek to determine whether or not you believe me when I say…

I was a live during the time of Bugs Bunny.

So I ask again…

Do you believe me when I say ol Bugs there is real?

Again, for one to make such a comparison, sort of demonstrates one who has left the realm of reality, into a world of make believe.

I knew him personally.
We spent many a day walking together.
He was a preacher, as evidenced by all that preaching he used to do.
Yes, I make all the above claims.
The point is to see if you believe me when I say…

I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior.

And to ask again…

Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?

You are not making such a claim. Therefore, there is nothing for me to believe.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #402]

Thus [logically] one is best to remain agnostic in relation to the story of the resurrection

I have no problem with those who claim to simply doubt.

The agnostic position is not because of doubt.

The problem comes in, when these folks seem to want to go on to insist that I must share in their doubt, when they offer no other explanation of the facts, and evidence we have. Rather, all they have to offer, is their doubt.

As an agnostic, I do indeed offer some other explanations [variables] as to why the story of the resurrection might be a work of fiction.
(as can be verified in the thread "Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based")

You actually refused to participate with me in exploring those variables - the very ones which allow me to remain agnostic about the resurrection, so for you to make the claim that this has not happened when the evidence clearly shows that it has indeed happened, does not lend any credence to your abilities to be able to tell fact from fiction and be intellectually honest anyway.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of folks here on this site, who seem to be insisting that I share in their doubt, go on to insist, to have been completely convinced Christians at one time. They now would have us believe, they are no longer Christians, not because they are now convinced Christianity would be false, but rather simply based upon doubt. They then go on to spend hour, after, hour, day, after day, month, after month, year, after year, here on this site, not insisting Christianity would be false, but rather simply sharing their doubt, and insisting that I must share in this doubt.

This kind of makes one wonder, if we were being intellectually honest, if these folks would have to admit, they are really convinced the Christian claims to be false. However, since they completely understand they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case, they retreat to agnosticism, in order to avoid the burden of proof. Because you see, it is far easier to hide behind agnosticism, than to have to defend the position one truly holds.

The alternative to this would be, to state confidently what it is you believe, along with the facts, and evidence to support such a belief, while not insisting one must, and has to be correct, going on to admit, one could in fact be in error, and in this way one would avoid the burden of proof, because one is not insisting those opposed have no valid reasons for the belief they hold, and is also not insisting those opposed must, and have to be irrational, illogical, and, or, unreasonable.

So then, please pardon me, if I happened to doubt, if these folks are truly "agnostic" toward the Christian claims.

For me to pardon such an obvious fallacy on your part, would be akin to turning a blind eye to false statements, or even rewarding you for having made them.

[JoeyKnothead]

Tagulationarial editations have occurred...

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #404]

Please present these other eyewitnesses for cross examination. As we're discussing double standards, I seek to explore if there's any conflicts in their testimony, and how we might consider those conflicts.

Allow me to attempt to demonstrate just how silly this argument is,...

I do agree it sounds pretty silly to mention eyewitnesses, when you can't put none of em forward, but since it was you who mentioned em, I felt it within my rights to entertain your silly argument.

...and why I really do not want waste time, energy, and space having such a discussion.

Yet here you, and your wall of text are, discussing it.

Do you believe, George Washington was the President of the United States?

Yes.
But I don't believe he walked across the Delaware.
Notice though, I've made no claims regarding George Washington.

My claims are thus...

I was alive during the time of Bugs Bunny.
I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior.

These claims are directly related to your claims about Paul being "alive during..." (the time of Jesus or alleged eyewitnesses claiming to have seen Jesus).

Then I ask two questions related to my claims, that I contend might shed light on your belief in claims about Jesus...

Do you, Realworldjack, believe me when I say Bugs Bunny was real?
Do you, Realworldjack, believe me when I say Martin Luther King Junior rose from the dead.

I've put these questions to you several times now, and still can't get you to answer whether you believe my claims or not. I propose you seek to avoid answering these questions with a simple yes or no because to do so might, or will expose you to having engaged in a double standard of your own making.

I'm content with concluding the majority of observers will conclude as I have, that you fear exposing yourself as engaging in double standards when it comes to my claims, as opposed to the claims of someone who isn't even available to cross examine.

I ask the observer...

Do you believe me, dear observer, when I claim Bugs Bunny was real?
Do you believe me, dear observer, when I claim Martin Luther King Junior rose from the dead?

Think about your answers, and then think about if you believe claims regarding Jesus, claims regarding "eyewitnesses", and claims regarding Paul recording the recollectings of those alleged eyewitnesses.

Then think about this OP, and the whole double standards deal.

Or, are you agnostic toward this question?

I'm atheist regarding your showing you speak truth when you claim there were eyewitnesses who engaged in conversation with Paul, and the further question of whether Paul accurately put down their recollectings.

Snip more about someone I don't claim to have existed...

There are no eyewitnesses to interview.

Then why believe this Paul feller when he claims there were?

Why believe he accurately recorded what they had to allow regarding someone who can't be shown to have existed?

If you remain agnostic toward this claim, you are destroying any possibility of us being able to be certain about anything which would have happened in the past.

Such is life. I can't even be certain the pretty thing loves me, cept to note she lets me see her nekkid without any clothes on.

Ya see, that's what's tricky about debate - where folks try to understand what's actually true, we see the proving something true is so much harder'n declaring it to be true.

Sure, we can play pretend that Paul existed, play pretend he got his "eyewitnesses' testimony" correct. But don't it beat all, we can't show em to be true and factual things.

So then, either you are convinced certain events have indeed occurred in the past, based upon the facts, and evidence we have available, without having to interview those personally, who may have been involved?

I'm convinced that in the past, on this site, in this thread, you made claims regarding eyewitnesses, which you have now said are unavailable to be cross examined, that we might determine if Paul had those folks' recollections down correctly.

Or, you remain agnostic toward such things, and hold the position that we cannot know anything for certain about the past?

I think we can be quite certain that in the past, within this site, and within this thread you made claims regarding eyewitnesses, and now say those eyewitnesses can't be brought forth, that we might question em on if Paul accurately presented their recollections.

The only thing I know for certain about the past, is it ain't here, that we might cross examine it regarding if Paul accurately recorded it or not.

If you remain agnostic toward such claims, you are going against historical scholars who are convinced we can know certain things about the past, beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon the facts, and evidence which have been left behind.

I've yet to see one scholar who can present these eyewitnesses, that we might learn if they thought Paul had their recollections correctly scribed.

With that being said, if there were no miraculous events involved in the letters contained in the NT, and these letters rather, simply gave an account of the life of Jesus, and how he gained a following, got himself in trouble with the authorities, and was crucified, dead, and buried, end of story, there would be no reason to doubt the content of these letters, which sort of demonstrates the only reason there is for any sort of doubt, would be the miraculous events, which seems to be the only argument you have supplied thus far.

Hey, present these eyewitnesses ya now say ya can't present, and we can go from there. Maybe we'll find us something about how the ancients thought magic was something other'n a Vegas lounge act.

As you propose his existence is "fact", surely there's some confirmatory data to share.

How about the fact that, Jesus, has been one of the most, if not the absolute most written about figure in the history of the world? Moreover, there are not too many serious historical, or Biblical scholars who doubt his existence?

Given there's upwards of a brazillion Christians, we should expect a bunch of stories about their most favorite non-proven to have existed person.

That someone has been mentioned is hardly confirmation they were real.

Heck, how many stories about Paul Bunyon are there?

How many stories did Mother Goose write?

That would be extraordinary concerning one who never existed. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming, for one to attempt to make such an argument, would be to commit intellectual suicide, removing themselves from the conversation.

Then by all means, present this "overwhelming" evidence, that we might have better understanding of double standards.

The ability to count beyond the amount of fingers and toes one has available to do the counting says nothing about the validity of claims / stories.

I
seek to determine whether or not you believe me when I say…

I was a live during the time of Bugs Bunny.

So I ask again…

Do you believe me when I say ol Bugs there is real?

Again, for one to make such a comparison, sort of demonstrates one who has left the realm of reality, into a world of make believe.

When a Christian accuses someone of leaving "the realm of reality, into a world of make believe", simply for asking a question

I say again...

I was alive during the time of Bugs Bunny.

Do you believe me when I say ol Bugs there is real?

I knew him personally.
We spent many a day walking together.
He was a preacher, as evidenced by all that preaching he used to do.
Yes, I make all the above claims.
The point is to see if you believe me when I say…

I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior.

And to ask again…

Would you trust me if I said he rose from the dead?

You are not making such a claim. Therefore, there is nothing for me to believe.

I have indeed made claims, and reject your denial of that fact!

So...

I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior.

Do you believe me when I tell you he rose from the dead?


For the observer...

I have certainly made claims, and I am willing to support or retract those claims.

I merely question Realworldjack on whether I'm to be believed, so that we can have more data regarding the OP's topic of double standards.


But why no simple yes / no?

Why no simple, "I believe ya on the one, but the other'n"?


I propose it's because there's a fear that an answer, either yes or no, has the potential to expose Realworldjack to being guilty of the very double standards this OP seeks to explore.

[bluegreenearth]

As William has stated, I think we have arrived to the "stalemate" I have predicted all along.

I wouldn't call it a stalemate because you still haven't demonstrated your methodology is reliable. I'm also waiting for you to provided a logical justification for your confident belief in the claims of the resurrection from the NT as opposed to those people who have a logically justified lack of belief. After all, if lacking belief in the claims of the resurrection from the NT is logically justified on account of the available facts and evidence being too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief, then the same set of facts and evidence can't also be perfectly sufficient for logically justifying a confident belief. To suggest otherwise would be to affirm a logical contradiction where the available facts and evidence are both perfectly sufficient and too inadequate to affirm a confident belief.

[William]

As William has stated, I think we have arrived to the "stalemate" I have predicted all along.

I wouldn't call it a stalemate because you still haven't demonstrated your methodology is reliable. I'm also waiting for you to provided a logical justification for your confident belief in the claims of the resurrection from the NT as opposed to those people who have a logically justified lack of belief. After all, if lacking belief in the claims of the resurrection from the NT is logically justified on account of the available facts and evidence being too inadequate to serve in support of a confident belief, then the same set of facts and evidence can't also be perfectly sufficient for logically justifying a confident belief. To suggest otherwise would be to affirm a logical contradiction where the available facts and evidence are both perfectly sufficient and too inadequate to justify a confident belief.

If not a stalemate, then perhaps an impasse. [a situation in which no progress is possible, especially because of disagreement; a deadlock.]

In Chess, each opponent must at least come to the table and agree to play the game.
Therefore in Chess an impasse is possible [called a "Stalemate"] Two kings on one table is no one's idea of fun. Set 'em up again!





In this case it appears to be that at least one of the opponents refuses to play the game, so any claim of reaching a stalemate would be untrue, regardless of who states it.

Boasting one can win over the other IF one were to to play the game, is something I would have to take on faith, in order to then believe it. That, in itself, wouldn't magically make the statement true.

[I do not even believe that there is magic cake one can never make disappear, no matter how much one ate of it.]



[Yet plainly the above image shows evidence that magic cake certainly does exist, right?]

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #406]


We were having a discussion on this thread. You went on to open another thread in order to carry on this conversation. I went to the other thread in order to explain to you that I was not willing to work between two different threads. This is not unreasonable. As you can see, I am dealing with complaints from several different folks on this one thread, and have trouble at times keeping up with who I am to respond to next here on this one thread. Therefore, I do not want to complicate this even further, by joining in on another thread, having to attempt to keep up there as well. Moreover, there are now a couple of other threads I would love to get involved in, but have decided I cannot at this time, in order to stay focused here. You are now back here, and I am engaging what you have to say.

With this being cleared up, on the other thread, all you do is to rehash our conversation, and then go on to insist that Christian beliefs must be faith based, rather than fact based. The funny thing here is, in my last post here on this thread, I address this objection of yours, concerning, faith based, verses fact based, and in this post I am responding to now, you have failed to even address what I had to say concerning faith based, verses fact based? So, it is not like I am avoiding anything, other than wanting to have to attempt to keep up with two different threads. In other words, I am still here on this thread you left, attempting to do my best to answer any objections, and when I answer these objections, you have ignored my response, and want to instead move on to something completely different.

Just to let everyone know who may be interested, this may be my last post for a while. I will be working very late this week, and on the weekend we will be traveling to a very secluded cabin in the mountains, where I will not have assess to the internet.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #410]

Enjoy your trip to the mountains. Time away in a secluded cabin sounds very relaxing! Be safe out there.