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]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #49]
Now, do you really believe this is an answer to the question I posed? In other words, I did not ask, what "some people are convinced of". Rather, I asked, "Do YOU, (emphasis on the YOU) believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true"?

If there were sufficient facts and evidence available, then I believe it would be possible for people to use sound reason and logic to conclude the Christian claims are true (or false).

Again, I am not attempting to force you into a, yes, or no answer, and I am fine with you elaborating on any answer you may give. The problem is, you are not in any way answering the question. Therefore, allow me to ask the question again,

"Do you believe sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, can be used in order to arrive to the conclusion the Christian reports are true"?

My point in asking this question is, if you are under the impression that if sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence were indeed used concerning the Christian reports, then one would have to come to the same conclusions you have come to, would this not plainly explain who the target would be when you bring up such things as, epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards etc.?

Because you see, with the way in which I have answered this very same question, I do not have to assume, those who disagree with my position must, and have to be guilty of such things as a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards, etc. However, if one is under the impression that there is no sound reason, facts, evidence, or logic which would lead to belief in the Christian reports, then I think it would be safe to say, that one would have to assume those who come to such conclusions must be guilty of such things as, a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards, etc.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #49]
Now, do you really believe this is an answer to the question I posed? In other words, I did not ask, what "some people are convinced of". Rather, I asked, "Do YOU, (emphasis on the YOU) believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true"?

If there were sufficient facts and evidence available, then I believe it would be possible for people to use sound reason and logic to conclude the Christian claims are true (or false).

Again, I am not attempting to force you into a, yes, or no answer, and I am fine with you elaborating on any answer you may give. The problem is, you are not in any way answering the question. Therefore, allow me to ask the question again,

"Do you believe sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, can be used in order to arrive to the conclusion the Christian reports are true"?

My point in asking this question is, if you are under the impression that if sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence were indeed used concerning the Christian reports, then one would have to come to the same conclusions you have come to, would this not plainly explain who the target would be when you bring up such things as, epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards etc.?

Because you see, with the way in which I have answered this very same question, I do not have to assume, those who disagree with my position must, and have to be guilty of such things as a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards, etc. However, if one is under the impression that there is no sound reason, facts, evidence, or logic which would lead to belief in the Christian reports, then I think it would be safe to say, that one would have to assume those who come to such conclusions must be guilty of such things as, a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards, etc.

The facts and evidence I'm aware of are not sufficient for me to conclude the Christian claims are true or false using sound reason and logic. Now, it may be the case that other people have acquired additional facts and evidence I am not aware of. It may be the case that these additional facts and evidence those people possess are sufficient for them to arrive at a conclusion using what they understand to be sound reason and logic. Since I do not know what those additional facts and evidence are unless they provide them to me along with the sound reasoning and logic supporting the conclusion, I'm not in a position to judge whether those people are utilizing a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, or a double standard. So, I am not assuming that everyone who disagrees with me is guilty of having a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, or a double standard. However, I've consistently invited people who disagree with my perspective to provide their facts and evidence for me to evaluate using what I understand to be sound reasoning and logic, but nothing presented thus far has been sufficient for me to conclude the claims they are attempting to justify are true or false. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that someone out there might one day demonstrate where there are sufficient facts and evidence for me to justify concluding the Christian claims are true or false using sound reasoning and logic.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #49]
Now, do you really believe this is an answer to the question I posed? In other words, I did not ask, what "some people are convinced of". Rather, I asked, "Do YOU, (emphasis on the YOU) believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true"?

If there were sufficient facts and evidence available, then I believe it would be possible for people to use sound reason and logic to conclude the Christian claims are true (or false).

Again, I am not attempting to force you into a, yes, or no answer, and I am fine with you elaborating on any answer you may give. The problem is, you are not in any way answering the question. Therefore, allow me to ask the question again,

"Do you believe sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, can be used in order to arrive to the conclusion the Christian reports are true"?

My point in asking this question is, if you are under the impression that if sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence were indeed used concerning the Christian reports, then one would have to come to the same conclusions you have come to, would this not plainly explain who the target would be when you bring up such things as, epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards etc.?

Because you see, with the way in which I have answered this very same question, I do not have to assume, those who disagree with my position must, and have to be guilty of such things as a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards, etc. However, if one is under the impression that there is no sound reason, facts, evidence, or logic which would lead to belief in the Christian reports, then I think it would be safe to say, that one would have to assume those who come to such conclusions must be guilty of such things as, a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, double standards, etc.

The facts and evidence I'm aware of are not sufficient for me to conclude the Christian claims are true or false using sound reason and logic. Now, it may be the case that other people have acquired additional facts and evidence I am not aware of. It may be the case that these additional facts and evidence those people possess are sufficient for them to arrive at a conclusion using what they understand to be sound reason and logic. Since I do not know what those additional facts and evidence are unless they provide them to me along with the sound reasoning and logic supporting the conclusion, I'm not in a position to judge whether those people are utilizing a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, or a double standard. So, I am not assuming that everyone who disagrees with me is guilty of having a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, or a double standard. However, I've consistently invited people who disagree with my perspective to provide their facts and evidence for me to evaluate using what I understand to be sound reasoning and logic, but nothing presented thus far has been sufficient for me to conclude the claims they are attempting to justify are true or false. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that someone out there might one day demonstrate where there are sufficient facts and evidence for me to justify concluding the Christian claims are true or false using sound reasoning and logic.

Well, I think you are correct, in that we have been down this road before. I did not get an answer then, and it looks like I will fail to get an answer now. To demonstrate how you have not in any way given a answer to my question, I not only can, I have in fact said the same exact thing you say here, but it does not answer the question.

In other words, I have pointed out the fact that for years, I have put out in front of those who are opposed, the reasons I believe as I do concerning Christianity. In fact, I have been on this site now for some 7 years, and I have continued to discuss, and debate with those opposed, some who claim to be scientists, some who claim to be college professors, along with authors of books, and not only have I not heard an argument from any of them which has caused me to doubt what it is I believe, the process of actually conversing with these folks, has given me all the more reason to continue to believe. I can also say as you, there certainly may be an argument out there with facts, evidence, and reasons I have not heard as of yet, which could in fact cause my doubt, but as you can see, thus far, that has not occurred. However, this would not, and does not answer the question as to whether I believe those who are in disagreement with me, are using faulty thinking, logic, and are guilty of things such as confirmation bias, faulty epistemology, double standards, etc. While our disagreements do demonstrate that at least one of us must, and has to be in error, being in error, does not demonstrate one has to be using, faulty thinking, logic, and guilty of things such as confirmation bias, faulty epistemology, double standards, etc., to arrive to the conclusions they have.

This is why I have continued to say, we are all in the same boat. In other words, all you and I can do, is to explain what it is we believe concerning these things, along with the facts, and evidence we have, neither of us being able to demonstrate our case.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #49]

Well, I think you are correct, in that we have been down this road before. I did not get an answer then, and it looks like I will fail to get an answer now. To demonstrate how you have not in any way given a answer to my question, I not only can, I have in fact said the same exact thing you say here, but it does not answer the question.

In other words, I have pointed out the fact that for years, I have put out in front of those who are opposed, the reasons I believe as I do concerning Christianity. In fact, I have been on this site now for some 7 years, and I have continued to discuss, and debate with those opposed, some who claim to be scientists, some who claim to be college professors, along with authors of books, and not only have I not heard an argument from any of them which has caused me to doubt what it is I believe, the process of actually conversing with these folks, has given me all the more reason to continue to believe. I can also say as you, there certainly may be an argument out there with facts, evidence, and reasons I have not heard as of yet, which could in fact cause my doubt, but as you can see, thus far, that has not occurred. However, this would not, and does not answer the question as to whether I believe those who are in disagreement with me, are using faulty thinking, logic, and are guilty of things such as confirmation bias, faulty epistemology, double standards, etc. While our disagreements do demonstrate that at least one of us must, and has to be in error, being in error, does not demonstrate one has to be using, faulty thinking, logic, and guilty of things such as confirmation bias, faulty epistemology, double standards, etc., to arrive to the conclusions they have.

This is why I have continued to say, we are all in the same boat. In other words, all you and I can do, is to explain what it is we believe concerning these things, along with the facts, and evidence we have, neither of us being able to demonstrate our case.

I fail to understand how my response didn't answer your question. You asked, "Do YOU, (emphasis on the YOU) believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true?" My response specifically answers that question and even includes the statement, "Since I do not know what those additional facts and evidence are unless they provide them to me along with the sound reasoning and logic supporting the conclusion, I'm not in a position to judge whether those people are utilizing a faulty epistemology, confirmation bias, or a double standard." So, compared to how you answer your own question, my response appears to be equally valid as best as I can determine.

Now, I am completely open to the possibility that I might not be aware of faults in my epistemology or aware of my own subconscious confirmation bias or aware of implementing a double standard in my evaluation of the facts and evidence, but I invite and welcome all attempts to expose such errors in my logical reasoning process. I would never take offense to anyone critically examining my methods and conclusion with the intent of helping me discover for myself if I've potentially overlooked any additional facts and evidence or errors in my logical reasoning process.

You, on the other hand, seem to strongly express a grievance whenever I attempt to apply the same standards I demand of myself to the evaluation of your methods and conclusions. No matter how clearly I demonstrate where my effort in this regard does not in anyway imply that you must be guilty of confirmation bias, a faulty epistemology, implementing a double standard, etc., you consistently respond as though my mere investigation into the possibility of such errors occurring is presuming such errors have occurred. If I've incorrectly interpreted your response, then I will welcome a clarification from you.

So I ask, why is it inappropriate for me to evaluate for the possibility of confirmation bias, a faulty epistemology, implementing a double standard, etc. in your methods and conclusions when I do the same for my own beliefs?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #55]

with the intent of helping me discover for myself if I've potentially overlooked any additional facts and evidence or errors in my logical reasoning process.

Can one use sound reason, and logic, and be in error?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #55]
Can one use sound reason, and logic, and be in error?

Good question. I suppose it would depend on whether my understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic is accurate or not:

If I'm unaware that my understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic is inaccurate, I could believe I'm using sound reason and logic to arrive at a particular conclusion but be in error. Unless I discover the inaccuracy in my understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic, I will persist in falsely believing that I've arrived at a particular conclusion using sound reasoning and logic. Now, I could eventually discover my error and subsequently acquire the correct understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic. From there, as long as I use the correct understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic to arrive at a conclusion, my belief that I'm using sound reasoning and logic would not be in error.

So, how would you propose I could discover if my understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic is accurate or not?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #57]

So, how would you propose I could discover if my understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic is accurate or not?

The question is not, "can one be under the impression they are using sound reason, and logic, and be in error"? The question is, "can one actually use sound reason, and logic, and be in error"?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #57]

So, how would you propose I could discover if my understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic is accurate or not?

The question is not, "can one be under the impression they are using sound reason, and logic, and be in error"? The question is, "can one actually use sound reason, and logic, and be in error"?

I don't know how to appropriately respond to your question without having some additional information. What do you think the implications are if the answer is yes or if the answer is no?

Update: Upon further consideration, presuming someone is actually using sound reason and logic, it seems possible that this person's conclusion could potentially be in error if the available facts and evidence equally support multiple competing conclusions and only one of those conclusions could be correct. In this sense, "yes" would be the answer to your question. At the same time, sound reason and logic should inform this person that the available facts and evidence are insufficient to identify the one correct conclusion apart from all the other equally supported conclusions. So, if sound reason and logic dictates agnosticism as the only intellectually honest position, then arriving at no conclusion would be the most justifiable conclusion. Therefore, in that sense, "no" would seem to be the answer to your question. Of course, I reserve the right to be smarter later if my current reasoning and logic is in error.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

Yeah there is a double standard. Here is one that I think we can all enjoy...

1. It is absurd to think that a man rose from the dead.

2. However, I believe that life originated from inanimate (dead) matter.

The same level of scrutiny isn't exhibited on both sides.

Double standard.

[brunumb]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

Yeah there is a double standard. Here is one that I think we can all enjoy...

1. It is absurd to think that a man rose from the dead.

2. However, I believe that life originated from inanimate (dead) matter.

The same level of scrutiny isn't exhibited on both sides.

Double standard.

All living and non-living things are made of atoms. Those atoms may be considered as inanimate (dead) matter. Carbon consists of the same atoms when it is in graphite, diamond, methane, protein, DNA, etc. It is in the organisation of matter that we end up with things that we regard as either living or non-living. Living things are composed of inanimate matter organised in such a way that it is able to grow, process energy and reproduce. How that all began is still not known, but based on what we do know about chemistry and biochemistry, it is not unreasonable to accept that it could happen naturally without the input of a magical being.

For a mutilated corpse to return to life after being dead for a few days is definitely not within the bounds of nature and can only be accepted on the basis of some input from a magical being.

Apply the same level of scrutiny to both sides. No double standard.