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 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.

This is why I have said, "you and I have to different objectives". Let's look at a comment from a another member, from this very thread,

Except that you are reluctant to table those facts and that evidence which convinced you of the truth of the resurrection. Unless, of course, you are counting on spurious accounts and letters which do not consist of independently verified testimony collated in a book of religious propaganda.

The very next sentence goes on to say,

I maintain that religious beliefs become ingrained through indoctrination, and that influences how one sees, and is willing to see, any alleged evidence that may support those beliefs or tear them down.

The sentence directly above, means nothing at all, unless it can be demonstrated that all Christians have experienced this "indoctrination" process. You come into the conversation, and add "psychological manipulation" into the mix. However, thus far, you have failed to identify the first person who would have experienced such a thing, and even if you could, this still would not explain those who are Christians, who have not experienced what it is you, and this other member describe.

The thing is, I believe I can help you out. In fact, I believe what you refer to as "psychological manipulation" is a lot closer to the truth, as to how most Christians come to believe, than the "indoctrination process". You see, the indoctrination process involves teaching, and teaching involves engaging the mind. Well, teaching, and engaging the mind, is far more work, and it is far easier to appeal to the emotions. Therefore, many, many, Churches employ a tool which is referred to as the "altar call." Many times, during this "altar call" a certain song will be sang, over, and over, as the pastor appeals to the emotions of the congregation, attempting to get folks to come forward. In the end you have many, many Christians who come to belief, not because the mind has been engaged, (indoctrination) but rather because of some sort of an emotional experience they believe they have had. I have spoke out against such practices in the Church, and would not attend a Church which uses such tactics.

Your objective seems to be to, analyze each, and every individual, in order to determine if they may have been influenced by things such as indoctrination, psychological manipulation, emotional appeals, etc. Well, I highly doubt you will be able to accomplish such a task, but I have supplied you with a list of folks, and I would be very eager to see if you could determine if at least any of these folks would have been influenced by such things?

However, my goal on the other hand, is to demonstrate that simply because there are things such as the indoctrination process, psychological manipulation, emotional appeals, etc., this does not necessitate that one would have to experience any such thing, in order to become convinced of the Christian claims. If one is not bringing these things up in order to demonstrate that these things are the only way to become convinced of the Christian claims, then what would be the point in bringing these things into the conversation?

One more thing here. In a thread here dedicated to, "double standards", I was wondering why you chose to engage me, when I do not believe I have said anything which I cannot demonstrate, and seem to ignored the comment from the quote above where this member referred to what we have in the NT as being, "spurious"?

spu·ri·ous
/ˈsp(y)o͝orēəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
not being what it purports to be; false or fake.

They also go on to refer to the content of the NT as being, "religious propaganda", and "not consisting of independently verified testimony". I do not believe this person can demonstrate any of these things to be fact, and yet you seem to ignore this, and rather engage me, who has not said anything which cannot be demonstrated, by bringing into the conversation something you have not verified?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #298]

Without specifics, this is a bit like herding cats.

Exactly!

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.

Right? So since we have come to the conclusion, this would be to big of a hill to climb, we then go on to target the Bible itself? The problem here is, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers. Therefore, we would have to believe, authors, some 2000 years ago, who were addressing audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea of any sort of Bible, were writing down information, which would have nothing to do with fact, but was rather an attempt to psychologically manipulate the audience at that time, and these writings were later contained in a book we now refer to as the Bible, which continues to psychologically manipulate folks some 2000 years later, who were never targeted?

I am here to tell you, that is one incredible tale! It seems to me, there are those who are willing to believe anything at all, no matter how incredible it may be, as long as it would not involve an incredible tale, they would rather not believe.

[Realworldjack]

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.

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

I have not studied any other religion, and I do not need to do so in order to come to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to support the Christian claims. I am not insisting on what must be true, or false. I believe that would be you.

I asked before if you thought the billions of people of different faiths reached their position through analysis of facts and evidence.

I have not interviewed these "billions of people of different faiths". I would have no way to know. Therefore, I do not simply assume how they would have arrived to the beliefs they hold.

If these people believe in a false religion, how were they convinced it was true?

Again, I am not insisting these "people believe in a false religion". And again, that would be you.

Can't the same apply to Christianity?

It does! I am not insisting Christianity would be false. However, if you are asking if it would be possible for many Christians to come to believe, simply by accepting what they were taught, then I would say this is not only possible, but would rather be a fact, and you would be an example. Am I correct?

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?

Well, I can only speak for the Churches I have been involved in, and the purpose there was to instruct, or teach.

Are they all evaluating the facts and evidence, or simply being force fed their religion?

Again, I cannot speak for all. However, I can assure you, there are Churches who evaluate the facts, and evidence.

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.

You can say anything you like. The problem is demonstrating what you say, to be a fact.

This would not really be necessary if Christianity was true and all it took was the evaluation of the available facts and evidence.

I have given examples of those who would not have been through the indoctrination process you describe, who claim it was the facts, and evidence which convinced them. You will have to demonstrate how what they say would not be fact.

Usually when people are asked why they believe, the response is inevitably faith.

in·ev·i·ta·bly
/inˈevidəblē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
as is certain to happen; unavoidably.

This is a false statement, because it would not include me, nor the folks I have referred to.

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.

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along! In other words, we can both look at the same exact, facts, and evidence, and come to different conclusions, and both have reasons for the position we hold. There are some of us who accept, and understand this, while there seem to be others who seem to want to insist that reason is on their side alone.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

The problem here is, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers. Therefore, we would have to believe, authors, some 2000 years ago, who were addressing audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea of any sort of Bible, were writing down information, which would have nothing to do with fact, but was rather an attempt to psychologically manipulate the audience at that time, and these writings were later contained in a book we now refer to as the Bible, which continues to psychologically manipulate folks some 2000 years later, who were never targeted?

I am here to tell you, that is one incredible tale!

Not near good as "The Beverly Hillbillies". But yeah, a good tale has ya kinda suspending your beliefs, that ya might further buy into the tale.

Did Jethro really gnaw him that stump so Mrs. Drysdale'd think it was a beaver that did it? Or is it more rational to conclude those telling the tale was acarrying on?

It seems to me, there are those who are willing to believe anything at all, no matter how incredible it may be, as long as it would not involve an incredible tale, they would rather not believe.

Doesn't the claimant have some responsibilty to support their claims before we should all just set to believing em?

I mean it's readily apparent all Mrs. Drysdale's gotta do is compare the marks on the stumps to Jethro's teeth.

So we compare the claims, to the claimant's support for em. Where the claimant is incapable of showing their claims are truth, well there we go.

[Realworldjack]

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.

The problem here is, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers. Therefore, we would have to believe, authors, some 2000 years ago, who were addressing audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea of any sort of Bible, were writing down information, which would have nothing to do with fact, but was rather an attempt to psychologically manipulate the audience at that time, and these writings were later contained in a book we now refer to as the Bible, which continues to psychologically manipulate folks some 2000 years later, who were never targeted?

I am here to tell you, that is one incredible tale!

Not near good as "The Beverly Hillbillies". But yeah, a good tale has ya kinda suspending your beliefs, that ya might further buy into the tale.

Did Jethro really gnaw him that stump so Mrs. Drysdale'd think it was a beaver that did it? Or is it more rational to conclude those telling the tale was acarrying on?

It seems to me, there are those who are willing to believe anything at all, no matter how incredible it may be, as long as it would not involve an incredible tale, they would rather not believe.

Doesn't the claimant have some responsibilty to support their claims before we should all just set to believing em?

I mean it's readily apparent all Mrs. Drysdale's gotta do is compare the marks on the stumps to Jethro's teeth.

So we compare the claims, to the claimant's support for em. Where the claimant is incapable of showing their claims are truth, well there we go.

Yeah! We just continue to "move the goal post" don't we? In other words, since we cannot demonstrate "psychological manipulation" would be involved in the process today, we then attempt to go after the Bible. When this does not work, we then go on to attempt to "shift the burden of proof". However, could you explain to me how those writing some 2000 years ago, to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that you, and I may ever read this material, would owe anything at all to us? Therefore, since I am reading material which would have been addressed to those at the time, with no concern nor any idea that what they were writing would one day end up in the Bible, what reason would I have to doubt the content of what they wrote, other than it contains the miraculous?

[JehovahsWitness]

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

No less than for one that claims it contains "the fantastical, sense assaulting tales". From what I can see, you made such a claim; are you somehow exempt from being challenged to prove them?

A TALE

1a: a usually imaginative narrative of an event : STORY
b: an intentionally untrue report : FALSEHOOD

JW

[JoeyKnothead]

Yeah! We just continue to "move the goal post" don't we? In other words, since we cannot demonstrate "psychological manipulation" would be involved in the process today, we then attempt to go after the Bible.

I've said that con men'll attempt to manipulate folks, do you disagree?

I said in a previous post that the manipulation within the bible is - now follow me - within the bible.

The two are, while related, also not related. As you, and the observer should know, stating con artists'll manipulate is indeed separate from saying that manipulation (same) occurs within the bible itself (not same). They're two notions only touched together by their proximity to manipulation. Tie the two together, and there's the implication maybe bible writers were the con men of their day.

As bible writers built their stories, to too do we, especially in a thread where discussion is fluid and new ideas are introdueced - invoking in others their own new ideas.

When this does not work, we then go on to attempt to "shift the burden of proof".

I've clearly staked out my position on various notions I consider relevant to your posts, and this OP. I've my take on the issues, holding tightly to what I understand to be your arguments each and every time.

As you've fessed to me in PM prior difficulties, perhaps now that you've found time to debate me, maybe you'll mark you out some of that time to learn what it is I'm say.

After having twice now attemped to impugn my integrity, I'l tell it - if you can't offer me the respect, that though I may misunderstand, I don't play me no tricks to try to support my arguments, you can dang well bet you'll get you no respect back from me.

However, could you explain to me how those writing some 2000 years ago, to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that you, and I may ever read this material, would owe anything at all to us?

I never said they owe us anything, so feel no need to explain to you about what it is you think is owed.

Therefore, since I am reading material which would have been addressed to those at the time, with no concern nor any idea that what they were writing would one day end up in the Bible, what reason would I have to doubt the content of what they wrote, other than it contains the miraculous?

I don't pretend to know why you think how ya do, cept to beg anyone who reads your thoughts not to blame me for em.

I don't doubt folks'd believe tales of resurrections, and the walking on the waters, and the magically curing the blind. I just question the rationality behind those beliefs, as well as claims put forth about em.

[bluegreenearth]

Your objective seems to be to, analyze each, and every individual, in order to determine if they may have been influenced by things such as indoctrination, psychological manipulation, emotional appeals, etc. Well, I highly doubt you will be able to accomplish such a task, but I have supplied you with a list of folks, and I would be very eager to see if you could determine if at least any of these folks would have been influenced by such things?

I'll check out the YouTube video you recommended.

However, my goal on the other hand, is to demonstrate that simply because there are things such as the indoctrination process, psychological manipulation, emotional appeals, etc., this does not necessitate that one would have to experience any such thing, in order to become convinced of the Christian claims. If one is not bringing these things up in order to demonstrate that these things are the only way to become convinced of the Christian claims, then what would be the point in bringing these things into the conversation?

The point is to identify the disconfirming evidence I should expect to find if a proposed line of reasoning is unreliable.

One more thing here. In a thread here dedicated to, "double standards", I was wondering why you chose to engage me, when I do not believe I have said anything which I cannot demonstrate, and seem to ignored the comment from the quote above where this member referred to what we have in the NT as being, "spurious"?

In this particular case, I thought it would be interesting to investigate the implied claim that the lines of reasoning used by theists outside of the church would be more reliable than the lines of reasoning used by theists within the church as a tangent to the main topic of the thread. However, you make a fair point about investigating if a double-standard is being applied by an individual who concluded that the NT evidence is spurious. I'll go back and read the relevant posts to evaluate if a double-standard is being applied by that person or not.

They also go on to refer to the content of the NT as being, "religious propaganda", and "not consisting of independently verified testimony". I do not believe this person can demonstrate any of these things to be fact, and yet you seem to ignore this, and rather engage me, who has not said anything which cannot be demonstrated, by bringing into the conversation something you have not verified?

Just to clarify, a double-standard occurs when a methodology used to evaluate a particular claim for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion is not being consistently applied in the evaluation of other similar claims. What the methodology happens to include is not relevant as long as it is consistently used in the evaluation of other similar claims. Someone could have a completely unreliable methodology for evaluating a particular historical claim but will not be exhibiting a double-standard as long as this person consistently applies the same unreliable methodology to other similar historical claims. Such a person's conclusions are unlikely to be correct on account of the unreliable methodology that was used, but at least the accusation of applying a double-standard could be credibly refuted by the individual. Therefore, where double-standards are concerned, it doesn't matter what the conclusions happen to be or if they are demonstrable as long as the same evaluation methodology was consistently applied to all similar claims. So, the ability or inability to demonstrate a proposed conclusion is factual or not has no implication on whether a double-standard was being used. Accordingly, when investigating for the potential application of a double-standard, I pay attention to how the methodology is being applied and ignore the conclusions.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #308]

I've said that con men'll attempt to manipulate folks, do you disagree?

Nope!

I said in a previous post that the manipulation within the bible is - now follow me - within the bible.

I'm not sure you have demonstrated, "manipulation in the Bible"?

The two are, while related, also not related.

Con men manipulating, can only be related to the authors contained in the Bible, if one can demonstrate the authors used manipulation.

As you, and the observer should know, stating con artists'll manipulate is indeed separate from saying that manipulation (same) occurs within the bible itself (not same).

OH??? So we can't demonstrate manipulation in the Bible? Rather, all one can do, is to throw out the insinuation? So it goes like, "con men manipulate. The authors of what is contained in the Bible could be con men. Therefore, what is contained in the Bible, could be the use of manipulation"? You got any facts, and evidence to support this?

They're two notions only touched together by their proximity to manipulation. Tie the two together, and there's the implication maybe bible writers were the con men of their day.

Right! Exactly what I said above! An insinuation, without any facts, and evidence. In other words, one understands the content in the NT needs an explanation, and so we simply throw anything out there, without the first bit of facts, and evidence in support. In other words, we should ignore the facts, and evidence which support the claims, and simply accept the fact there are con men, and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, the Biblical authors were, con men?

As bible writers built their stories

I'm not sure what you mean here? How is it we have determined they "built stories" instead of simply reporting what they knew? Or, are you saying this would simply be a possibility, which we should accept without the first bit of facts, and evidence?

I've clearly staked out my position on various notions I consider relevant to your posts, and this OP. I've my take on the issues, holding tightly to what I understand to be your arguments each and every time.

So do I. Which is exactly why I am making these points.

As you've fessed to me in PM prior difficulties

Yes I have, and it seems to me you are not "funning with the language" near as much, which allows me to better to understand.

perhaps now that you've found time to debate me, maybe you'll mark you out some of that time to learn what it is I'm say.

I think I understand. There are con men. The Biblical authors could have been con men. That about right?

After having twice now attemped to impugn my integrity

If you have taken anything I have said in this way, it was not my intention. My question is, why would anyone be concerned with such a thing? I could not care less if one attempted to "impugn my integrity", because they may be correct to do so. I am more concerned as to whether what they state would be fact, concerning the actual topic. Moreover, you do not seem to mind at all, attempting to impugn the integrity of the Biblical authors, with no more evidence than, "there are con men"?

you can dang well bet you'll get you no respect back from me

If I happen to disagree with what you say, or question your motives behind it, it is not an attack on your integrity. This is a debate site. Leave your feelings with the "pretty thing".

I never said they owe us anything, so feel no need to explain to you about what it is you think is owed.

Well, when you say,

Doesn't the claimant have some responsibilty to support their claims before we should all just set to believing em?

Who is the "claimant"? It certainly is not me. I am not insisting that the claims are true. Nor, am I insisting that you, nor anyone else, "should all just set to believing em". You can believe what you want to believe. The problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist there would be no reason to believe as I do, when they cannot demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.

I don't doubt folks'd believe tales of resurrections, and the walking on the waters, and the magically curing the blind. I just question the rationality behind those beliefs, as well as claims put forth about em.

I have no problem with this in the least. I explained the problem above.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #309]

Just to clarify, a double-standard occurs when a methodology used to evaluate a particular claim for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion is not being consistently applied in the evaluation of other similar claims. What the methodology happens to include is not relevant as long as it is consistently used in the evaluation of other similar claims. Someone could have a completely unreliable methodology for evaluating a particular historical claim but will not be exhibiting a double-standard as long as this person consistently applies the same unreliable methodology to other similar historical claims. Such a person's conclusions are unlikely to be correct on account of the unreliable methodology that was used, but at least the accusation of applying a double-standard could be credibly refuted by the individual. Therefore, where double-standards are concerned, it doesn't matter what the conclusions happen to be or if they are demonstrable as long as the same evaluation methodology was consistently applied to all similar claims. So, the ability or inability to demonstrate a proposed conclusion is factual or not has no implication on whether a double-standard was being used. Accordingly, when investigating for the potential application of a double-standard, I pay attention to how the methodology is being applied and ignore the conclusions.

Okay, I'll bite! So, let's simply not refer to it as a "double standard". Would you agree that one who refers to the Biblical accounts as being "spurious, religious propaganda, and not consisting of independently verified testimony" would be operating under an "unreliable methodology".