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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #248]

This post was a complete waste of time, and space. We do not need you to give an account of the conversation we have had thus far, because we can all go back and read it for ourselves. Moreover, the way in which you report it, is not exactly accurate, but I am not going to waste any time refuting what you have said, since all can go back and read it.

The bottom line is, you have ask me to give you reasons for the belief I have, and I have supplied the fact that we have the reports of a resurrection. You go on to imply that you can "debunk" (expose the falseness of) these reports, to which I concede, that if you can hold up your end of the bargain, I would be done with Christianity. In the next post, instead of you actually holding up your end of the bargain, you simply throw the word, "hearsay" out there. This then caused me to refute that it would be "hearsay" to which you go on to agree that the reports cannot be demonstrated to be "hearsay", and it is all of this which has kept us from the topic at hand. Moreover, you go on to talk about some "priests" having authored all that we have, as fiction, which would be an absolutely incredible tale, which sort of demonstrates one who is willingly to believe anything at all, as long as it does not involve the reports of the resurrection being true.

You have asked for my evidence. I have supplied the reports of the resurrection. You claim you can "debunk" (expose the falseness of) these reports. However, instead of doing your job, you seem to continue to avoid it. In the past, you have avoided it by making statements you cannot defend. Now you avoid it by giving us a play, by play, of our conversation, which we can all go back, and read. Please, just do your job!

[Realworldjack]

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.

So now we have moved away from facts and evidence to nothing more than reasons.

How in the world have we "moved away from facts and evidence"? It is the facts, and evidence, which supplies the reason.

One good reason to believe in the resurrection is that one is already a Christian and needs to believe in the resurrection.

No! That would be an absolutely terrible reason! Your idea that one must, and has to "already be a Christian" is defeated by those who were not Christian, who were looking for reasons to be opposed to Christianity, and become convinced it is true. In other words, these folks did not somehow "need to believe in the resurrection" but were looking for reasons not to believe it, and became convinced it was true in the process.

Again, this argument of yours has been defeated!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #237]
First, you say the above it is your "understanding" but you have not even established that "psychological manipulation" has been used at all? Your statement really tells us nothing at all that we do not already know. Sure, "psychological manipulation COULD POSSIBLY be involved in MANY circumstances", but it could also be possible that it has never been used by any Church. This would be like me saying something like, "it is possible that atheism has been well branded". The fact of the matter is, one of the folks I have referred to who was an atheist all of her life, claims this would be one of the reasons for her atheism. However, she does not simply say it is a "possibility", rather she states it to be a fact. The point is, if I were to simply say, "it is possible that atheism has been well branded", this statement would tell us nothing we did not already know, unless it can be demonstrated to be a fact.

The ,main point here however is, we are talking about whether it would be possible for one to come to believe the Christian claims outside of having undergone the indoctrination process. Therefore, even if you were to demonstrate that every Church on the planet employed, "phycological manipulation" this would still not explain those who have never undergone such "phycological manipulation" , but are now convinced Christians.

The objective is to conduct a detailed investigation of the specific line of reasoning a proposed theist used to acquire a particular belief and evaluate it for the existence of any evidence (i.e. psychological manipulation techniques, logical fallacies, etc.) which would demonstrate it is unreliable. Whether the belief was acquired within or outside a church is not relevant to the analysis of a theist's line of reasoning.

The objective is to conduct a detailed investigation of the specific line of reasoning a proposed theist used to acquire a particular belief and evaluate it for the existence of any evidence (i.e. psychological manipulation techniques, logical fallacies, etc.) which would demonstrate it is unreliable.

This has not been my objective. My objective has been to demonstrate one does not have to go through a childhood of indoctrination, in order to be convinced the Christian claims would be true. It seems now, you want to move on from this, in order to analyze those who come to belief after they are adults? If this is the case, I would like some sort of resolution to the objective I had, before we move on to your objective.

The question is, are we moving on at this point, because we agree that one would not have to go through a childhood of indoctrination in order to believe the claims? In other words, I really see no need in moving on to those who seem to have come to belief outside of being indoctrinated as a child, until, or unless, we can agree that this would not be a necessary condition for belief.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #260]

Also, before we move on from here, there seems to be a few other things which need to be resolved. You said,

It is my understanding that psychological manipulation could possibly be involved in many circumstances but not in every case and not always done deliberately or with the intent to deceive.

Before we move on, would it be a fact that, "psychological manipulation is involved in many circumstances"? It seems to me your sentence above, has a number of empty words? The question is, is what you are saying a demonstrable fact? Or, would it simply be, a sentence full of empty words, in order to manipulate others?

I am suggesting the apologetic reasoning which is commonly endorsed in a church setting

You have as of yet to demonstrate this "apologetic reasoning" you are referring to? You certainly have not demonstrated that this "apologetic reasoning" which you have yet to establish, would be "commonly endorsed in a church setting". Again, is what you say a demonstrable fact? Or, is it simply empty words in order to manipulate others into some sort of doubt?

could possibly be the same or similar apologetic reasoning being independently discovered and used by people outside the church setting to acquire a particular belief.

Well, until we establish there would be a such thing as the "apologetic reasoning" you are describing, along with what it would be, I really do not see how we could go on to determine if it "could possibly be the same or similar apologetic reasoning being independently discovered and used by people outside the church setting to acquire a particular belief"?

The point is, before we move on to those who may come to belief outside being indoctrinated as a child, I think we need to first establish that what you describe above would be fact? Or, is it simply empty words, in an attempt to manipulate others into doubt?

[Bradskii]

In the next post, instead of you actually holding up your end of the bargain, you simply throw the word, "hearsay" out there. This then caused me to refute that it would be "hearsay"...

In passing, hearsay is evidence that is given by someone who has made an out-of-court statement. In 'non legal situations' such as we have here, then we can take it to mean evidence that cannot be verified. So may we use the example of Mary seeing Jesus after His resurrection which was mentioned earlier?

Mary seeing Jesus is evidence of the resurrection.
Objection. We have no direct evidence from Mary. In fact, we have various records that suggest that the meeting with Jesus did not even occur.
Sustained.
Mary obviously told the disciples what happened.
Objection. Apart from the fact that we have no direct evidence for what happened, we have no evidence that she told anyone of this claimed meeting.
Sustained.
The disciples would have related this story to others.
Objection. We have no direct evidence that they were told anything of the claimed meeting and none that they passed any story on.
Sustained.
John was told the story at some point by a witness.
Objection. We have no evidence as to who might have done this or when it was done or what interest the person would have had in relating the story or the degree of accuracy he related any story that he might have been told.
Sustained.
John was told the story by one of the disciples.
Objection. There is no direct evidence for this and no direct evidence for any specific source.
Sustained.
John wrote the gospel in good faith and would have no reason to make it up.
Objection. There was a good reason to write the story as written as it fullfills scriptural prophesy, there is no direct evidence that the author even was John and the record perported to be by John was finalised approximately 60 years after the event it is meant to portray.
Sustained.

That's hearsay evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

That's hearsay evidence.

NOTE : Something is not hearsay if it is written or testified by the same individual who claims to have witnessed the event.

HEARSAY: A written or oral statement made otherwise than by a witness giving their own first-hand evidence in proceedings, which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated and which is relied on in court to prove the truth of the matters stated.

source: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... s%20stated.

JOHN 21:24

This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things ...

Further Reading
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

RELATED POSTS

Are the gospels mere hearsay?
viewtopic.php?p=1043571#p1043571

Are the gospel claims substantiated ?
viewtopic.php?p=1041048#p1041048

Is the testimony from an anonymous witnesses admissible in a court of law?
viewtopic.php?p=1040994#p1040994

Does a witness have to prove he witnessed an event?
viewtopic.php?p=1041058#p1041058

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[Bradskii]

This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things...

So we have a person who can't be positively identified who says he was given information by someone who is not identified about a claimed story which cannot be less than second hand who perportedly wrote an account for which there is no corroborative evidence which is meant to have happened three generations before it was written. Notwithstanding that we have good reason to think that the story would be related by interested parties in a way that best reflects, not necessarily an accurate telling of the facts, but scriptural prophesies.

To call it weak evidence would be something of an understatement.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #266]

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

What we are discussing here is whether the reports we have in the NT would simply be, information received by the authors from others, which these authors could not have substantiated? If you will go back and read, I have supplied some very strong evidence in support of the author of the 2 letters to Theophilus, being alive at the time of the events he records, along with evidence that he would have actually witnessed much of what he wrote first hand. Moreover, this author actually goes on to assure Theophilus, that he had indeed, "carefully investigated everything from the beginning". In other words, this author certainly seems to be assuring his audience at the time, that he had indeed substantiated the information he is relaying.


The point is, I do not believe the reports we have, can be demonstrated to be information the authors had simply received from others. In other words, simply referring to what we have contained in the NT as being "hearsay" gives me no reason to doubt the information. Rather, what I would need, is reason to believe these authors did indeed pass on false information, along with the facts, and evidence in support.

[bluegreenearth]

The objective is to conduct a detailed investigation of the specific line of reasoning a proposed theist used to acquire a particular belief and evaluate it for the existence of any evidence (i.e. psychological manipulation techniques, logical fallacies, etc.) which would demonstrate it is unreliable.

This has not been my objective. My objective has been to demonstrate one does not have to go through a childhood of indoctrination, in order to be convinced the Christian claims would be true. It seems now, you want to move on from this, in order to analyze those who come to belief after they are adults? If this is the case, I would like some sort of resolution to the objective I had, before we move on to your objective.

The question is, are we moving on at this point, because we agree that one would not have to go through a childhood of indoctrination in order to believe the claims? In other words, I really see no need in moving on to those who seem to have come to belief outside of being indoctrinated as a child, until, or unless, we can agree that this would not be a necessary condition for belief.

I don't recall claiming that people would have to be "indoctrinated" as children in order to acquire a theistic belief. If I've made a claim somewhere, it was that many if not all people who acquire a theistic belief or any sort of belief probably do so through some type of reasoning process whether it is taught to them as children, adults, or independently developed. I use the word "probably" because I haven't been able to rule-out the possibility that there may be someone out there who randomly acquired a belief for no identifiable reason whatsoever. Then again, maybe there is always a reason even if we are unable to identify it. Whatever the situation might be, I've been consistently willing to consider if any theist's proposed line of reasoning (from within or outside a church setting) is reliable or not.

Now, if someone were to define "indoctrination" as referring to any line of reasoning that concludes theism is true, then all theists will have necessarily been indoctrinated as children or adults either through a church or through independent self-indoctrination in order to believe the God exists according to this definition. On the other hand, if someone were to define "indoctrination" as referring to a more specific type of belief acquisition process that excludes lines of reasoning which were independently developed outside of a church setting, then indoctrination would not be necessary in order for some people to believe theism is true. I'll work with whatever definition of "indoctrination" people are using and will not dictate to them how they should define their terms. What matters to me is not whether a proposed belief acquisition process is arbitrarily defined as "indoctrination" but whether the line of reasoning underlying it is demonstrably and consistently reliable or not.

[William]

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.

Yes - and furthermore, we have an Ad hominem post from the claimant, in the thread I created specifically to focus on The Subject Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based where I am accused of having underhanded motives and where the personality delivers his accusation and the tells us that he is "not willing to stretch himself between two different threads, discussing the same thing," when clearly he has still not tabled the evidence he claims to have - and probably never will.

All in all I am convinced that no such evidence actually exists. The resurrection is a faith based belief. Those who claim otherwise are not being truthful.