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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #77]

Our theory is that an incredibly long time ago, "God created the heavens and the earth".

Can you quantify "an incredibly long time ago"? Is this around 6,000 years ago, or possibly billions?

Nonsense, because the early earth conditions were absolutely hazardous for the creation of life.

Really? What is this based on? Prior to cyanobacteria helping to oxygenate the atmosphere (the great oxygenation event some 2 billion years ago) there was life that could exist in the "early earth conditions" (eg. the cyanobacteria that produced 3.5 billion year old stromatolites):

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Stromatolites- ... -1666.aspx

But there is still uncertainty on exactly what the "early earth conditions" were as far as atmospheric chemistry. So you can't claim that those conditions were "absolutely hazardous for the creation of life" after about 4 billion years ago ... because there is evidence of life from that time period.

Second, just because you have life doesn't mean you have consciousness, so now you've got to get this newly existent life thinking, which is impossible.

Consciousness had to await the evolution of brains capable of a certain level of functionality that could produce this property. We know that the earliest forms of life on this planet were not conscious or sentient as far as being able to think and reason, but they were simple life forms that eventually evolved into more complex life forms, which eventually led to brains and more advanced "thinking" capabilities. Life existed on this planet for some 3 billion years (or more) before brains came along and the "newly existent" life starting thinking ... but it did happen so it clearly was not impossible.

I like this definition..

"All living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to the environment, reproduction, adaptation, growth and development, homeostasis, energy processing, and evolution. When viewed together, these characteristics serve to define life."

What? Glad to see you've accepted evolution as a valid process. Progress.

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't so muchy deny the existence of God, as I find there's not one person I've ever encountered who can show he's there.

Care to try?

If you were a betting man, where will you place your chips?

Far from those who would try to fleece me, or expect me to believe claims that can't be shown to be truth.

Given that everything in the universe is only ever shown to be the result of nature, well there we go.

Moot point, since the universe began to exist.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this matter.

My point is that what occurs in the universe is, definitionally, natural. So trying to fuss on folks for accepting naturalist answers is kinda goofy.

On abiogenesis, this atheist doesn't know, nor claim to know, how life came to be, only that evolution set in once it did.

What if abiogensis is false? Then what?

Then life goes on and the pretty thing'll find something to get mad at me about like she always does.
Can youshow abiogenesis didn't occur? That's kind the problem here, I'm not saying it did, as you suggested atheists believe such.

All life comes from atoms. Do you declare all atoms are alive?

I like this definition..
...

Your definition fails to address the fact that all life is composed of atoms, and emboldenating it doesn't address the question put to you.

All living organisms are made of atoms.

Do you contend that atoms are alive?

[bluegreenearth]

Are you doxastically open in the sense that you accept the possibly of being potentially mistaken in your belief or understanding of a proposed concept?

Sure. Now whatcha got?

I needed to ask because, if you were doxastically closed, there would be no point in continuing this discussion as you would have no way to discover if you were mistaken about a belief or if you were misunderstanding a proposed concept.

Have you ever interacted with or could you imagine interacting with a non-theist who confidently dismisses a theistic belief or doctrine you are endorsing, but it is obvious to you that this person clearly lacks an accurate understanding of the complexities and nuances of the theistic belief or doctrine being dismissed? If so, would you be willing to consider the possibility that the roles of such a scenario could be reversed to where you are the person who is confidently dismissing a scientific perspective endorsed by your interlocutor, but it is obvious to your interlocutor that you lack an accurate understanding of the complex and nuanced scientific perspective being dismissed? Would you agree that, in either scenario, the person doing the dismissing will more likely make progress in the dialogue by first asking the interlocutor to provide an accurate description of the concept to be considered and subsequently verify with the interlocutor if the concept was properly understood before launching objections at it?

[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"?

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.

I believe you are confusing the subjective, with the objective. Allow me to attempt to explain in as short amount of space as possible.

You doubt the author of the letters to Theophilus traveled with Paul. Now, why in the world would you express such doubts? Well, because you understand one can indeed use sound facts, reason, evidence, and logic in order to support the belief the author would have traveled with Paul. Otherwise, there would be no reason to express such doubt. In other words, you understand you must give facts, reason, and evidence to support the doubt you have. These facts, reasons, and evidence you give, MAY BE real, objective facts, and evidence, that we MAY all have to agree upon, exactly because they would be objective. However, while these facts, evidence, and reasons may be enough to convince you to doubt, they may not be enough to cause me to doubt. In the same way the reasons I give to be convinced this author did travel with Paul, is not enough to convince you that he did indeed travel with Paul, because these things would be subjective.

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

I am not the one who is insisting that, "the available facts, and evidence are sufficient to identify one correct conclusion". Rather, it is my position that one can use sound reason, and logic, based on the real facts, and evidence we have, and come to the conclusion that the author of these letters did in fact travel with Paul, without insisting that everyone else must, and has to share my conclusions. Your position seems to be that you doubt this author did travel with Paul. I have no problem with your doubt, nor the way in which you have arrived to this doubt. We can have a dialogue, discuss, and even debate the different reasons we have for the position we hold, without assuming the other side would have to agree with us, if they were to only use sound reason, and logic.

Again, I have no problem with those who are opposed to the position I hold. My problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist that I have no sound reason to hold this position when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

You go on in that same sentence to say,

apart from all the other equally supported conclusions

Is this to suggest that you are under the impression the facts, and evidence we have available, equally support my belief the author did in fact travel with Paul, as it does your doubt? I highly doubt this to be the case, otherwise you should have no problem with the position I hold?

[bluegreenearth]

Again, I have no problem with those who are opposed to the position I hold. My problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist that I have no sound reason to hold this position when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

You go on in that same sentence to say,

apart from all the other equally supported conclusions

Is this to suggest that you are under the impression the facts, and evidence we have available, equally support my belief the author did in fact travel with Paul, as it does your doubt? I highly doubt this to be the case, otherwise you should have no problem with the position I hold?

It would be more accurate for me to say my impression is that the available facts and evidence are neither sufficient to confidently support nor confidently dismiss either possibility at this point. In other words, I'm agnostic about whether the author of Acts was Paul's traveling companion or not. Do you have some objectively sound reasoning, logic, facts, or evidence I'm unaware of that should otherwise convince me to move beyond agnosticism regarding this claim?

[Diagoras]

The whole process, from ‘abiogenesis’ to ‘talking and thinking’ is of course an incredibly long and gradual one, spanning billions of years.

Sure, according to the theory. Guess what, Christians have a theory, too.

There’s a false equivalence here. A scientific theory is very different from religious dogma.

Any proper scientific theory can be tested and either proved or falsified, whereas a reliance on a single historical source (be it the bible, koran, etc) for such knowledge cannot offer the same iterative progression.

Our theory is that an incredibly long time ago, "God created the heavens and the earth".

Already answered by DrNoGods on this page (thanks).

No, ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Well, science seem to support us there.

A link to support your claim would be helpful. For any readers curious about this, here’s a short article explaining what the Cambrian Explosion was, and why it doesn’t falsify the Theory of Evolution - in fact, it further supports it.

https://biologos.org/common-questions/d ... evolution/

Second, so what? That is your theory. Again, you have yours, and we have ours.

As noted above, you have presented a false equivalence, since the rigour of multiple, independent scientific experiments is not matched by a claim that ‘God did it because the bible says so’.

Nonsense, because the early earth conditions were absolutely hazardous for the creation of life.

Answered by DrNoGods already.

Second, just because you have life doesn't mean you have consciousness, so now you've got to get this newly existent life thinking, which is impossible.

Here’s an example of ‘shifting the goalposts’. The ‘problem’ of understanding how non-living material changed into living material is separate from the ‘problem’ of how consciousness arose, since they involve hugely different types of life in the first place.

And third, even if you are able to create life from nonliving material, that only proves that, guess what; intelligence is STILL needed to create the effect...

Observation doesn’t support the idea of an intelligent creator or designer. We can observe crystals ‘growing’ in obviously very ordered and predictable ways, but we understand the causes: the physical forces and molecular arrangements that determine growth without any external guidance.

Listen, you can use whatever bio-babble you want to explain what you think your theory needs to become believable.

Perhaps you felt being derogatory was entertaining, but to me it suggests one of two things: either you didn’t understand my point, or you consider the science to be flawed. If we’re debating, then I’m willing to clarify that part of my post if you have a particular question about it. But if there’s no willingness to learn from the other side, then further explanation would be a waste of time.

What does Genesis 1:1 mean to you? Nothing, right?

Well, that is what the bio-babble means to me.

Genesis 1:1 to me details a creation myth - an attempt to explain the beginning of the universe and ‘why we are here’. Such myths are found in most civilisations, but Genesis is notable for surviving in writings and becoming part of a worldwide religion. So it has had an undeniable cultural influence. But its usefulness as a true guide to how things really are and how they came to be has been superseded by the scientific method.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #87]

We_Are_VENOM: Our theory is that an incredibly long time ago, "God created the heavens and the earth".

Already answered by DrNoGods on this page (thanks).

Sorry ... I try to determine when someone makes a statement like "an incredibly long time ago" in the context it was made whether they are a young earth creationist (YEC), or not, since that makes a huge difference on certain claims as to whether they can be trivially disproved or if the task is not as simple. The YEC view does not allow for abiogenesis, evolution, tectonic plate movement, and countless other processes that require millions or billions of years to play out and the only answer is god magic. An old earth creationist can at least remove the limitations of short time periods to help their arguments, although demonstrating the existence of their favorite god being remains very tricky.

[Realworldjack]

Again, I have no problem with those who are opposed to the position I hold. My problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist that I have no sound reason to hold this position when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

You go on in that same sentence to say,

apart from all the other equally supported conclusions

Is this to suggest that you are under the impression the facts, and evidence we have available, equally support my belief the author did in fact travel with Paul, as it does your doubt? I highly doubt this to be the case, otherwise you should have no problem with the position I hold?

It would be more accurate for me to say my impression is that the available facts and evidence are neither sufficient to confidently support nor confidently dismiss either possibility at this point. In other words, I'm agnostic about whether the author of Acts was Paul's traveling companion or not. Do you have some objectively sound reasoning, logic, facts, or evidence I'm unaware of that should otherwise convince me to move beyond agnosticism regarding this claim?

We have already had this discussion in the past, and while I dearly relish the opportunity to continue to have the debate with you concerning the facts, and evidence we have as to whether the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, this is not the topic at this point. Therefore, in order to keep us from going off the topic at hand, please stick to the topic at hand. I'd be more than eager to have this debate elsewhere, or even here, once we come to some sort of resolution to the topic at hand.

The questions at hand. Is it possible for one to use real facts, and evidence, along with sound reason, and logic, and come to the conclusion that the author of the letters to Theophilus, would have traveled with Paul? Or, is it your impression, sound reason, and logic, "dictates agnosticism as the only intellectually honest position"?

[bluegreenearth]

We have already had this discussion in the past, and while I dearly relish the opportunity to continue to have the debate with you concerning the facts, and evidence we have as to whether the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, this is not the topic at this point. Therefore, in order to keep us from going off the topic at hand, please stick to the topic at hand. I'd be more than eager to have this debate elsewhere, or even here, once we come to some sort of resolution to the topic at hand.

The questions at hand. Is it possible for one to use real facts, and evidence, along with sound reason, and logic, and come to the conclusion that the author of the letters to Theophilus, would have traveled with Paul? Or, is it your impression, sound reason, and logic, "dictates agnosticism as the only intellectually honest position"?

Based on the sound reasoning, logic, facts, and evidence I'm aware of, agnosticism is my most justifiable position at this time. However, I reserve the right to be smarter later if I discover additional facts and evidence have become available or if I discover an error in my reasoning and logic. I might also be misunderstanding the point you are attempting to make through this line of questioning. If this is the case, then I reserve the right to update my response in accordance with a revised understanding of the point you are attempting to make.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #90]

Well believe it, or not, we MAY have come to some sort of agreement.

Based on the sound reasoning, logic, facts, and evidence I'm aware of, agnosticism is my most justifiable position at this time.

I take this to be an opinion you hold, and while I am happy to allow you to hold, and express this opinion, I happen to be in disagreement, and hold to a completely different opinion. My point has been the same all along in that, we are in the same boat. In other words, all either of us can do, is to explain what we believe, along with the facts, evidence, and reasons we believe as we do, with neither of us being able to demonstrate the position we hold would be the correct position.