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]

I note Realworldjack was talking to someone else, but have me a couple cents burning a hole in my pocket...

...
Most folks do not spend very much time debating subjects which they view to be nonsense.

A lot of folks vote, and enact legislation based on such nonsense, leading some of us to feel the need to show the weaknesses in theists' claims.

...
What I cannot figure out, is exactly how this would translate into, the claims must be false? It also does not explain the numerous, intelligent, well educated folks who were not only unbelievers at one time, they were very much opposed to Christianity, so much so, they were speaking out against it, who became convinced Christianity was true, while studying the facts, and evidence, in order to speak out against it.

You've got you an argument from numbers there. If we all believed the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

(Edit cause fat fingers)

[John Bauer]

I pologize and retract. I was thinking about a different thread. ... I think my comments there were part of my misunderstanding, and retract any of it necessary, while blaming anyone but me for it.

Fair enough. Apology accepted, and my criticism on that point is retracted.

P.S. You're blaming anyone but yourself? That's... interesting.

I reject any accusation by a non-moderator that my comments are not relevant to the discussion at hand. This is important to me cause I struggle to stay in the mod's good graces. Ya know, dooficity.

I meant that it was "not relevant" with respect to logic, not to forum policy. What marriage and monogamy—and even society—means to us in the modern West has practically no bearing on what those things meant to people in the ancient Near East. Very different times, very different parts of the world, very different cultures, very different cognitive environments. That's what I meant when I said that your autobiographical material was not relevant.

I'll let your not here to argue it opponent's arguments go ...

Sorry, what?

... as we have no means to know if that argument'd change in light of new data.

We do have means. You can see the discussion yourself and observe that his argument did not change in light of new data. He flatly refused to admit any errors, even simple and clear-cut errors like saying that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Life. Sorry, wrong tree. But he couldn't admit even that or change his argument to be more accurate.

[Difflugia]

It also does not explain the numerous, intelligent, well educated folks who were not only unbelievers at one time, they were very much opposed to Christianity, so much so, they were speaking out against it, who became convinced Christianity was true, while studying the facts, and evidence, in order to speak out against it.

You mean Lee Strobel? That's not much of a mystery.



Or were you thinking of some other hardened, skeptical atheist that suddenly responded to the proverbial voice in the wilderness?

[JoeyKnothead]

I pologize and retract. I was thinking about a different thread. ... I think my comments there were part of my misunderstanding, and retract any of it necessary, while blaming anyone but me for it.

...
P.S. You're blaming anyone but yourself? That's... interesting.

I like to carry on, and figure folks'll see by my pologizing I was acknowledging it was really my own fault.

I reject any accusation by a non-moderator that my comments are not relevant to the discussion at hand. This is important to me cause I struggle to stay in the mod's good graces. Ya know, dooficity.

I meant that it was "not relevant" with respect to logic, not to forum policy. What marriage and monogamy—and even society—means to us in the modern West has practically no bearing on what those things meant to people in the ancient Near East. Very different times, very different parts of the world, very different cultures, very different cognitive environments. That's what I meant when I said that your autobiographical material was not relevant.

I dont tend to slice and dice moral issues across times or cultures, but do respect others might. That said, I'll chalk it up to misunderstanding your intent in mentioning Adam and Eve.

I'll let your not here to argue it opponent's arguments go ...

Sorry, what?

In your post 167, to which I was referring, you said...

I'm also going to point out the obvious, that even with the evidence provided you haven't opined about his argument or double-standard.

I don't tend to argue with folks who ain't here to argue back. That's the kinda thing that gets me sent to the institute.

... as we have no means to know if that argument'd change in light of new data.

We do have means. You can see the discussion yourself and observe that his argument did not change in light of new data. He flatly refused to admit any errors, even simple and clear-cut errors like saying that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Life. Sorry, wrong tree. But he couldn't admit even that or change his argument to be more accurate.

I prefer to do my debating on this site, and stand by my comments...

We have no way of knowing if someone on a different site might, or might not, change their minds about stuff when they come to this, the premiere Christian debate site in the entire universe.

Who knows, maybe you'd contact that'n there with an invite, and let's see if they'd be willing to comment on thatn's take of y'all's discussion.

(Linkual correctionary edit)

[Realworldjack]

It also does not explain the numerous, intelligent, well educated folks who were not only unbelievers at one time, they were very much opposed to Christianity, so much so, they were speaking out against it, who became convinced Christianity was true, while studying the facts, and evidence, in order to speak out against it.

You mean Lee Strobel? That's not much of a mystery.



Or were you thinking of some other hardened, skeptical atheist that suddenly responded to the proverbial voice in the wilderness?

If you will notice, I said, "numerous"? So yes, let's take a look at one who would have been a "hardened, skeptical atheist". I'll give you a few things from the web which describe her story,

"Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, a former tenured professor of English and women’s studies at Syracuse University, converted to Christ in 1999 in what she describes as a train wreck. Her memoir The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert chronicles that difficult journey.

Raised and educated in liberal Catholic settings, Rosaria fell in love with the world of words. In her late twenties, allured by feminist philosophy and LGBT advocacy, she adopted a lesbian identity. Rosaria earned her PhD from Ohio State University, then served in the English department and women's studies program at Syracuse University from 1992 to 2002. Her primary academic field was critical theory, specializing in queer theory. Her historical focus was 19th-century literature, informed by Freud, Marx, and Darwin. She advised the LGBT student group, wrote Syracuse University’s policy for same-sex couples, and actively lobbied for LGBT aims alongside her lesbian partner.

In 1997, while Rosaria was researching the Religious Right “and their politics of hatred against people like me,” she wrote an article against the Promise Keepers. In 1999, after repeatedly reading the Bible in large chunks for her research, Rosaria converted to Christianity. Her first book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, details her conversion and the cataclysmic fallout—in which she lost “everything but the dog,” yet gained eternal life in Christ".

End Quote!

I have read her book referred to above, "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert", and in that book Misses Butterfield credits her understanding of language for the conversion. And as you can see, this was not in any way an easy transition. In other words, Butterfield clearly understood her decision would cost her dearly, and it did. However, she was willing to lose it all, for the sake of what she now believed to be the truth.

To be clear, I do not bring these things up thinking they somehow demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Rather, it does indeed demonstrate there are those who were "hardened, skeptical atheists" who claim to have become convinced by the facts, and evidence which supports the claims.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
You will notice, I said, "numerous"? So yes, let's take a look at one who would have been a "hardened, skeptical atheist". I'll give you a few things from the web which describe her story,

Raised and educated in liberal Catholic settings, ...

Well I'm just shocked, shocked I say, to find someone raised in a Catholic setting'd turn out to be religious.

What's next, the Pope converts to Catholicism?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #172]

A lot of folks vote, and enact legislation based on such nonsense, leading some of us to feel the need to show the weaknesses in theists' claims.

Well, allow me to explain to you that, not only am I, against Christians attempting to "enact legislation", I have actually stood up on a state wide Christian conference floor, and spoke out against such behavior, in front of the whole assembly. But I would have no idea what this would have to do with the claims of Christianity being true, or false?

You've got you an argument from numbers there. If we all believed the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

I stand corrected, and understand how you could come to the conclusion that I was arguing from numbers, but I was not. Having to be honest, I will have to admit that I was under the impression that the word "numerous" would simply mean more than one, or multiple. However, after looking up the definition, I now understand it to mean, "many". Therefore, I apologize for my error, and any confusion it may have caused. With this being the case, please allow me to correct my error by substituting, the word "multiple" (simply meaning more than one) for where I incorrectly used the word, "numerous".

[William]

[Replying to William in post #161]

I myself am not insisting there are [or are not] facts pertaining to the claims.

Well, imagine my surprise! The conversation is ending up just as I expected. In other words, you are not now insisting there are no facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims. However, I believe it would have been you, in your initial response to me who said,

Where there is no evidence for that which is held by faith, 'tis best to remain agnostic.

So then, was Christianity included in this statement above?

Yes.

If so, then you seem to have changed your tune? If Christianity would not have been included, then what would have been the point? It seems to me you were pretty insistent that there would be no evidence, to now claiming not to be insistent?

You misunderstand my position, 'tis all. I am an Agnostic Theist. The position is not one which I was born into, but which I have cultivated and fine-tuned over time...
I accepted you at your word re your claim that you had evidence, and hoped that the evidence would therefore, be new data.

My position on the matter of faith-based beliefs is that they simply cannot be proved through evidence because individuals are required to believe such thing without supporting evidence, in the initial stages of their coming into said faith-based beliefs.

Thus - those who claim to have faith-based beliefs and also claim to have evidence supporting said beliefs can be assumed by this Agnostic Theist, to have new data which previously hasn't been tabled.

As I said, this is no surprise to me, because this is exactly what I expected.

I doubt that, given the new data I am providing you to examine.

In other words, I have grown accustomed to folks making such statements, but when they are challenged to defend these statements, they quickly realize, they cannot demonstrate what it is they want to insist upon.

I feel I have made it clear enough that an individual with average intelligence can understand. I am not insisting on evidence to support faith-based beliefs and expect that any evidence which actually supports faith-based beliefs will be new data if indeed such data is possible.

I am quite happy to say that I have never had any facts presented to me in which to make the call and so remain agnostic in that regard.

Okay? Fine! I have no problem with the position you hold in the least. However, I will take this to mean that you, "have never had any facts presented to you" which would cause you to believe the claims to be false? In other words, you do not believe the claims to be either true, or false? Would I be correct?

It would depend upon the claims being made. This is because we are always acquiring new data [mostly from scientific research] which helps us considerably, to shift the wheat from the chaff.

This can be tested. Give me something which you believe is true, along with the reasons as to why you believe this is true, and I will then critique your information and return what I predict will be adequate argument to show that your beliefs are false [based upon insufficient evidence coupled with holes in the story.]

That is why I was hoping that you might present your evidence in order that I could ascertain whether I have heard these things claimed as facts already. If so, I have already debunked said claims of facts and moved on.

From the dictionary,

de·bunk
/dēˈbəNGk/

verb
expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).

Yes. That is what I mean.

Okay? Thus far the only evidence I have brought forth, would be the reports of a resurrection by multiple different sources. So then, are you saying, you have actually, "exposed the falseness" of these reports? Or, would this be only in your own mind? If you have actually "exposed the falseness" of these reports, then please do share this with me, in order that I can "move on" as well.

I accept the challenge. The subject is one which I have not given a lot of thought to [focused upon] but am willing to give it a go.
What you have to give me first, is all the bullet points re why you believe in the subject without supporting evidence - [if you have none to offer] or bullet point the evidence and explain why you think it is something which should be believed in.

I mean, on the one hand you seem to be suggesting you are unconvinced either way? On the other, you seem to be proclaiming to have demonstrated these reports to be false? Which is it?

Both.
I am consistently demonstrating false beliefs here on this Message Board and supporting my observations with evidence.
However, it would be unreasonable for me to expect everyone to be following what I post, so am happy to offer you a clean slate re the subject you picked.
Do you want to Tango?

You appear to be pointing at old data as if somehow its existence proves it must be matter of fact.

You are not reading very carefully! What I am insisting would "be a matter of fact", would be the facts, and evidence in support of the claims. I am not insisting the claims would be true. I am convinced the claims are true, but this is far from insisting the claims are true.

I consider such to be playing with ones alphabetic soup. "As a matter of fact, facts are facts."
So do you insist that The Subject is fact or a claim to which you think there is supporting evidence.
Bullet points will do. If I have any questions re those, I will ask.

If you are simply saying that you became a Christian because you accepted that the claim of fact was truth

But this is not what I am saying. What I am saying is, I have closely examined the facts, and evidence concerning the Christian claims, and have become convinced myself of the truth of these claims. In other words, I did not simply accept the claims, but rather thought critically about the claims. What I actually did was, think through what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. In the end, I became convinced the claims are indeed true. However, I am not insisting that you, or anyone else accept them as being true. The problem comes in, when there are those who seem to want to insist, there would be no facts, or evidence to support what it is I believe, and, or, it would be an unreasonable, and, or, an illogical belief, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

It should be evident to you by now that I am one who is interested in viewing these facts that you have closely examined, in order that I can offer any critique in return.

As I say - bullet points will do.

To which [such offer made to me] I politely decline on account of lack of evidence for said claim of truth.

First, let me be clear in that I am not making any offer to you in the least.

And let me be equally clear that if you chose to refuse the offer made, it will be counted as an encounter with [yet another] blustering claimant whom cannot deliver the facts he/she claims to be in possession of.

Well that is new data to me. I was under the impression that the only source for the whole story, was the bible.
I am surely happy to review these other sources you claim exist.

This sort of comment, surely demonstrates one who has very little knowledge of what they are so critical of. In other words, the Bible is not in any way whatsoever, a single source. As an example, the overwhelming majority of the New Testament, can be easily demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, with the authors having no concern, nor any idea, anyone else would read these letters, other than the original intended audience. Moreover, and more importantly, none of the authors which are contained in the Bible, could have possibly had any idea whatsoever that what they were writing at the time, would have, centuries, and even thousands of years later, be contained in what we now refer to as the Bible.

I am aware of that and have made numerable comments over the years about that.
My reference to being under the impression that the only source for the whole story, was the bible, has to do with "that which is contained in what we now refer to as the Bible." which is to say, you are speaking about evidence which is only contained in what we now refer to as "The Bible" and not any sources outside of the bible. Is this correct?

With all the above being fact, how could anyone possibly refer to the Bible, as a single source?

It can be, re what I stated above [as critique of your argument] "that which is contained in what we now refer to as the Bible."

All I want to do is critique the evidence once it is tabled.

Again, the fact that there continue to be debates concerning this issue, on top of the fact there have been book volumes authored on both sides of the equation, certainly demonstrates the fact that there is evidence. If there were no evidence, there would be nothing to debate. Moreover, the fact that you spend an enormous amount of time on a web site debating the issue, certainly seems to demonstrate that you understand there is indeed facts, and evidence to debate.

Therefore, we start at the beginning with the multiple different sources we have of the resurrection. I will assume this would be evidence you claim to already have "debunked". Since we have already established the definition of this word, can you please tell us how you have "exposed the falseness" of these reports?

The burden is on you to present [in bullet point will suffice] the evidence [facts] you claim support your faith-based belief in said Subject. [The Subject = The Resurrection]

I am ready to proceed when you table the facts.

[John Bauer]

To be clear, I do not bring these things up thinking they somehow demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Rather, it does indeed demonstrate there are those who were "hardened, skeptical atheists" who claim to have become convinced by the facts, and evidence which supports the claims.

Rosaria C. Butterfield is an excellent example of that. Great choice, mate.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #172]

A lot of folks vote, and enact legislation based on such nonsense, leading some of us to feel the need to show the weaknesses in theists' claims.

Well, allow me to explain to you that, not only am I, against Christians attempting to "enact legislation", I have actually stood up on a state wide Christian conference floor, and spoke out against such behavior, in front of the whole assembly.

That doesn't negate the fact that some, many, a good bunch, of Christians'll impose their 'nonsense' (not my term) onto others through the voting booth, or the legislature.

But I would have no idea what this would have to do with the claims of Christianity being true, or false.

My point is that folks'll seek to legislate based on their unsupported, unsupportable opinion of a god they can't show exists to have him one.

You've got you an argument from numbers there. If we all believed the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

I stand corrected, and understand how you could come to the conclusion that I was arguing from numbers, but I was not. Having to be honest, I will have to admit that I was under the impression that the word "numerous" would simply mean more than one, or multiple. However, after looking up the definition, I now understand it to mean, "many". Therefore, I apologize for my error, and any confusion it may have caused. With this being the case, please allow me to correct my error by substituting, the word "multiple" (simply meaning more than one) for where I incorrectly used the word, "numerous".

"Multiple" is still an argument from numbers.

If multiple folks thought gravy was a sin, do I deserve to die for my worshipping of it?

Facts are independent of how many folks're proud of em.

(Speling edits)