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]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #365]

Huh?
There's like a brazillion different religions with another brazillion different supernatural claims.
And we went us through all of em?

No! I am simply pointing out we have done this with one religion and it did not work out so well for you. So by all means, if you would like to move to another, I am more than happy to oblige.

As an atheist, I already dismiss all supernatural claims, so ya didn't do as well as ya think.

As you propose Christianity to be a reasoned / reasonable belief, I was merely expressing curiosity as to how you might approach the claims of other religions.

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.

It can't even be established that Jesus ever existed, don't try to play the "established" game with me.

It is sure sign of desperation for one to attempt to suggest Jesus may have never existed.

I presented a fact, not a suggestion.

Ya got his dna? Ya got his bones? A fingerprint? A sandal? A glove? What do you have by which me may positively identify someone as being the Jesus character of Christian lore?

In other words, they realize the arguments they are attempting to make are not demonstrating very much at all, and so the only thing they have left, is to "jump off the bridge".

When Christians think presenting facts is jumping off a bridge

Bring us one of them leaky palms.

Show us something!

Moreover, this makes the tale become even more astounding. In other words, these men were able to convince millions, upon millions of folks, that some guy who never existed, rose from the dead, and this guy who never existed becomes one of the most, if not the most, significant figures in the history of the world.

You've been repeatedly told that belief, no matter how many are adoing it, does not provide fact.

That you're -ahem- astoundingly incapable of learning you just this little bit is indicative of faulty thinking, indoctrination, or bovine craniitis.

When one does such a thing, they eliminate themselves from the conversation.

Yeah, I've had many a Christian quit responding when I set me in on their goofy, unsupportable claims.

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?

When you can establish as fact that Jesus existed, hop right on and do it.

I'll wait.

Remember now, the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site, and no matter how many folks believe em something, that don't make it true.

Ya seem to struggle mightly with that last bit, would ya like me to say it yet again?

We have folks making claims we have no means of confirming.

We are not talking about "confirming".

SEE THAT PART RIGHT THERE THAT YOU QUOTED ME ON?

That you don't want to fret or fuss about confirming creates no obligation on my part.

However, when the facts, and evidence gets to a certain point, there is a such thing as, "valid reasons to believe".

That's where I question the reasonableness, the validity of that belief.

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 was alive during the time of Bugs Bunny.

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

Truth close.
Do let us know when ya get there.

I am not the one who seems to be insisting I have arrived a truth.

I'm seeking to have the reader realize that you have not come to a reasoned position regarding your beliefs in claims that can't be shown to be truth, and especially in your belief that dead folks, or at least one of em, can hop up and belly up to the bar.

Rather, it seems to be you who holds such confidence, and the truth you seem to have arrived to leaves you with having to acknowledge the content of the NT, may well in fact be reliable.

Your seemer's it as broke as your reasoner.

No book should be considered reliable that contains tales of talking bushes and sea parting and global floods and animals two by two and water walking and stick animal color changing and serpents holding down conversations and angels and grumpkins and snarks.

The most generous take is to consider it a work of fiction, if not a good work of it.

Unless of course, you can demonstrate how it is not.

You seem to have a hard time incorporating new data, so let me say this bit again...

I'm under no obligation to refute magical mystery claims. I refer to claims presented within the bible, and per site rules, I do not consider nor present those claims as authoritative, but do challenge the veracity thereof.

That you can't get fit that tiny notion in amongst all that magic belief ya got going on is not my problem.

Maybe ya spilt on ya some of that "if that's as far as you're willing to think" you thought was such a compelling argument there awhile back.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #368]

Sure, but...
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?

Yes, I knew him personally. Met some of his friends, great bunch of guys, just don't ask em if they wanna stay in a Memphis motel anytime soon.

The point is to see...

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

So Christian claims are silly, or just asking about em?

It is not a "Christian claim" that "poles stuck in the ground change the colors of animals". Christianity came many, many years later.

So then, God didn't create the universe, nor man, nor woman, nor talking serpents?

Didn't flood the globe?

None of that?

So we can disregard Genesis?

If you do, it is of no concern to me, and it would have nothing to do with the claims made in the NT.

I'm curious to know then why would Christians keep it in their sacred texts.

Clue? Serious question, you're the first Christian I ever met who disregards the whole first half of the bible.

Yet you consider Christian belief to be reasoned / reasonable.

It is not a requirement to be a Christian to believe that poles stuck in the ground change the colors of animals.

Yeah, that's the other book, in light of new data, I can't rightly fuss at ya for that'n.

I don't claim to know me a bunch about it, no.

And yet, somehow you know that it has something to do with Christianity not being based upon reason? GOOD GRIEF!

I base my position on the belief in claims that can't be shown to be true, Charlie Brown.

"It could be" is indicative of errant translation / story telling.

This is exactly why I said, "I really do not know what is being communicated". However, whatever it was that was being communicated, has no bearing upon the claims made by the authors in the NT. That is why it is, silly.

Yeah, I retract that whole deal there, since you renounce or reject the old testament.

It says nothing about God's involvement.

Oh really? Well, when we get to the very next chapter we read,

Genesis 31:6-9
You know that I have served your father with all my strength. Yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times; however, God did not allow him to do me harm. If he said this: ‘The speckled shall be your wages,’ then all the flock delivered speckled; and if he said this: ‘The striped shall be your wages,’ then all the flock delivered striped. So God has taken away your father’s livestock and given them to me.

As before, I'll retract my line of questioning in this regard, as you've indicated you renounce or reject the old testament.

[Difflugia]

The most generous take is to consider it a work of fiction, if not a good work of it.

To be fair, I've come to appreciate parts of it as much better fiction than they're normally given credit for being.

The unravelling of King Saul as David takes his place even within the king's own family? *Chef's kiss*

It says nothing about God's involvement.

Oh really? Well, when we get to the very nest chapter we read,

Genesis 31:6-9
You know that I have served your father with all my strength. Yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times; however, God did not allow him to do me harm. If he said this: ‘The speckled shall be your wages,’ then all the flock delivered speckled; and if he said this: ‘The striped shall be your wages,’ then all the flock delivered striped. So God has taken away your father’s livestock and given them to me.

Which is the lie that Jacob told his wives after cheating their dad. The narrator tells us what really happened in 30:37-43. The verses you quoted, on the other hand, have changed to the voice of Jacob and are the excuse he gave Rachel and Leah for having to run away from Laban's angry sons. It's a subtle and nuanced story. *Chef's kiss*

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #371]

Those results would demonstrate the methodology to be unreliable because, at least on the macro scale, there are no valid reasons to simultaneously believe in two competing or contradictory claims when it is only logically possible for one of them to be true.

We are not talking about, "simultaneously believing in two competing or contradictory claims". Rather, we are talking about being able to demonstrate there are valid reasons to believe Christianity to be true, while acknowledging there very well may be valid reasons to believe other competing beliefs. Acknowledging that there MAY BE valid reasons to believe other claims, is not an admission that there WOULD BE, and not being interested enough to go to all the trouble to determine if there MAY BE, is not a double standard, unless I am simply unwilling in the least to make any sort of comparison, and as we could see very clearly, I do not shy away from those who would like to make such comparisons, and it seems we determined very quickly, when we go on to make such comparisons, we can determine there is very little comparison at all, which you seem to have admitted yourself.

The reason I may decide not to go on to consider any, and every other competing, and contradictory claim, which may be out there is, because like you, "I don't have the time or resources to conduct this type of detailed analysis independently". But again, as we have seen, when you wanted to go on to make such a comparison, I did not shy away from it, and I think we clearly discovered, very quickly, after making such a comparison, it did not work out well for you to do so.

My whole point here is, like you, "I don't have the time or resources to conduct this type of detailed analysis independently". However, if you would like to go through any, and every other competing claim there may be, I am more than willing to oblige, as you begin to bring each, and everyone to the table. We already have one down, with thousands, and thousands more to go, and it is my contention that as we continue to do this, we are going to discover the same exact thing as we did with, number one. In other words, I am completely unaware of any other competing, or contradictory claim, which would be based upon the same sort of historical facts, and evidence, as that of Christianity.

For one to come to the conclusion that there may be valid reasons to believe two different competing claims, does not demonstrate the methodology being used would be unreliable. What would demonstrate a methodology to be unreliable, would be one in which one were to draw the conclusion that both competing, and contradictory claims, must be true.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #374]

Which is the lie that Jacob told his wives after cheating their dad. The narrator tells us what really happened in 30:37-43. The verses you quoted, on the other hand, have changed to the voice of Jacob and are the excuse he gave Rachel and Leah for having to run away from Laban's angry sons. It's a subtle and nuanced story. *Chef's kiss*

You are exactly correct! Jacob, was a liar, cheat, and a thief. Therefore, whatever was going on with the poles in the ground, was the efforts of Jacob to deceive, cheat, and steal. Whether the poles in the ground would have had anything at all to do with the outcome, I have no idea. It could have been some sort of idea which was held at the time, which would really do nothing at all. However, either way, it was a clear scheme on the part of Jacob, in order to take advantage of his father-in-law. So then, it could be that Jacob was blessed in spite of his evil efforts, and not in any way because of these efforts.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #371]

Those results would demonstrate the methodology to be unreliable because, at least on the macro scale, there are no valid reasons to simultaneously believe in two competing or contradictory claims when it is only logically possible for one of them to be true.

We are not talking about, "simultaneously believing in two competing or contradictory claims". Rather, we are talking about being able to demonstrate there are valid reasons to believe Christianity to be true, while acknowledging there very well may be valid reasons to believe other competing beliefs. Acknowledging that there MAY BE valid reasons to believe other claims, is not an admission that there WOULD BE, and not being interested enough to go to all the trouble to determine if there MAY BE, is not a double standard, unless I am simply unwilling in the least to make any sort of comparison, and as we could see very clearly, I do not shy away from those who would like to make such comparisons, and it seems we determined very quickly, when we go on to make such comparisons, we can determine there is very little comparison at all, which you seem to have admitted yourself.

The reason I may decide not to go on to consider any, and every other competing, and contradictory claim, which may be out there is, because like you, "I don't have the time or resources to conduct this type of detailed analysis independently". But again, as we have seen, when you wanted to go on to make such a comparison, I did not shy away from it, and I think we clearly discovered, very quickly, after making such a comparison, it did not work out well for you to do so.

My whole point here is, like you, "I don't have the time or resources to conduct this type of detailed analysis independently". However, if you would like to go through any, and every other competing claim there may be, I am more than willing to oblige, as you begin to bring each, and everyone to the table. We already have one down, with thousands, and thousands more to go, and it is my contention that as we continue to do this, we are going to discover the same exact thing as we did with, number one. In other words, I am completely unaware of any other competing, or contradictory claim, which would be based upon the same sort of historical facts, and evidence, as that of Christianity.

For one to come to the conclusion that there may be valid reasons to believe two different competing claims, does not demonstrate the methodology being used would be unreliable. What would demonstrate a methodology to be unreliable, would be one in which one were to draw the conclusion that both competing, and contradictory claims, must be true.

According to your own expressed perspective, the methodology you used to conduct the aforementioned comparison did not function to determine the reliability of either source. Please provide a detailed description of your methodology (i.e. systematic procedures, qualifying criteria, bias mitigation techniques, line of reasoning, etc.) for determining the reliability of sources. Thanks.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #377]

According to your own expressed perspective, the methodology you used to conduct the aforementioned comparison did not function to determine the reliability of either source.

Listen! "According to your own expressed perspective, the methodology you use" has lead you to determine, that there is a real possibility, the NT is a reliable source. In other words, it seems to always, ever be your position, that you are not making any sort of claims. Therefore, you are not claiming the NT would be unreliable, which leaves you with the real possibility of it being reliable. From here, you want to go on to insist, the position I should take, would be to simply doubt the NT, with there being a real possibility of it being reliable?

Of course, you then want to insist that I should consider other competing claims. However, when we use your methodology, we come to the same conclusion, which is there would be a real possibility these would be reliable sources as well. However, when we go on to make such a comparison with one of the competing claims, we discover there are real differences, which make a tremendous difference.

You are more than welcomed to move on to another, I will be happy to oblige. It seems you may have attempted to do this on another thread. On this particular thread, Mormonism is brought into the equation. However, as far as I can see, there is really no comparison between, Mormonism, and Christianity. Rather, it seems to be more of a critic of the apologetics of Craig. In other words, the verdict there seems to be that if Craig were consistent, he would have to believe Mormonism as well.

I know very little about Craig, or the arguments he makes. What I do know is, this argument you seem to have accepted seems very sloppy. Because you see, if one is making an argument for the reasons there would be to believe the Christian claims, this is not an argument against other claims. This is why I have continued to say things like, "there very well may be reasons to believe these other claims". With this being the case, Craig could simply be giving reasons there would be to believe the Christian claims, and may agree himself, that his methodology could lead to reasons to believe the other claims. With this being the case, it is not until one goes on to consider these other claims individually, where one may discover the real differences between the sources.

When we go on to consider the sources of Mormonism, what we discover is, a tremendous amount of chaos among the sources, and that would be to put it mildly. So then, if one is giving reasons there would be to believe a certain claim, they are not arguing against another competing claim. They are also not arguing that if the same methodology would be used with other competing claims, that this methodology would demonstrate the other claims to be false, or that this methodology would eliminate any reasons to believe other claims. However, when we go on to compare the different sources, we may well discover there are tremendous differences, which make a tremendous difference.

Please provide a detailed description of your methodology (i.e. systematic procedures, qualifying criteria, bias mitigation techniques, line of reasoning, etc.) for determining the reliability of sources. Thanks.

I have never claimed to have determined the reliability of a source. Rather, LIKE YOU, I have come to the conclusion that there is a real possibility that the content of the NT, is reliable sources. With this being the case, it seems we may both be using a very similar methodology, since we have come to the same conclusion. Moreover, as you, and I continue to discuss, I am gaining more, and more confidence in this conclusion, as we continue to compare the NT to other sources.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #377]

According to your own expressed perspective, the methodology you used to conduct the aforementioned comparison did not function to determine the reliability of either source.

Listen! "According to your own expressed perspective, the methodology you use" has lead you to determine, that there is a real possibility, the NT is a reliable source. In other words, it seems to always, ever be your position, that you are not making any sort of claims. Therefore, you are not claiming the NT would be unreliable, which leaves you with the real possibility of it being reliable. From here, you want to go on to insist, the position I should take, would be to simply doubt the NT, with there being a real possibility of it being reliable?

Of course, you then want to insist that I should consider other competing claims. However, when we use your methodology, we come to the same conclusion, which is there would be a real possibility these would be reliable sources as well. However, when we go on to make such a comparison with one of the competing claims, we discover there are real differences, which make a tremendous difference.

You are more than welcomed to move on to another, I will be happy to oblige. It seems you may have attempted to do this on another thread. On this particular thread, Mormonism is brought into the equation. However, as far as I can see, there is really no comparison between, Mormonism, and Christianity. Rather, it seems to be more of a critic of the apologetics of Craig. In other words, the verdict there seems to be that if Craig were consistent, he would have to believe Mormonism as well.

I know very little about Craig, or the arguments he makes. What I do know is, this argument you seem to have accepted seems very sloppy. Because you see, if one is making an argument for the reasons there would be to believe the Christian claims, this is not an argument against other claims. This is why I have continued to say things like, "there very well may be reasons to believe these other claims". With this being the case, Craig could simply be giving reasons there would be to believe the Christian claims, and may agree himself, that his methodology could lead to reasons to believe the other claims. With this being the case, it is not until one goes on to consider these other claims individually, where one may discover the real differences between the sources.

When we go on to consider the sources of Mormonism, what we discover is, a tremendous amount of chaos among the sources, and that would be to put it mildly. So then, if one is giving reasons there would be to believe a certain claim, they are not arguing against another competing claim. They are also not arguing that if the same methodology would be used with other competing claims, that this methodology would demonstrate the other claims to be false, or that this methodology would eliminate any reasons to believe other claims. However, when we go on to compare the different sources, we may well discover there are tremendous differences, which make a tremendous difference.

Please provide a detailed description of your methodology (i.e. systematic procedures, qualifying criteria, bias mitigation techniques, line of reasoning, etc.) for determining the reliability of sources. Thanks.

I have never claimed to have determined the reliability of a source. Rather, LIKE YOU, I have come to the conclusion that there is a real possibility that the content of the NT, is reliable sources. With this being the case, it seems we may both be using a very similar methodology, since we have come to the same conclusion. Moreover, as you, and I continue to discuss, I am gaining more, and more confidence in this conclusion, as we continue to compare the NT to other sources.

You misunderstood me because my expressed conclusion was that the supernatural claims of the NT could be neither proved nor disproved at this time. That does not describe my perspective on the reliability of the NT as a source. My conclusions about the reliability of the NT and Koran as sources were offered in post #370:

The application of my methodology to the investigation of the Koran and the NT documents concludes that those manuscripts and letters are not sufficiently reliable for me to justify a confident belief in their claims about the occurrences of particular events. This is because the available facts and evidence they provide do not adequately serve to distinguish between long dead people who witnessed particular events, long dead people who mistakenly but sincerely believed they witnessed particular events, long dead people who embellished accounts of particular events, and long dead people who had various motivations to fabricate accounts of particular events. The conclusion that both competing sources are unreliable does not necessitate the affirmation of logically contradictory beliefs and does not provide me with a justification to suspect my methodology is unreliable. Of course, this outcome results from the consistent application of my methodology to competing or contradictory claims, but you are under no obligation to accept it or use it. Maybe your own methodology is able to produce valid reasons to make those distinctions based on the available facts and evidence, but at what cost if it also happens to produces "valid reasons" to affirm false beliefs when consistently applied to the investigation of competing or contradictory claims?

You also seem to be conflating "reasons" with "methodology" in your response. I am not making an argument about the "reasons" given for believing the Christian claims but about the methodology that is used to investigate the Christian claims which produce the reasons for belief. As I've previously explained, in order to test the reliability of a methodology, it is necessary to apply it consistently to competing or contradictory claims and assess the results. So, your objection about comparing claims is not relevant.

[Difflugia]

It seems you may have attempted to do this on another thread. On this particular thread, Mormonism is brought into the equation. However, as far as I can see, there is really no comparison between, Mormonism, and Christianity. Rather, it seems to be more of a critic of the apologetics of Craig. In other words, the verdict there seems to be that if Craig were consistent, he would have to believe Mormonism as well.

If you think that William Lane Craig's arguments don't represent apologists in general, then perhaps you could help that thread by offering a more representative set of arguments. The argument that the New Testament is reliable because Luke might have written some of it doesn't seem an improvement (I can't prove that Nephi didn't write some of the Book of Mormon, either), but maybe you have more.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #379]

The conclusion that both competing sources are unreliable

I think I see what you are attempting to do here? You seem to be insisting the NT would not be a reliable source of information? The question now would be, are you insisting the reports of the resurrection contained in the NT, would be false?