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?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #309]
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".

You've only provided me with the person's conclusion. I have no idea what methodology was used by the person to arrive at that conclusion. The best I could find from researching the earlier posts was this:

I began visiting forums such as this to try and understand what it was that caused some to believe where I could not. Many years of asking questions and seeking what it was that compelled believers resulted in nothing. Lots of hearsay and faith. All of it cemented my conviction that religious belief is the product of indoctrination coupled with a subconscious fear of the consequences of losing that belief once it has been inculcated. Those consequences include real social loss in this life as well as the expected loss of eternal bliss.

Those quoted statements merely give a vague description of a methodology involving the asking of questions and receiving only hearsay and faith-based answers. However, there isn't anything about asking questions that is obviously unreasonable unless the questions being asked were not relevant to the purpose of the investigation.

[JoeyKnothead]

Snippages have occurred...

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"?

Rewards of eternal life for believers, slanders and threats of eternal damnation for nonbelievers.

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

See above.

OH??? So we can't demonstrate manipulation in the Bible?

See above the see above, above.

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?

See above the see above, above the see above, above.

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?

It's rational to conclude that folks who offer rewards for belief in tales that can't be shown to be true, while slandering and threating eternal punishment for those who don't, just might be con men. Yes.

I'm not sure what you mean here? How is it we have determined they "built stories" instead of simply reporting what they knew?

Cause poking sticks in the ground has never been shown to alter the colors or patterns of animal offspring.

Or, are you saying this would simply be a possibility, which we should accept without the first bit of facts, and evidence?

When folks tell of stuff that can't be shown to be true, then offer reward and punishment based on believing em or not, well how bout that.

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.
...

Biblical claimants, and those who believe em, inasmuch as here we are trying to understand double standards.

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.

Without knowing the whys of your beliefs, we're lost as a cow at a square dance regarding any double standard, one way or the other.


I remind folks, snippage occurred.

[bluegreenearth]

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.

Without knowing the whys of your beliefs, we're lost as a cow at a square dance regarding any double standard, one way or the other.

The problem here is the overwhelming majority of manuscripts written by Mohammed's companions can be demonstrated to be addressed to particular audiences at the time who would have already been believers. Therefore, we would have to believe the authors, some 1500 years ago, who were addressing audiences at the time with no concern nor any idea of any sort of Quran, were writing down information which would have nothing to do with fact but were rather an attempt to psychologically manipulate the audience at that time, and these manuscripts were later refenced in a book we now refer to as the Quaran which continues to psychologically manipulate folks some 1500 years later who were never targeted?

Oh wait... never mind.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #309]
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".

You've only provided me with the person's conclusion. I have no idea what methodology was used by the person to arrive at that conclusion. The best I could find from researching the earlier posts was this:

I began visiting forums such as this to try and understand what it was that caused some to believe where I could not. Many years of asking questions and seeking what it was that compelled believers resulted in nothing. Lots of hearsay and faith. All of it cemented my conviction that religious belief is the product of indoctrination coupled with a subconscious fear of the consequences of losing that belief once it has been inculcated. Those consequences include real social loss in this life as well as the expected loss of eternal bliss.

Those quoted statements merely give a vague description of a methodology involving the asking of questions and receiving only hearsay and faith-based answers. However, there isn't anything about asking questions that is obviously unreasonable unless the questions being asked were not relevant to the purpose of the investigation.

Okay, well how about this? In response to his statements concerning the content of the NT being "spurious, religious propaganda, which do not consist of independently verified testimony" I had this to say,

Okay, here you make two statements of fact, which you need to be able to demonstrate. First, you need to demonstrate how you have determined that what we have contained in the New Testament would not be independent testimonies? How does one determine such a thing? Exactly how are you insisting the authors would have been connected? Simply because they report much the same thing, and have been contained in the same book, which they could not have possibly known about, does not in any way demonstrate they would be connected in any sort or way. You own the burden here to demonstrate what it is you seem to be insisting.

Next, you now own the burden to demonstrate how what we have contained in the Bible would be, "propaganda"? Because you see, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be easily demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else other than the intended audience at the time, and they most certainly could not have known about any sort of Bible. So exactly how would this be considered, "propaganda"?

As you can see, I left out the "spurious" part, but this would need to be answered as well. They have yet to give an answer. Now, do you believe that one who makes such claims would be obligated to demonstrate what they have claimed, when asked?

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Without knowing the whys of your beliefs, we're lost as a cow at a square dance regarding any double standard, one way or the other.

The problem here is the overwhelming majority of manuscripts written by Mohammed's companions can be demonstrated to be addressed to particular audiences at the time who would have already been believers. Therefore, we would have to believe the authors, some 1500 years ago, who were addressing audiences at the time with no concern nor any idea of any sort of Quran, were writing down information which would have nothing to do with fact but were rather an attempt to psychologically manipulate the audience at that time, and these manuscripts were later refenced in a book we now refer to as the Quaran which continues to psychologically manipulate folks some 1500 years later who were never targeted?

Oh wait... never mind.

Had me in the first half, ngl.

Of course these religious tales were told and written before being placed in a "Greatest Hits 30bc-30ad" collection. I don't see where it really matters so far as what they included on the album.

I mean, maybe they didn't include the classic '"Muhammad Shuffle in C", or the "Jesus Reel", the point is that folks make up tales.

But yeah, ya had me all the way to the boat.

[bluegreenearth]

Okay, well how about this? In response to his statements concerning the content of the NT being "spurious, religious propaganda, which do not consist of independently verified testimony" I had this to say,

Okay, here you make two statements of fact, which you need to be able to demonstrate. First, you need to demonstrate how you have determined that what we have contained in the New Testament would not be independent testimonies? How does one determine such a thing? Exactly how are you insisting the authors would have been connected? Simply because they report much the same thing, and have been contained in the same book, which they could not have possibly known about, does not in any way demonstrate they would be connected in any sort or way. You own the burden here to demonstrate what it is you seem to be insisting.

Next, you now own the burden to demonstrate how what we have contained in the Bible would be, "propaganda"? Because you see, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be easily demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else other than the intended audience at the time, and they most certainly could not have known about any sort of Bible. So exactly how would this be considered, "propaganda"?

As you can see, I left out the "spurious" part, but this would need to be answered as well. They have yet to give an answer. Now, do you believe that one who makes such claims would be obligated to demonstrate what they have claimed, when asked?

It depends on whether your interlocutor is requiring you to believe the claims are true, expressing the claims as a personal perspective, or asking you to rule-out the possibility that the claims are true:

• If you are being asked to believe the claims are true, then your interlocutor would have the obligatory burden.

• If your interlocutor is expressing the claims as a personal perspective, there is no obligatory burden to demonstrate anything because there is no expectation that you share the same perspective.

• If you are being asked to rule-out the possibility that the claims are true, and the claims are falsifiable, then you would have the obligatory burden to rule-out the possibility by providing the necessary disconfirming evidence.

[JoeyKnothead]

...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?

It's my contention that when encountering claims such as sticks being poked in the ground changing animal, or offspring, colors or patterns, we can reasonably and logically disregard such as statements of fact, and place em into the realm of fantastical, sense assaulting claims, or tales.

Do you, Wootah, believe that poking sticks in the ground can change the color or pattern of animals, or their offspring?

[brunumb]

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.

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.

So you are happy to throw in a few examples where the indoctrination process allegedly did not lead to belief (never denied as a possibility) but are not prepared to offer an alternative for the billions of people of other faiths reaching their beliefs. Does that qualify as a double standard? If I understand correctly you claim to have reasoning behind your beliefs, but not that it means they are necessarily true. If that's the case then frankly I don't really care, and I'm wondering why anyone should care.

[William]

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.

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.

So you are happy to throw in a few examples where the indoctrination process allegedly did not lead to belief (never denied as a possibility) but are not prepared to offer an alternative for the billions of people of other faiths reaching their beliefs. Does that qualify as a double standard? If I understand correctly you claim to have reasoning behind your beliefs, but not that it means they are necessarily true. If that's the case then frankly I don't really care, and I'm wondering why anyone should care.

I think part of the realization is that a lot of Christians are claiming faith in [possible/glass half full] 'fact' rather than faith in [possible/glass half empty] 'fiction' by attempting to conflate belief with knowing.

They "know'" it is true/fact because they "believe" it is true/fact, as it sounds-out more convincing when worded that way.

aka; as "to still hold the cake one has eaten".


aka 'magic' /***

[Bradskii]

So we have a person who can't be positively identified who says he was given information {snip: irrelevant}

No, what we have is a firsthand written testimony of an eyewitness. It rests for those hearing/reading it to decide if it is truthful or not. The witness's evident wish to remain anonymous to those not directly related to events is irrelent.

I don't think that you know what second hand means. If you testify to something then that's first hand. If I tell you something and you testify to it then that is second hand. We can't possibly know if person was an eyewitness as he is anonymous. That is, we don't know who he was. That's kinda relevant.