Is There A Double Standard?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Is There A Double Standard?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18877
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1891 times
Been thanked: 1246 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #221

Post by JoeyKnothead »

brunumb wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:00 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:30 am You continue to say this same thing, over, and over, when the fact is, I am on this site almost daily, with over 2000 posts, and have talked about what it is I believe, along with why it is I believe as I do, many, many times, and even still, I have not exhausted all the reasons there would be for belief.
And still you are reluctant to produce any of the evidence here. You give some solitary examples of people who converted as refutation of my claim that the vast majority have their beliefs inculcated through indoctrination, usually when they are most susceptible or vulnerable. One swallow doesn't make a summer. Hearsay is not evidence. Some people get convinced for the flimsiest of reasons and we don't now what else is going on in their heads anyway. What evidence, in summary form will do, has convinced you that the resurrection really happened?
"One swallow doesn't make a summer." I come here in part to enjoy how the smart folks talk all fancy. Didn't get me much schooling, fancy as I can talk is I learned how to pronounce 'lingerie' back there when I was married that time.

It's just a shame when I use such with the pretty thing, she just shakes her head and tells me to fetch out the trash.

I think it's important, in understanding double standards, that we compare a given belief against its rationality, or against opposing claims.

I, personally, believe that evolution is a thing. In that regard, I'm prepared to defend the rationality of that conclusion against such beliefs as a young earth, or biblical creation claims. It causes me no bother to do so.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #222

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to William in post #220]

Let us recall that it was you who stated,
that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith.


So then, I simply referred to the letters of Paul, and the letters addressed to Theophilus, in order to demonstrate that what we have in contained in the NT cannot be demonstrated to be "hearsay" as you seemed to be insisting. However, you seem to have conceded this point, so let us move on.
"What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align
Are you saying, NONE of it aligns? Because you see, we have those who complain that much of the information is so closely the "aligned", they want to insist that there must, and had to be copying going on between the authors. So then, exactly what would we expect? If they all report the same exact events, in the same exact way, I think we would have complaints that something would not be right here. If they report completely different, and contradictory information, then we would complain that something is not quite right. However, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect. In other words, we have some events describe in almost the same way, while we have others who record events the others may leave out, and we have some who report the same events with differences in the story. So??????? What exactly would are you looking for?

Would you want them to record the same exact stories, in the same exact way? Would you want them to tell completely different stories which would contradict each other? I mean, exactly what would you accept?
and one thing which does come across is that folk did not seem to recognize that the person claiming to have resurrected was the same person they had followed for all those months. I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena."
First, your wording is sort of strange here? You seem to be saying, they did not recognize him as the same person as they had followed, as if they recognized him as someone else? However, this is not the way it is recorded. In Luke 24 we read,

"While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him".

So here we see, it is not as though they recognize him as someone else, but rather, they simply were, "kept from recognizing him". However, as we move on a few verses later we read,

"And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him".

So then, as it is recorded, these men seem to have been prevented in some sort of way, from recognizing him, but it goes on to say, "their eyes were opened, and they recognized him". So again, it is not as though they did not recognize him as the same person. Rather, they simply did not recognize him at all. But again, in the end, as it is recorded, they did in fact go on to recognize him.

Okay, as we turn our attention to the incident with Mary Magdalene, what we see as recorded in John 20, is (Mary) "Thinking that He was the gardener". Notice, it does not say, "recognizing him as the gardener". However, it goes on to say, once this person whom she was "thinking he was the gardener", called her name, she immediately replied to him, "teacher". At this point as it is recorded, she begins to cling to him. Therefore, as it is recorded, as soon as this person whom she was thinking was the gardener called her name, she recognized who he was.

Well, the only other incident I know of would be at daybreak, with the disciples in a boat off shore, and see Jesus on shore, as they have been fishing through the night with no catch. Jesus instructs them where to cast the net, and of course they have a net so full, it is difficult to pull the net in, and it is at this point, one of the disciples, does not "recognize" (as if he can actually see him) this as Jesus, but simply says, "It is the Lord"! Once they were all on shore, as it is recorded, they all seem to recognize this person as Jesus.

These are the only events such as this I am aware of. The above would not be my "explanation for this phenomena" because I have no explanation. Rather, this is the way it is recorded.
Since then you have written 4,029 words in this thread alone, and you never used the word "Resurrection" [The Subject] once.
Okay? Well allow me to demonstrate where I have actually used this word to you, in this thread,
realworldjack wrote: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.
Since then I have been waiting, but thus far you have not supplied? Rather, you bring up things such as, "hearsay" which I wanted to focus upon one thing at the time, so as to not get bogged down. The point is, the offer is still open. In other words, if you can actually "exposed the falseness" of these reports, then I am done with Christianity! However, you have failed to do this, but instead bring up other things, which compels me to focus upon the other things you seem to be insisting which you cannot demonstrate, when all you have to do is to hold up your end of the bargain. Again, the bargain is, if you can "expose the falseness" of the reports we have in the NT, then I am done with Christianity. The offer still stands! The point is, I have used so many words since then, because you have failed to hold up your end of the bargain.
How am I to suppose that you actually want to focus on The Subject, when you clearly are avoiding even mentioning it?
NO! I am afraid it is you, who has avoided it! You had the offer way back to post 166. And yet, instead of holding up your end of the bargain, you go on to make other claims which you cannot defend, which is exactly why we have not mentioned the resurrection. It is really that simple. You can put an end to this conversation by holding up your end of the bargain.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #223

Post by Realworldjack »

brunumb wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:00 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:30 am You continue to say this same thing, over, and over, when the fact is, I am on this site almost daily, with over 2000 posts, and have talked about what it is I believe, along with why it is I believe as I do, many, many times, and even still, I have not exhausted all the reasons there would be for belief.
And still you are reluctant to produce any of the evidence here. You give some solitary examples of people who converted as refutation of my claim that the vast majority have their beliefs inculcated through indoctrination, usually when they are most susceptible or vulnerable. One swallow doesn't make a summer. Hearsay is not evidence. Some people get convinced for the flimsiest of reasons and we don't now what else is going on in their heads anyway. What evidence, in summary form will do, has convinced you that the resurrection really happened?
And still you are reluctant to produce any of the evidence here.
And you continue to say the same thing over, and over. I do not know how to make this any clearer to you. Folks have authored book volumes explaining the facts, evidence, and reasons there would be for belief. So then, you are asking me to write a book here on this thread. If you do not believe that it would take a book in order to explain the reasons, then all I can say is, this sort of demonstrates one who is not doing a whole lot of thinking.

You claim to have been a Christian at one time, and I would imagine you would claim that it was the thinking process which led you to reject Christianity. So then, since you seem to be under the impression that it would so simple, then all you have to do is to explain to us how you came to the knowledge that what we have contained in the NT would be false. Can you do such a thing in one post? If so, the floor is yours, and I am eager to hear it. If not, then what would cause you to believe those opposed to you could accomplish such a task?

Of course if one were a convinced Christian at one time, and all of a sudden they come to realize that they never really thought through for themselves about what they were convinced of, and come to the conclusion this must mean what I was convinced of must be false, then I can certainly understand such a person, being under the impression that it is all so simple. In other words, "easy in, easy out". It did not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them something was true, therefore it did not take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out.
You give some solitary examples of people who converted as refutation of my claim that the vast majority have their beliefs inculcated through indoctrination
This sort of demonstrates what I have just said above. First, what you say here is completely false. The fact of the matter is, I have agreed with you that many, many, Christians (maybe even the vast majority) have simply accepted what they were taught, and really do not know what it is they believe, nor why they believe it. Since it is a fact that I have agreed with you concerning this matter, then I could not have possibly brought up these folks who were once unbelievers, and, or atheists who convert to Christianity "as refutation of your claim that the vast majority have their beliefs inculcated through indoctrination". So then, what was I refuting by bringing up these examples? Well, that would be the idea that, in order to believe the Christian claims, one must, and has to be indoctrinated. In other words, that there are folks who were completely opposed to Christianity, so much so, some of them were actually speaking out against it, and yet they convert to Christianity as they are studying the facts, and evidence, sort of demonstrates one does not have to be indoctrinated, in order to believe the claims.

You bring this "indoctrination" thing up, over, and over, and over. Not just here, but in other conversations we have as well. It is as if your thinking is, since we can absolutely demonstrate the vast majority of Christians simply have accepted what they believe, without thinking, this somehow seems to translate into your mind, Christianity must be false, and there must not be any facts, and evidence in support, since most Christians do not base what they believe upon facts, and evidence? If this is indeed your thinking, then I can certainly understand why you are under the impression that it is all so simple.
One swallow doesn't make a summer.
I am afraid in this case, it does. Because you see, even if the vast majority of Christians were indoctrinated to believe as they do, all I have to do is to give one example of one who was never indoctrinated, but rather converts to Christianity based upon the facts, and evidence, and I would have demonstrated that one does not have to be indoctrinated in order to believe the claims.

Moreover, it is not like it would be just one! I have listed several folks, and could go on to list even more. In fact, I have just discovered that one of the authors I have read throughout my life, was a former atheist scientist, who is now a Christians theologian. His name is Alister McGrath, and I'm telling you I did not know this about him until a couple of days ago.

At any rate, the numbers are not the point. Are you now attempting to make an argument from numbers?
Hearsay is not evidence.
Okay? At this point you own the burden to demonstrate how what we have contained in the NT would be, "hearsay".
Some people get convinced for the flimsiest of reasons and we don't now what else is going on in their heads anyway.
I'm telling you, this seems to be your only argument against Christianity. What was it you said????? Oh yeah, "flimsiest". One does not, (or should I say, should not) base what it is they believe, upon what, and, or why other folks believe what it is they believe, and one does not need to know what may be going on in another's head.

Again, you continue over, and over, to bring up the FACT that many Christians believe as they do, "for the flimsiest of reasons", as if this is somehow proof that Christianity must be false.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #224

Post by bluegreenearth »

Realworldjack wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:57 am This sort of demonstrates what I have just said above. First, what you say here is completely false. The fact of the matter is, I have agreed with you that many, many, Christians (maybe even the vast majority) have simply accepted what they were taught, and really do not know what it is they believe, nor why they believe it. Since it is a fact that I have agreed with you concerning this matter, then I could not have possibly brought up these folks who were once unbelievers, and, or atheists who convert to Christianity "as refutation of your claim that the vast majority have their beliefs inculcated through indoctrination". So then, what was I refuting by bringing up these examples? Well, that would be the idea that, in order to believe the Christian claims, one must, and has to be indoctrinated. In other words, that there are folks who were completely opposed to Christianity, so much so, some of them were actually speaking out against it, and yet they convert to Christianity as they are studying the facts, and evidence, sort of demonstrates one does not have to be indoctrinated, in order to believe the claims.

You bring this "indoctrination" thing up, over, and over, and over. Not just here, but in other conversations we have as well. It is as if your thinking is, since we can absolutely demonstrate the vast majority of Christians simply have accepted what they believe, without thinking, this somehow seems to translate into your mind, Christianity must be false, and there must not be any facts, and evidence in support, since most Christians do not base what they believe upon facts, and evidence? If this is indeed your thinking, then I can certainly understand why you are under the impression that it is all so simple.
Please pardon this intrusion into your debate with brunumb, but I thought it might be helpful for some of us who are trying to follow along if you would describe how the belief acquisition process you are defending is distinguishable from an "indoctrination" process which psychologically manipulates people with clever apologetic arguments designed to compel acceptance of a targeted belief through the systematic and repetitious referencing of available facts and evidence that seem to reasonably confirm the endorsed claim.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4128
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3356 times
Been thanked: 1806 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #225

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:28 am So then, I simply referred to the letters of Paul, and the letters addressed to Theophilus, in order to demonstrate that what we have in contained in the NT cannot be demonstrated to be "hearsay" as you seemed to be insisting.
Unless they are independently verified first hand eye witness testimonies then they are at best hearsay.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4128
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3356 times
Been thanked: 1806 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #226

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:57 am Again, you continue over, and over, to bring up the FACT that many Christians believe as they do, "for the flimsiest of reasons", as if this is somehow proof that Christianity must be false.
But I am not saying that it MUST be false. Weighing up all that we know about Christianity, and the propagation of religious beliefs in general, I am saying that it is most likely false.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #227

Post by Realworldjack »

bluegreenearth wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:43 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:57 am This sort of demonstrates what I have just said above. First, what you say here is completely false. The fact of the matter is, I have agreed with you that many, many, Christians (maybe even the vast majority) have simply accepted what they were taught, and really do not know what it is they believe, nor why they believe it. Since it is a fact that I have agreed with you concerning this matter, then I could not have possibly brought up these folks who were once unbelievers, and, or atheists who convert to Christianity "as refutation of your claim that the vast majority have their beliefs inculcated through indoctrination". So then, what was I refuting by bringing up these examples? Well, that would be the idea that, in order to believe the Christian claims, one must, and has to be indoctrinated. In other words, that there are folks who were completely opposed to Christianity, so much so, some of them were actually speaking out against it, and yet they convert to Christianity as they are studying the facts, and evidence, sort of demonstrates one does not have to be indoctrinated, in order to believe the claims.

You bring this "indoctrination" thing up, over, and over, and over. Not just here, but in other conversations we have as well. It is as if your thinking is, since we can absolutely demonstrate the vast majority of Christians simply have accepted what they believe, without thinking, this somehow seems to translate into your mind, Christianity must be false, and there must not be any facts, and evidence in support, since most Christians do not base what they believe upon facts, and evidence? If this is indeed your thinking, then I can certainly understand why you are under the impression that it is all so simple.
Please pardon this intrusion into your debate with brunumb, but I thought it might be helpful for some of us who are trying to follow along if you would describe how the belief acquisition process you are defending is distinguishable from an "indoctrination" process which psychologically manipulates people with clever apologetic arguments designed to compel acceptance of a targeted belief through the systematic and repetitious referencing of available facts and evidence that seem to reasonably confirm the endorsed claim.


Pardon me as well here, but I cannot help but wonder, (and wonder very strongly) if this post of yours, has far less to do with the question you have asked, then it was an opportunity for you to supply your definition of "indoctrination"?

in·doc·tri·nate
/inˈdäktrəˌnāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
1. teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

2. teach or instruct (someone).

Okay, as you can see, we have 2 definitions here. Neither of which would even be close to the way in which you have defined it. So let's look a little closer here.

I know a lot of folks (and I mean a tremendous amount) who were raised up in Church, who are no longer Christian, and I am not acquainted with the first one which claims, they were, "psychologically manipulated." I mean, that would be pretty strong stuff! Now, are you actually convinced the overwhelming majority of Churches are really participating in, "psychological manipulation"? I mean, that is a far cry from, "teaching (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically". It is even a further cry from, "to teach or instruct (someone)". In fact, let us look at exactly what "psychological manipulation" actually is,

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through indirect, deceptive, or underhanded tactics.

So then, what is really going on in the majority of Churches out there? Is it,

1. teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

2. teach or instruct (someone).

3. psychological manipulation

I cannot speak for all Churches. Rather, I can only speak for myself, and the many other folks I know who were brought up in some sort of Church, and while I am certain, "psychological manipulation" occurs in certain Churches, I would have to guess that the overwhelming majority of Churches would fall under number 1, or 2, with myself, and most everyone else I know, falling under number 2. I cannot imagine anyone in the Church I grew up in, asking me to accept what I was being taught, uncritically, much less using "psychological manipulation".
with clever apologetic arguments
clev·er
/ˈklevər/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: clever; comparative adjective: cleverer; superlative adjective: cleverest

1. quick to understand, learn, and devise or apply ideas; intelligent.

2. skilled at doing or achieving something; talented.

3. showing intelligence or skill; ingenious.

4. sensible; well-advised.

Are you sure this is the word you intended to use? Never mind, I get it, and fully understand what you are attempting to say. As an example, I could say something like, "there was someone who responded to one of my posts today. They asked me a question concerning indoctrination, but then "cleverly" went on to insert their very own definition of what indoctrination would be, thinking I would not notice".

What puzzles me is, how you describe the "apologetic arguments" as clever, and the arguments opposed are, what exactly?

My whole point here is, if one were honestly interested in the question posed, they could have ended the question at "indoctrination process" without going on to supply us with, their overly exaggerated definition of what they would have us believe is occurring in the overwhelming majority of Churches.

Now, does this one really want to talk to us about, "cleverly designed arguments"? Do they really want to talk about, indirect, deceptive, or underhanded tactics? Do they really want to talk to us about things like, intellectual honesty, confirmation bias, double standards, etc.? Seems to me, they have done more than simply talk about these things, rather they have given an actual example of what these things look like.
Last edited by Realworldjack on Sat Jul 03, 2021 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #228

Post by Realworldjack »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 8:22 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:28 am So then, I simply referred to the letters of Paul, and the letters addressed to Theophilus, in order to demonstrate that what we have in contained in the NT cannot be demonstrated to be "hearsay" as you seemed to be insisting.
Unless they are independently verified first hand eye witness testimonies then they are at best hearsay.
Simply because you throw the word "hearsay" out there, does not cause what has been recorded to be false. Next, we have some pretty strong evidence which would support the author of the two letters to Theophilus being alive at the time of the events, having access to the Apostles themselves, which means he could have very well witnessed much of what he wrote, and substantiated it, just as he assured Theophilus that he had.

I think what you need to do, is to sit down and honestly think through all that would have to be involved in order for these reports to be true, as opposed to all that would have to be involved in order for these reports to be false. If you were to do this, I think you would come to the conclusion that it is not as simple as you seem to make it out to be. In other words, it is not as simple as saying, "these reports could be false". Rather, there would have to be a whole lot involved in order for these reports to be false, to the point of being incredible. The point is, either way you look at it, something incredible occurred.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #229

Post by Realworldjack »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 8:27 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:57 am Again, you continue over, and over, to bring up the FACT that many Christians believe as they do, "for the flimsiest of reasons", as if this is somehow proof that Christianity must be false.
But I am not saying that it MUST be false. Weighing up all that we know about Christianity, and the propagation of religious beliefs in general, I am saying that it is most likely false.
It seems to me you acknowledge the fact that you cannot demonstrate the reports we have would be false. Therefore, you move on to your opinion of what you believe to be "more likely". The thing is, you cannot even demonstrate which would be, "more likely". I mean do you really believe it wise to base conclusions upon what you believe to be, the odds?

prop·a·ga·tion
/ˌpräpəˈɡāSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Horticulture
Biology
noun
1. the breeding of specimens of a plant or animal by natural processes from the parent stock.

2. the action of widely spreading and promoting an idea, theory, etc.

Here again, you continue to seem to base what it is you believe about Christianity, upon the way in which most folks who are Christian have come to, and remain to be Christian, instead of upon the actual facts, and evidence involved. In other words, you are not pointing to the actual facts, and evidence involved, and explaining to us why it is you doubt the claims. Rather, you simply seem to continue to point to the way most Christians have come to believe, (which by the way I am not refuting) as if this is some sort of facts, and evidence against the claims, when it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the claims being true, or false.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #230

Post by bluegreenearth »

Realworldjack wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 6:36 am Pardon me as well here, but I cannot help but wonder, (and wonder very strongly) if this post of yours, has far less to do with the question you have asked, then it was an opportunity for you to supply your definition of "indoctrination"?

in·doc·tri·nate
/inˈdäktrəˌnāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
1. teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

2. teach or instruct (someone).
Forgive me if I do not consult a dictionary before describing my understanding of particular words. Since it appears that you would prefer to debate the person who wrote that specific dictionary definition of "indoctrination", I'll assume my perspective on this issue is not welcomed.

You, on the other hand, are welcome to describe how the belief acquisition process you are defending is distinguishable from your preferred definition of "indoctrination".

Post Reply