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 Realworldjack in post #284]

I have not been attempting to redirect you away from your point. It wasn't clear to me if you were considering the possibility that the same line of reasoning involved in an "indoctrination" process could be identical or nearly identical to the same line of reasoning a theist outside a church setting uses to conclude theism is true. So, if the theists you previously identified had arrived at their belief outside a church environment using the same line of reasoning as the theists who arrived at their belief through the process of indoctrination, then there would be no appreciable difference between those two sets of theists. Now, I'm not claiming this is the case because I'm not aware of the line of reasoning that was used by those people you referenced. I am just wondering if it could be the case. That is all.

And here we have another post full of empty words, which accomplishes nothing whatsoever. You have the opportunity on a thread which you created, dealing with "double standards" to agree with me that how folks come to believe the Christian claims, is not a legitimate argument against the claims. Or, you could go on to demonstrate to me how it would be a legitimate argument. However, instead, you simply ignore the point I am making, even after I have now asked you to acknowledge the point, one way, or the other. There must be some reason you are reluctant to give an answer here, I have an idea what the reluctance would be, but you can demonstrate me to be in error, simply by answering the point.

Moving on, in post #282 you write,

If someone were to provide me with a detailed description of a proposed theist's belief acquisition process, I could conduct an evaluation of it for the disconfirming evidence I would expect to find if psychological manipulation is involved. Then, if I fail to discover that disconfirming evidence, it would be reasonable for me to rule-out the involvement of psychological manipulation in the proposed belief acquisition process.

My friend, numerous folks have authored book volumes detailing their "belief acquisition process". I know you are aware of this, because Alister McGrath would be one, and you have written a whole lot about McGrath, detailing where you believe his thought process to be in error. Therefore, in all your analysis of McGrath, did you see any sort of evidence which would indicate he may have been "psychologically manipulated"?

As I said, there would be others as well, and to make it even easier for you, some of these folks actually give a detailed description of their "belief acquisition process" on "youtube". One of these folks would be, Hugh Ross. Ross, claims to have become convinced there was a creator simply by the study of science. He then claims to have studied a number of the different religions. When he got to Christianity, it is his claim that he converted to Christianity, simply by reading the Bible. Moreover, it is his claim, that he did not personally know any Christians, until he was 27 years of age, and by that time, he was already a Christian.

Now, I am sure you will want to analyze his thinking process, just as you have McGrath. However, this is not the point. The point is, he tells this story on "youtube" and you are free to listen to it yourself, and once you have done so, you can report back, as to whether you find any evidence that "psychological manipulation" would have been involved?

[bluegreenearth]

And here we have another post full of empty words, which accomplishes nothing whatsoever. You have the opportunity on a thread which you created, dealing with "double standards" to agree with me that how folks come to believe the Christian claims, is not a legitimate argument against the claims. Or, you could go on to demonstrate to me how it would be a legitimate argument. However, instead, you simply ignore the point I am making, even after I have now asked you to acknowledge the point, one way, or the other. There must be some reason you are reluctant to give an answer here, I have an idea what the reluctance would be, but you can demonstrate me to be in error, simply by answering the point.

I've twice, already, acknowledged the possibility for someone to become convinced to believe the claims of Christianity without having ever been exposed to Christianity as a child. The quotes of my statements are below:

Given your definition of "indoctrination"," I agree that people would not have to be "relentlessly inculcated from birth" in order to be convinced of the Christian claims.

Accordingly, I am not under the impression that people would have to be exposed to church as children in order for them to believe Christianity is true after they have matured into adults.

Please explain how those two responses failed to answer your point, and I will subsequently try to correct for any misunderstanding that may have occurred on my part.

[bluegreenearth]

Moving on, in post #282 you write,

If someone were to provide me with a detailed description of a proposed theist's belief acquisition process, I could conduct an evaluation of it for the disconfirming evidence I would expect to find if psychological manipulation is involved. Then, if I fail to discover that disconfirming evidence, it would be reasonable for me to rule-out the involvement of psychological manipulation in the proposed belief acquisition process.

My friend, numerous folks have authored book volumes detailing their "belief acquisition process". I know you are aware of this, because Alister McGrath would be one, and you have written a whole lot about McGrath, detailing where you believe his thought process to be in error. Therefore, in all your analysis of McGrath, did you see any sort of evidence which would indicate he may have been "psychologically manipulated"?

It appears that you may have accidently overlooked one of my responses to your earlier post where you offered a similar commentary. The response I had given was as follows:

I'd have to go back and review my critiques of those books to be reminded of the lines of reasoning they were using. If the lines of reasoning they described did not include psychological manipulation techniques, then it could be ruled-out in cases where people initially became convinced to believe by those lines of reasoning. However, if I am remembering correctly, the lines of reasoning offered in those books were not the lines of reasoning that initially convinced the authors to believe in Christianity but were developed for the purpose of reinforcing their pre-existing faith. So, I'm not aware of the precise lines of reasoning those apologists were using when they first became convinced to believe the claims of Christianity were true to rule-out the possibility of psychological manipulation at this point.

As for your next comment:

As I said, there would be others as well, and to make it even easier for you, some of these folks actually give a detailed description of their "belief acquisition process" on "youtube". One of these folks would be, Hugh Ross. Ross, claims to have become convinced there was a creator simply by the study of science. He then claims to have studied a number of the different religions. When he got to Christianity, it is his claim that he converted to Christianity, simply by reading the Bible. Moreover, it is his claim, that he did not personally know any Christians, until he was 27 years of age, and by that time, he was already a Christian.

Now, I am sure you will want to analyze his thinking process, just as you have McGrath. However, this is not the point. The point is, he tells this story on "youtube" and you are free to listen to it yourself, and once you have done so, you can report back, as to whether you find any evidence that "psychological manipulation" would have been involved?

For the sake of ensuring my understanding of your perspective is correct, let's just presume for the moment that I go investigate the line of reasoning described by Hugh Ross and discover no evidence of psychological manipulation. Is it your perspective that such an outcome would demonstrate his line of reasoning should be accepted by me as reliable? If this is your intention, then please recall there are other types of disconfirming evidence I would expect to find in his line of reasoning that I would also have to rule-out before it would be responsible for me to conclude anything. On the other hand, if it is your perspective that such an outcome would simply demonstrate how someone could succeeded in acquiring a belief in Christianity without having to include psychological manipulation techniques in his line of reasoning, then I don't understand the point of me conducting the investigation because I never claimed this outcome couldn't occur and ruling-out psychological manipulation wouldn't be sufficient on its own for me to responsibly conclude this particular belief acquisition process is reliable. So, what is the goal you are hoping to achieve here?

[brunumb]

How in the world, would the "propagation of religious beliefs in general" have a thing in the world to do with Christianity being, "most likely false"?

Do you agree that all of the other religions must be false if Christianity is true?

I asked before if you thought the billions of people of different faiths reached their position through analysis of facts and evidence. Do you have an explanation that does not involve some form of 'indoctrination'? If these people believe in a false religion, how were they convinced it was true? Can't the same apply to Christianity?

What is the purpose of the rituals, Sunday schools, Christian camps, after school classes, prayer gatherings etc. that the children of Christians are regularly required to participate in? Are they all evaluating the facts and evidence, or simply being force fed their religion? I would say that they are not and that the sole purpose of it all is to ensure that the religious belief is inculcated into uncritical minds and maintained. This would not really be necessary if Christianity was true and all it took was the evaluation of the available facts and evidence. Usually when people are asked why they believe, the response is inevitably faith.

It's ironic that you claimed that reading the Bible was the prime mover for some people adopting Christianity. There are countless former Christians who declare that actually reading the Bible was the prime mover for them losing their belief. It seems to be a two way street.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #294]

On the other hand, if it is your perspective that such an outcome would simply demonstrate how someone could succeeded in acquiring a belief in Christianity without having to include psychological manipulation techniques in his line of reasoning, then I don't understand the point of me conducting the investigation because I never claimed this outcome couldn't occur and ruling-out psychological manipulation wouldn't be sufficient on its own for me to responsibly conclude this particular belief acquisition process is reliable. So, what is the goal you are hoping to achieve here?

You are the one who brought "psychological manipulation" into the conversation. You did so by referring to, "an indoctrination process which would include psychological manipulation". Yet, you are telling us now, concerning the Christians you have criticked, that you do not recall if "psychological manipulation" would have been involved in the process, and would have to go back and look. The question which seems to be begging here is, what were you hoping to achieve, by bringing in this "psychological manipulation" which we have not even identified as of yet? Moreover, even if we were to go on to identify a form of "psychological manipulation" which may be used by some Christians, what are you thinking this would demonstrate?

The whole point is here, we began by talking about the "indoctrination process". You come into the conversation by adding "psychological manipulation" to this indoctrination process. I think I have pretty much demonstrated, one would not have to be indoctrinated at all, much less be "psychologically manipulated" in order to become convinced Christianity would be true. Therefore, what would one be attempting to achieve, by bringing up either of these?

Moreover, if you now agree that one could in fact become a believer, outside of being "psychologically manipulated" then what would be the point in bringing it into the conversation? In other words, I would not even have to be involved in the process of demonstrating one would not have to be "psychologically manipulated" in order to be convinced of the Christian claims, if you would not have brought it into the conversation.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #294]
You are the one who brought "psychological manipulation" into the conversation. You did so by referring to, "an indoctrination process which would include psychological manipulation". Yet, you are telling us now, concerning the Christians you have criticked, that you do not recall if "psychological manipulation" would have been involved in the process, and would have to go back and look. The question which seems to be begging here is, what were you hoping to achieve, by bringing in this "psychological manipulation" which we have not even identified as of yet? Moreover, even if we were to go on to identify a form of "psychological manipulation" which may be used by some Christians, what are you thinking this would demonstrate?

The whole point is here, we began by talking about the "indoctrination process". You come into the conversation by adding "psychological manipulation" to this indoctrination process. I think I have pretty much demonstrated, one would not have to be indoctrinated at all, much less be "psychologically manipulated" in order to become convinced Christianity would be true. Therefore, what would one be attempting to achieve, by bringing up either of these?

Moreover, if you now agree that one could in fact become a believer, outside of being "psychologically manipulated" then what would be the point in bringing it into the conversation? In other words, I would not even have to be involved in the process of demonstrating one would not have to be "psychologically manipulated" in order to be convinced of the Christian claims, if you would not have brought it into the conversation.

If I were to discover that psychological manipulation was involved, then such disconfirming evidence would be one way to demonstrate the line of reasoning being used by the theist was unreliable. That is all.

[JoeyKnothead]

If I were to discover that psychological manipulation was involved, then such disconfirming evidence would be one way to demonstrate the line of reasoning being used by the theist was unreliable. That is all.

Without specifics, this is a bit like herding cats.

I propose the Bible itself offers psychological manipulation, in the form of fantastical, sense assaulting tales, claims of eternal damnation, and all such as that. So the errant line of reasoning might start and end within its pages, no outsider required.

We see often the con man'll play on emotion and fear, pride and prejudice, in order to ply their trade. That ain't to say all theists do so, only that it's a powerful, successful tool for manipulation.

Like how the pretty thing says I can't have me no dessert unless I eat me all them peas. She knows I don't like em, but she fixes em anyway. Ya can't even make em taste good with butter. Who makes a grown man eat peas? I don't make her eat em. But she fixes em anyway. She hates me.

[JehovahsWitness]

I propose the Bible itself offers psychologiccal manipulation, in the form of fantastical, sense assaulting tales...

And how, pray tell, would tge above be distinguishable from a truthful reports of spectacular miracles?

To learn more please go to other posts related to

MIRACLES , JESUS' MIRACLES, and MESSIANIC PROPHECY

[Tcg]

I propose the Bible itself offers psychologiccal manipulation, in the form of fantastical, sense assaulting tales...

And how, pray tell, would tge [sic] above be distinguishable from a truthful reports [sic] of spectacular miracles?

You, and not surprisingly so, cut off Joey's statement. It ended with this:

...,claims of eternal damnation, and all such as that.

Some groups and individuals want to shy away from the bible's teaching of eternal punishment for those who don't for whatever reason qualify for heaven or eternal life or whatever term is used to describe a pleasant life after death. They suggest the the unlucky unqualifiers will face annulation rather than eternal punishment. It matters not which it is really, the point is that those who don't buy into certain dogma will not attain the happy afterlife those who qualify in some manner will.

What could possibly be used for psychological manipulation better than the idea that if you don't do whatever it is that qualifies you for the claimed pleasant eternal life you'll perish or face eternal torture?

Of course the reality is that there is absolutely no evidence of any sort of afterlife, pleasant or toturous, so there is no reason to be manipulated by the scare tactics or rosy promises that are often used as psychological manipulation.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

I propose the Bible itself offers psychologiccal manipulation, in the form of fantastical, sense assaulting tales...

And how, pray tell, would the above be distinguishable from a truthful reports of spectacular miracles?

Beats me. Shouldn't the burden be on the claimant to show "spectacular miracles" are the work of a "spectacular miracle" maker?