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
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 #241

Post by brunumb »

John Bauer wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:49 pm From start to finish, these statements are just utterly saturated with weasel words (hedging one's bets; appeal to anonymous evidence or authority; plausible deniability; etc.):
You could just as easily be addressing Realworldjack's "we have the letters" case for the truth of the resurrection. Lot's of ifs, could haves, should haves and would haves sprinkled through that as well. Just looking up Luke-Acts and Theophilus raises a heap of questions and doubts. One really has to view all those alleged facts and evidence with the eye of faith in order to be convinced.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #242

Post by John Bauer »

brunumb wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:21 am
You could just as easily be addressing Realworldjack's "we have the letters" case for the truth of the resurrection. ...
So your response to my criticism is, "You should look over here."

Interesting.

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 #243

Post by brunumb »

John Bauer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:36 am
brunumb wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:21 am
You could just as easily be addressing Realworldjack's "we have the letters" case for the truth of the resurrection. ...
So your response to my criticism is, "You should look over here."

Interesting.
No. It's more a comment on your possible double standards.
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 #244

Post by Realworldjack »

brunumb wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:12 pm
Realworldjack wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 7:21 am It seems to me you acknowledge the fact that you cannot demonstrate the reports we have would be false.
More importantly, you cannot demonstrate that they are necessarily true. There are so many questions surrounding Luke-Acts and Theophilus that you have to be a believer first before you start arguing that the letter must contain facts.
More importantly, you cannot demonstrate that they are necessarily true.
How in the world is it "more importantly" in my case? I have never suggested I could demonstrate the position I hold. I also have never insisted those opposed to me, would have no facts, evidence, or reasons to be opposed. However, there have certainly been those who want to insist I have no facts, evidence, or reason to come to the conclusions I have, when they continue to fail to demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold. The point is I am not the one making claims I cannot demonstrate.
There are so many questions surrounding Luke-Acts and Theophilus that you have to be a believer first before you start arguing that the letter must contain facts.
First, and foremost, you have misrepresented my position. I have never argued, "that the letter must contain facts". Rather, I have argued there are very good reasons to believe the content of these letters, and have supplied these reasons, over, and over again. Here is one such example, which contains at least some to the reasons,
realworldjack wrote:Exactly how have you determined these reports to be "hearsay"? First, let us look at the definition,

hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
Learn to pronounce
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

Okay, now let us look at some facts. It would be a fact, we have letters which were written by Paul. It is a fact, Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. It is a fact that Paul not only mentions the other Apostles, (who would have known Jesus) he also says he meet with them. It is a fact, Paul traveled around planting numerous Churches. It is a fact, Paul mentions some of the other men who traveled with him on these journeys. It is a fact, Paul mentions one by the name of Luke as being with him in more than one letter. It is a fact, Paul authored letters which were clearly written while he was under arrest. It is a fact, in one of those letters written while in prison, Paul just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me".

Moving on. It is a fact, we have two long, and detailed letters which are addressed to a Theophilus. In the first letter to this Theophilus, the author tells Theophilus, that he has "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", as if he were alive at the time to have actually done such an investigation. In the second letter, the author begins by telling Theophilus, of the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. However, when the journeys of Paul begins, we here nothing of what the Apostles in Jerusalem are doing, but rather only hear of the actions of Paul, and only hear again about the other Apostles, when, and if Paul were to come in contact with them. Moreover, this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the actions of Paul, as if he is actually there to witness the events he records.

With all this being the case, can you imagine why this author begins the letter with telling of the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to begin to focus upon the actions of Paul, once his journeys begin, only referring to the Apostles in Jerusalem, when, and if Paul comes back in contact with them again? Of course you can! Because you see, if this author was indeed a traveling companion of Paul, as the evidence clearly suggests, then he could only focus on the actions of Paul, and could not have possibly reported on what the other Apostles were doing, until, of unless, Paul were to come in contact with them.

Now, as we turn our attention again to the letter from Paul which would have been authored while Paul would have been imprisoned, in which he just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me", and we couple this with the fact that the author of the second letter to Theophilus, just so happens to end this letter with Paul being under arrest, we have pretty strong evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul.

Therefore, with all these facts, it is very reasonable to conclude, the two letters to Theophilus would have been authored by one who would have been alive at the time of the events which he records.

So then, the question is, how have you determined these reports would have been, information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor?
So, are we to simply suppose, this author sits down in order to write out, not one, but two long, and detailed letters to an audience at the time, by the name of Theophilus, in order to supply Theophilus with false information? What would be the facts, and evidence to support such as idea? Or, are we to simply suppose this author was somehow deceived into believing all this information would have been fact, when it was not?

You see, it seems to me, you are asking me to simply suppose, this author sat down to write out two long and detailed letters to an audience at the time, and go on to suppose that somehow this information may be false, when I have good reason to believe what he writes. Moreover, I am also simply to suppose the other 3 authors of what we call the Gospels, also just so happen to sit down to write out false information?

The bottom line here is, you very well may have reasons to doubt what this author reports to Theophilus, in these two long and detailed letters, and I have no problem with your doubt. The problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist I would have no reason to believe what this author records, when they cannot demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.

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 #245

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to brunumb in post #239]

How is it that the majority of children raised in a Muslim environment end up as faithful Muslims?
How is it that the majority of children raised in a Hindu environment end up as faithful Hindus?
How is it that the majority of children raised in a Christian environment end up as faithful Christians?
Well, I would imagine it is because, a majority of folks tend to simply accept what they were taught as a child without question. So, what would this have to do with Christianity being true, or false? Allow me to help you out. It would have NOYHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.

You continue to make my point. Your whole argument seems to hinge of the fact that most folks tend to believe what they were taught as a child, (which I agree with) but this has nothing to do with it. In other words, you are not dealing with the actual facts, and evidence concerning Christianity. Rather, you seem to be basing your doubts upon, how most folks come to believe as they do. How one can be under the impression this would be sound reasoning is beyond my ability to understand?

A better way to come to some sort of conclusion, would probably be for you to pick one of the religions you list above, or any other religion for that matter, and I will be more than happy to compare the historical facts, and evidence which support Christianity, against whatever religion you choose. Because you see, this would probably give us a good idea if there would be reason to believe one, as opposed to the other. Our agreeing that most folks tend to accept what they are taught without questioning, tells us nothing about the truth of the matter.

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 #246

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:31 am ...
I have never suggested I could demonstrate the position I hold.
...
Don't beat yourself up you too much about that.

A good many of us have come to expect such from theists.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10846
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 1199 times
Contact:

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #247

Post by William »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #222]
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.
I have not conceded any point. It is hearsay and is best considered in that frame of referencing.
William wrote:Again - I can only presently assume that you are using Paul as some type of lead-up to The Subject, but if you do not provide a solid connect, then I am not interested in bogging down with you about Paul's stuff.

As I wrote in post #207 -
"What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - 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."

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,
No need to, as I did not claim that you had not used the word in this thread.
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.
[The beginning of our interaction in this thread]
Post #138
Me: Most faith-driven beliefs have been "outside the realm of science" as in unable to be investigated with any device - but over the centuries scientific device has enabled us to understand the unlikelihood of events believed in through faith.

In the very next post [#139] you 'note my opinion'

Post #140 I inform you that my mind is open to examining your explanation

Post #143 you inform me that you wish to focus on my writing you implied you have evidence which you can show me to support that such is not a matter of faith but of fact and you corrected me by stating that you were not arguing that the resurrection was fact, but that there were facts which you were insisting, as evidence your belief rests upon.

Post #156 I replied that I am aware that you are insisting that there are what you call 'facts' and you rest your beliefs upon those 'facts' but until one is granted access to those things you are referring to as 'facts' how is one to examine the evidence until such evidence is placed on the table to be examined?

Post#158 you stated that we simply start at the beginning with the fact that we do indeed have the reports of the resurrection, coming from multiple sources.

Post #160 I replied that I myself am not insisting there are [or are not] facts pertaining to the claims. I am simply responding to a Christian [you] who appear to claim that there are facts.
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, and all I want to do is critique the evidence once it is tabled.

Post #166 you explain that you have closely examined what you call the facts, and evidence concerning the Christian claims, why you are convinced that these claims are indeed true.
You also want to start at the beginning with the multiple different sources we have of the resurrection. You assume this would be evidence I claim to already have "debunked". and you ask if I can tell you how I "exposed the falseness" of these reports.

Post #178 I explain my position on the matter of faith-based beliefs...

I explained my position of the matter that, where there is no evidence for that which is held by faith, 'tis best to remain agnostic. [form no beliefs either way - just assess the evidence.]
That I do not believe the claims to be either true, or false.
I explained that as to your claim, this can be tested and asked you to 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.]

I also accepted your challenge that if I have actually "exposed the falseness" of these reports, then I would share this with you, in order that you can "move on" as well and explained that in order to do so, 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 also asked you if you insist that The Subject [Resurrection of Jesus] is fact or a claim to which you think there is supporting evidence.
I made it clear that the burden is on you to present the evidence [facts] you claim support your faith-based belief in said Subject. [The Subject = The Resurrection] and that I am ready to proceed when you table the facts.

Post #158 you then admit, you are having trouble understanding much of what I am saying and make it clear that you are waiting for me to present my evidence to support my claim whereas I cannot do that until you first table your evidence, for my claim is that I can critique your evidence and show it to be based upon faith rather than facts.

Post #198 I respond to your admitting you are finding it hard to understand me, by attempting to see if I can word it another way for you...
I explain my position [Agnostic Theist] and that I am unconvinced by the what Christianity/Christians have to say about what they refer to as 'facts' and why I am unconvinced.

I go on to explain why I think new data is relevant and should not be dismissed or otherwise handwaved away.

Post # 206 you write that while you have at least one "faith based" belief, your belief in the resurrection is not at all based upon faith.

You also mention that there are multiple reports of the resurrection, and that if you understand me correctly I have "debunked" these reports, (exposed the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). You are still waiting for me to show you were I have debunked those reports [which I never claimed to have done] while I am still awaiting you to give your evidence so I can begin the process of critiquing said evidence you table.

Post #207 I reply that you have not established that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith and point out that the use of words one will hear in a court of law accompanying the hearsay do not in themselves establish Truth.

I also give an example that one still has to believe the stories on faith by stating that what has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - 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.
In that, I stated I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena.

Post #213 you then went on a trajectory away from The Subject - citing the stuff of Paul.

Post #214 I ask you what your pointing out that Paul seems to have a travelling companion has what to do with The Subject?

Post #215 You appear to try to explain the connect but fail to do so.

Post # 216 I reply that my point remains the same, as I am not arguing that those who actually authored the stories were or were not the ones who experience [witnessed] the events reported, first hand.
I do have to consider that the stories might well be works of fiction created by religious priesthood.

SO - in that - I cannot agree that the works are facts or fiction, because I [and you] do not know this to be the case.

Which is why I have to hold the argument [for the time being] that those who believe the stories are fact, believe so on account of faith and not fact.

I also explain that you appear to be happy to dedicate words to Paul's biblical activity, but have yet to produce anything on what I [at least] agreed to put focus into...namely that 'glue' which holds Christianity together...The Subject.

I further add that I can only presently assume that you are using Paul as some type of lead-up to The Subject, but if you do not provide a solid connect, then I am not interested in arguing with you about Paul's stuff.

Post #217 you continue to site Paul's stuff.

Post # 219 I replied [again] that I can only presently assume that you are using Paul as some type of lead-up to The Subject, but if you do not provide a solid connect, then I am not interested in bogging down with you about Paul's stuff.

I also state that this tactic you are using leaves me to the conclusion you are avoiding wanting to to focus on The Subject.

To which now gets us to Post #222 where you finally start tabling that which has to do with The Subject.

My reply to those things you tabled, are in this thread - which I created for the purpose of further discussion on The Subject.

"Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based"

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 #248

Post by bluegreenearth »

John Bauer wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:49 pm P.S. I really, really like this RealWorldJack person. Very sharp. Well-honed reasoning skills.
Please elaborate on the criteria you use to objectively determine if someone’s reasoning skills are well-honed.
John Bauer wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:49 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:01 pm
It is my understand[ing] that the difference could merely be the setting in which the same type of apologetic reasoning is applied to the available facts and evidence to compel a particular belief.
1. For the sake of clarity: What is "apologetic reasoning"? Or, better yet, how is it different from just "reasoning"? Is the difference "psychological manipulation" (i.e., persuasion techniques)? Because maybe what compelled their belief is reasoning qua reasoning being applied to the available facts and evidence.

Sorry, this is a text-based discussion forum, by which I mean to say, "Words matter." I'm sure you mean what you say, but are you saying what you mean?
Yes, words do matter and is precisely the reason I try to choose mine carefully. Apologetic reasoning is distinguished from other types of reasoning for the obvious fact that it leads theists to different conclusions about God from the reasoning used by non-theists. My purpose for having this discussion is to investigate whether the theistic reasoning being proposed is reliable or not. In order to make that determination, I must first identify the disconfirming evidence I would expect to find if the proposed reasoning process is unreliable and then proceed to discover if such evidence exists. At this point in my discussion, I’ve identified that the intentional or unintentional inclusion of psychological manipulation techniques or logical fallacies in a belief acquisition process would render it unreliable. So, the next step would be to conduct a detailed examination of the reasoning process a proposed theist used to acquire a particular belief and evaluate if such disconfirming evidence exists there or not. This isn’t to presume I will likely discover the disconfirming evidence necessary to conclude that the theist’s belief acquisition process is unreliable but to mitigate for the possibility of confirmation bias because discovering the existence of disconfirming evidence would objectively demonstrate the line of reasoning I’m investigating is unreliable independent of my personal preferences.
John Bauer wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:49 pm 2. Assuming the difference is psychological manipulation: You claim it's possible that this is involved "in many circumstances" (Post #236) and yet, quite interestingly, there was not a shred of evidence supporting that claim, which means those were just weasel words (made especially clear by the inclusion of the term "possibly"). [1] Do you have statistical data supporting your claim? Or is this a deeply ironic twist where you were banking on getting away with psychological manipulation?
Are you claiming I’ve been duplicitous in my word choices or just considering the possibility? If you are just considering the possibility, then you should have no difficulty applying your perspective towards understanding the following:

As I previously explained, I am not presuming psychological manipulation must have occurred. However, it is my understanding that the possibility of of such persuasion techniques being intentionally or unintentionally included in a belief acquisition process should at least be considered and ruled-out before concluding the proposed reasoning is reliable. Do you have a logical justification for me to uncritically accept a proposed theist’s reasoning as reliable and discontinue my inquiry in that regard?

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 #249

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:31 am I have never argued, "that the letter must contain facts". Rather, I have argued there are very good reasons to believe the content of these letters, and have supplied these reasons, over, and over again.
So now we have moved away from facts and evidence to nothing more than reasons. One good reason to believe in the resurrection is that one is already a Christian and needs to believe in the resurrection. What may then come next is post hoc rationalisation. You have your reasons to believe. Got it.
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 #250

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:04 am [Replying to brunumb in post #239]

How is it that the majority of children raised in a Muslim environment end up as faithful Muslims?
How is it that the majority of children raised in a Hindu environment end up as faithful Hindus?
How is it that the majority of children raised in a Christian environment end up as faithful Christians?
Well, I would imagine it is because, a majority of folks tend to simply accept what they were taught as a child without question. So, what would this have to do with Christianity being true, or false? Allow me to help you out. It would have NOYHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.
It's not about it being true or not, it is about the reason they have for believing that it's true. The real reason is not based on facts and evidence, yet they believe. No doubt some will go about trying to retrofit some justification to shore up their belief, but most just seem to accept it unquestioningly. Billions clearly have belief in a religion that must be false and the vast majority of them got it by having it spoon fed to them from birth. So, where are the facts and evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrate that Christianity is the true one? And, when you have to start reading between the lines and interpolating guesswork, you know you are not working with evidence.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Post Reply