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]

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.

Cause folks growing up in Catholicism are then found to be religious, and how bout that!

That someone who mighta not been real religious just kinda up and becomes em it, that in no way, shape, or form means that religion possesses it any more truth than when I tell the pretty thing I done brushed me my tooth.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

When the available facts and evidence are sufficient to be equally supportive of two contradictory conclusion but insufficient to demonstrate either conclusion is true or false, sound reasoning and logic appears to dictate that it is tentatively impossible for one conclusion to be more justified than the other.

Are you here suggesting it is your position that, the available facts, and evidence we have available concerning Christianity, equally support two contradictory conclusion? If so, that would be a pretty stout admission on your part. But, would this not be, an subjective opinion on your part? I mean, how would one demonstrate the evidence, equally support two contradictory conclusions?

I was not making that suggestion in reference to Christianity but in response to the purely philosophical question of whether differing people using the same sound reasoning and logic to evaluate a common set of facts and evidence could possibly arrive at two contradictory conclusions. I'm not aware if we are all operating off the same set of facts and evidence concerning Christianity. However, given an agreed upon set of supporting facts and evidence, it has been my experience that differences in people's understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic explain how they can arrive at two contradictory conclusions regarding Christianity. I have not yet observed where differing people applied the same understanding of sound reason and logic to an agreed upon set of supporting facts and evidence to arrive at two contradictory conclusions regarding the claims of Christianity.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]
Again, I do not know how one would be able to demonstrate the evidence is equally supportive? If it is the case, that one would not be able to demonstrate how the evidence would be equally supportive, then what would be the problem with sharing with each other what it is we are convinced of, and, or, why we remain to be unconvinced either way, along with the facts, evidence, and reason we have used to arrive to the conclusions we have?

I have not yet ruled-out the possibility that the evidence could be equally supportive of two contradictory conclusions. However, in a scenario where the evidence could not be demonstrated to equally support two contradictory conclusions, it seems that differing people applying the same sound reasoning and logic to this evidence should agree where the evidence supports one conclusion better than the other. Now, if differing people are applying a different understanding of sound reasoning and logic to evidence that cannot be demonstrated to equally support two contradictory conclusions, a variety of possible outcomes could occur.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]
If we were all to do this, while being intellectually honest enough to admit, those opposed may indeed have very good reasons for the positions they hold, then we would not come to the conclusion those opposed must, and have to be guilty of such things as, faulty logic, reason, confirmation bias, only believe as they do because they were indoctrinated, etc., and would rather be able to actually concentrate on the actual facts, evidence, and reasons being used.

People should not conclude that others are guilty of using faulty logic, poor reasoning, or confirmation bias before evaluating the proposed arguments for the demonstrable existence of such errors. However, when such errors are demonstrable or the possibilities for such errors were left unmitigated, it seems fair to ask a few critical thinking questions. At the same time, people should not conclude that others have very good reasons for their positions either before evaluating the proposed arguments accordingly. Of course, it is equally fair to acknowledge when very good reasons have been demonstrated.

[Difflugia]

If you will notice, I said, "numerous"?

I did, but since you didn't offer any sort of support for the statement, I was somewhere between hyperbole and wishful thinking.

Based on what I could find, it's both.

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,

[...]

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.

First, it looks to me like your "numerous" is you repeating the same Rosaria Butterfield about twice a year since 2016.

Second, nothing you quoted above nor any of her articles support your assertion that she "became convinced by the facts, and evidence which supports the claims." It looks very much to me like she had an emotional conversion. Everything I read emphasizes a friendship that she developed with a pastor in combination with a lingering guilt over having become an LBGTQ activist against the wishes of her conservative family.

People convert in both directions all the time. If conversion itself implies the truth of the proposition, then everything that people convert to is true. If you're looking to rely on the prevalence of a certain kind of conversion ("convinced by the facts, and evidence"), you haven't offered any cases in which that appears to be true nor a common set of supporting details. Just what is it that you think needs explaining and why do you find it inexplicable?

[Realworldjack]

...
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?

I have to admit, that is pretty funny. However, did you miss the part where, "she adopted a lesbian identity"? In fact, she was in a lesbian relationship for years. Did you miss the part where, "her primary academic field was critical theory, specializing in queer theory"? Did you miss the part where, "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"? Did you miss the part where, "she was researching the Religious Right “and their politics of hatred against people like me"? Did you miss the part where, "she wrote an article against the Promise Keepers"?

You see, you seem to have ignored all these other things, and somehow seem to focus upon the fact that she attended a Catholic school, and somehow this fact trumps what Butterfield has to say about what actually occurred to her, and we should instead listen to you, because you have it all figured out?

In other words, Butterfield put herself through all the things above for years, but somehow, someway, it was the Catholic school she attended, which had such a hold on her, and there was no way of escape.

Of course, this is not the way Butterfield explains things. In fact, here is what she had to say,

I considered myself an atheist, having rejected my Catholic childhood and what I perceived to be the superstitions and illogic of the historic Christian faith. I found Christians to be difficult, sour, fearful, and intellectually unengaged people.

But no! We cannot in any way take her word for it, because it must, and has to do with the Catholic school she attended. Sort of strange though isn't it? In other words, if this Catholic school had so much to do with her conversion, then why has she rejected Catholicism? But I guess, if she is religious in any sort of way, it must, and has to do with the way she was taught as a child?

I'll tell you what else seems sort of strange? This site is filled with folks who claim to have been fully convinced Christians at one time, and many of them will go on to explain to us, there was not a whole lot of thinking going on, when they decided to become a Christian. If one were to question as to whether this person was ever a true Christian, many of them will go on to explain just how committed they were, and how much this belief affected their time, energy, and money. They now have rejected what they once believed, and many of them seem to want to insist, that it would have been the thinking process, which caused them to come to the conclusion, that they had come to believe a lie.

Of course, if there may be any of us, who may want to question as to whether it was really the thinking process which lead them to reject what they once believed, we are scolded, and told, this person certainly knows better than anyone else, what they have experienced. However, if one were to bring up another, who was once a "hardened skeptical atheist" who converts to Christianity, then there is no way in the world that it could have been the thinking process which lead them to such a conclusion. There must, and has to be another explanation, and we will find it, because this sort of person should not be allowed to explain their own experience.

Would anyone want to talk about, "double standards"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #179]


I am going to admit, I am having trouble understanding much of what you are saying. What does seem sort of clear to me, (but I am not real sure) is that you seem to be suggesting, you have "debunked" (expose the falseness or hollowness of) the Christian claims. If I am correct, then all you need to do, is to demonstrate this to be the case, and I will assure you that I am done. In other words, if you can hold up your end of the bargain here, and "expose the falseness" of the Christian claims, then I will assure you that I am ready to move on from Christianity.

[brunumb]

Moreover, there have been millions, upon millions of folks who have been compelled to believe these things down through thousands of years.

Maybe compelled to believe, but not because they have evaluated any compelling evidence. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of believers have it inculcated through childhood indoctrination. A small proportion of those may try to seek verification later in life, but the well has been poisoned and everything they examine is through the lens of their instilled belief.

[brunumb]

If I am correct that you were at one time a convinced Christian, there was certainly something which compelled you to believe, and now that you have rejected these things, there certainly must be something which is compelling you to continue to spend much of your time, debating a subject for which you seem to be insisting there would be no reason to believe. Most folks do not spend very much time debating subjects which they view to be nonsense.

I gained my religious beliefs as a child. No evidence and no evaluation involved, and certainly nothing that was compelling other than the trust I placed in those that taught me. In my teens it began to dawn on me that there was nothing behind it all and my beliefs vanished very quickly.

I began visiting forums such as this to try and understand what it was that caused some to believe where I could not. Many years of asking questions and seeking what it was that compelled believers resulted in nothing. Lots of hearsay and faith. All of it cemented my conviction that religious belief is the product of indoctrination coupled with a subconscious fear of the consequences of losing that belief once it has been inculcated. Those consequences include real social loss in this life as well as the expected loss of eternal bliss.

[brunumb]

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.

Are you suggesting that it is only Christianity that these numerous, intelligent, well educated folks ultimately become convinced is true? As you appear to be impressed by numbers, how does the fact that there are more believers in Islam affect you? No doubt there are many who have studied the facts and evidence and reached a different conclusion to you. Then there are the numerous, intelligent, well educated Christians who became convinced it was not true after studying the facts, and evidence.

Matt Dillahunty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty

Raised Southern Baptist, Dillahunty considered becoming a minister. His in-depth examination of his Christian beliefs, instead of bolstering his faith as he had intended, led him to no longer believe in the basic tenets of Christianity and, eventually, all religions.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit: messed up some quote tags

...
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?

I have to admit, that is pretty funny. However, did you miss the part where, "she adopted a lesbian identity"? In fact, she was in a lesbian relationship for years.

I'm aware some to many homosexuals find comfort in a religious belief that says they need to be em stoned about it.

Did you miss the part where, "her primary academic field was critical theory, specializing in queer theory"? Did you miss the part where, "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"? Did you miss the part where, "she was researching the Religious Right “and their politics of hatred against people like me"? Did you miss the part where, "she wrote an article against the Promise Keepers"?

Did you miss the part where aswearing it up and down does not produce fact?

Our deal here is awondering if she'd never heard tell of God, would she become religious. We just dont know. But we do know she was raised in a religious environment.

You see, you seem to have ignored all these other things, and somehow seem to focus upon the fact that she attended a Catholic school, and somehow this fact trumps what Butterfield has to say about what actually occurred to her, and we should instead listen to you, because you have it all figured out?

I find it most telling that someone raised up in a religious environment'd end up being them religious.

I didn't miss that other stuff, I merely pointed out that someone got raised in a religious environment, and how bout that.

In other words, Butterfield put herself through all the things above for years, but somehow, someway, it was the Catholic school she attended, which had such a hold on her, and there was no way of escape.

Of course, this is not the way Butterfield explains things. In fact, here is what she had to say,

I considered myself an atheist, having rejected my Catholic childhood and what I perceived to be the superstitions and illogic of the historic Christian faith. I found Christians to be difficult, sour, fearful, and intellectually unengaged people.

Yet there she sits, religious as a bluebird's blue. After having been raised in a religious environment.

But no! We cannot in any way take her word for it, because it must, and has to do with the Catholic school she attended. Sort of strange though isn't it? In other words, if this Catholic school had so much to do with her conversion, then why has she rejected Catholicism? But I guess, if she is religious in any sort of way, it must, and has to do with the way she was taught as a child?

I merely note that someone raised in a religious environment, and don't it beat all, ended up religious.

I'll tell you what else seems sort of strange? This site is filled with folks who claim to have been fully convinced Christians at one time, and many of them will go on to explain to us, there was not a whole lot of thinking going on, when they decided to become a Christian. If one were to question as to whether this person was ever a true Christian, many of them will go on to explain just how committed they were, and how much this belief affected their time, energy, and money. They now have rejected what they once believed, and many of them seem to want to insist, that it would have been the thinking process, which caused them to come to the conclusion, that they had come to believe a lie.

Religious notions are widespread across the globe, and some folks'll hear about it, and dismiss it, and then return to it.

Of course, if there may be any of us, who may want to question as to whether it was really the thinking process which lead them to reject what they once believed, we are scolded, and told, this person certainly knows better than anyone else, what they have experienced. However, if one were to bring up another, who was once a "hardened skeptical atheist" who converts to Christianity, then there is no way in the world that it could have been the thinking process which lead them to such a conclusion. There must, and has to be another explanation, and we will find it, because this sort of person should not be allowed to explain their own experience.

The thinking process is solely responsible for the conclusions we draw.

Would anyone want to talk about, "double standards"?

Looks like there's a plenty few awilling to take up the trade.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #181]

"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.

It is not in any way, "an argument from numbers". That would be an insane argument to attempt to make. I mean, we all know there are far more unbelievers, than there are believers. Moreover, there would be far more folks who were at one time believers, who have now rejected the faith, than those who were at one time atheists who convert to Christianity. So then, how in the world could I possibly point to the numbers?

The point I was making, is there are those who were at one time opposed to Christianity, so much, so, they spoke out against it, only to convert to Christianity, while studying the facts, and evidence in order to speak out against it. I bring up the "multiple" cases, because if there would be only one, there would be complaints of an isolated case. That's it!