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 JoeyKnothead in post #0]

What I'm saying is that the inclusion of claims that can't be shown to be true - that defy what we know about the world, should lead us to conclude these tales are unreliable as to truth, or historical value.

My friend, if you would like to stop at the point where the "astounding" comes in, and simply dismiss the claims based upon this alone, I have no problem with this in the least. The problem comes in, when there are those who choose to stop right there, who then seem to want to insist that I should hold the same position. Because you see, although you would be correct to say these claims have not been shown to be true, they have also not been shown to be false. I am more than willing to analyze any sort of facts, and evidence you may have which would point to these claims as being false. However, simply citing that the claims would be "astounding", while giving another explanation which would be "astounding" as well, simply is not going to cut it.

If you can't think of any sort of scenario where these works would be based on fiction, you display an -ahem- astounding lack of imagination,

Ahem? You are making my point! This is sort of comical, because as a Christian, I have been accused of having to use my imagination in order to be a Christian, when this is not the case in the least. In other words, in order to read the content of the NT exactly the way in which it has been written, requires no imagination at all. However, as you have just demonstrated, in order for me to dismiss the claims, I would have to have a traffic imagination, in an attempt to come up with scenarios which may explain the events we have, which would not be "astounding". So then, I think we can clearly see the side which must use the, "imagination"!

and an astounding inability to see this problem through anything but the rose colored glasses of theistic hopes and prayers.

You have a problem here. Whether you would like to believe it, or not, I would much rather not believe the claims. I mean, if one truly understands Christianity, I cannot imagine such a person, wanting to believe the claims. The problem I have is, after years now, I have not heard any sort of explanation of the facts, and evidence we have, which would not include the "astounding". Therefore, I see no need in rejecting one "astounding" explanation, for the sake of excepting another "astounding" explanation. Moreover, we do indeed have facts, and evidence in support of the "astounding" claims made in the NT, while I am being ask to reject this "astounding" explanation, with the facts, and evidence involved, in order to accept another "astounding" explanation, with not a shred of facts, and evidence in support, other than, "dead folks, stay dead".

Further evidence the theist will hold fast to their god concept in spite of possible alternative explanations for tales of events that can't be shown to have occurred.

As far as I remember, you have not offered any "alternative explanation"? I will be more than happy to consider it, but I would have to hear it first. In other words, I can't just use my, "imagination" here.

We shouldn't examine these "letters" on a table separate from the magical claims they contain.

I certainly am not asking anyone to do such a thing. Again, if there are those who would like to stop as soon as they read the "astounding", I have no problem with that in the least. My problem comes in when I sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and either way I am left with an "astounding" tale, which draws me to the conclusion that I cannot make a determination based upon what would be, "astounding", because either way I go, I am left with the "astounding". Unless of course, you are prepared to supply me with an explanation of the facts, and evidence we have, which would not include the, "astounding"?

It's a common enough tactic to include references to true, albeit mundane stuff, in order to give credence to claims that make a farce of reality.

Are you claiming it would be a fact that the NT authors used this "tactic"? Or, are you simply saying it would be a "plausible" explanation? I would be more than happy, as I have time, to work with you through how "plausible" it would be.

Plausibility ain't fact.

Back at ya, my friend! In other words, simply saying that it is "plausible" to think the claims in the NT would not be true, "ain't" making it a fact.

[Realworldjack]

This is pretty simple I think. Here is exactly what was said,

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.

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT would be, "spurious", (not being what it purports to be; false or fake) would this person be obligated to demonstrate this claim to be correct?

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT, "do not consist of independently verified testimony" would this person be obligated to demonstrate this claim to be correct?

If one is claiming the accounts in the NT would be "religious propaganda" would this person be obligated to demonstrate this to be correct?

If you go on to claim that this person does not specify that he would be referring to the claims of the NT, then his points have no bight in the least. Therefore, he is referring to the NT as being, "spurious" (not being what it purports to be; false or fake) "not consisting of independently verified testimony" along with being, "religious propaganda", or there is no point to be made.

The question then is, does this person own the burden to demonstrate the claims they are making? Or, is it that they really do not specify it would be the NT they are referring to, and therefore have no real point?

The word "Unless" from the start of the quote suggests to me that the statement which follows it will be describing a logically possible criterion under which the line of reasoning it was responding to would be unreliable. Therefore, if it is a logical possibility that the NT could be "spurious accounts and letters which do not consist of independently verified testimony collated in a book of religious propaganda," then would it not be responsible to try and rule-out that possibility before accepting the line of reasoning which concludes the NT is a reliable source?

Okay? So then, the author is not insisting that the content of the NT would be, "spurious, do not consist of independently verified testimony", or that it would be "religious propaganda"? Rather, they are simply suggesting this to be a possibility? Well then, why do we not simply stop at the agreement that, it is possible the NT would be true, and it is also possible for the NT to be false? Allow me to explain why we do not simply stop right here with this agreement. It is because, as a Christian, I would not be allowed to simply say what would be possible. Rather, I would be required to give some sort of facts, and evidence to support what I claimed to be a possibility. However, it seems to me, it is perfectly fine for those opposed to simply throw out any other possible explanation, no matter how incredible, without the first shred of evidence in support, nor even going through what all would have to be involved in order for such a scenario to even be possible.

So then, while I am more than happy to consider any possibility which would involve the content of the NT as being false, I would need a little more than it simply being possible.

[Realworldjack]

So while there are certainly those who love to make the comparison between the two, when we actually sit down and do the comparison, what we discover is, there is really no comparison in the least. On the one hand we have the Koran which is said to be revealed information addressed to no one in particular. On the other hand, the NT is the result of the authors simply living out their lives, not claiming the information was revealed to them, but rather claiming to have witnessed historical events. Historical events can be investigated. Whether one actually received certain revelations, not so much.

Is it your line of reasoning that all letters that are addressed to an individual person or a specific group of people by an anonymous author who testifies to having carefully investigated the claims of a charismatic leader from the beginning and proceeds to describe miraculous events surrounding this charismatic leader's life before closing with instructions to believers at the time of how they should now live in light of those events should be regarded as reliable sources?

GOOD GRIEF! Where would you get such an idea? The information I was giving, was a comparison between the information contained in the Koran, as opposed to the information we have in the NT. The NT is based upon, multiple authors, writing multiple letters, addressed to multiple audiences, which were the by product of the authors living out their lives, while the Koran is simply a copying of what one had to say. One is based upon historical events, in multiple letters, by multiple authors, addressed to multiple audiences at the time. The other is based upon the copying of what one person had to say, was revealed to them. Let us also recall, it was not me who wanted to make the comparison, but rather it was you. You want to make such a comparison, and when I go on to actually make the comparison, instead of you attempting to defend the comparison you initiated, you now want to suggest that I am attempting to suggest, this comparison should cause one to, regard the NT as reliable?

It is tedious to continue to explain the same thing, over, and over again. I am not insisting, suggesting, insinuating, etc., that you, or anyone else should, regard the NT as a reliable source. Whatever you regard the NT to be, is of no concern to me. The problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist, I would have no reason to consider the content of the NT to be reliable, when they are admitting the fact that they are not, do not, and cannot, demonstrate the content to be unreliable, while going on to concede, the content of the NT could in fact be reliable.

Here is the problem. I would need some sort of facts, evidence, and reasons to doubt the claims made in the NT. If you are a thinking person, (which I know you are) then I do not expect that you will be able to give me all the facts, evidence, and reasons you may have for doubting the claims here in a single post. With that being said, I do understand, and realize, that you have performed an extensive amount of work concerning these things in "members notes", to which I give you credit, and high praise. However, after reading pretty much all you have to say in the "members notes", it just does not do it for me. While I would love to go through and discuss each, and every point you make, that would be an enormous task, which would take months, and months.

However, even with the extensive amount of work you have preformed, you still do not even seem to have convinced yourself, the content of the NT, must, and has to be false. This seems to demonstrate exactly what I have been saying all along, in that it is not as simple as a lot of folks on both sides, make it out to be. It other words, it is not as simple as, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it". On the other hand, it certainly is not as simple as, "the claims are to extraordinary to believe". It is far more complicated than either of the above.

With all the above being said, I am perfectly fine with whatever position others may hold, as long as they do not go on to insist, I would have no reason to hold my position, unless they can offer something other than possibilities, I have already considered, which have no facts, and evidence in support, along with the fact that they still concede themselves, the possibility of the NT being reliable.

[bluegreenearth]

GOOD GRIEF! Where would you get such an idea?

Take up your objection with the person who wrote the following:

Next, while the Koran is focused upon how one should live their lives in order to please God, the Gospels are focused upon what is claimed to be historical events, in which one of the authors assures his audience, had been, "carefully investigated from the beginning". Moreover, what we have in the Koran, is claimed to have come from God, while the NT is not claiming to be information which came from God, but rather an account of historical events. In other words, the Gospels are accounts of historical events, which lead up to the resurrection, with the letters after the Gospels giving instruction to believers at the time, of how one should now live, in light of those events.

[Realworldjack]

GOOD GRIEF! Where would you get such an idea?

Take up your objection with the person who wrote the following:

Next, while the Koran is focused upon how one should live their lives in order to please God, the Gospels are focused upon what is claimed to be historical events, in which one of the authors assures his audience, had been, "carefully investigated from the beginning". Moreover, what we have in the Koran, is claimed to have come from God, while the NT is not claiming to be information which came from God, but rather an account of historical events. In other words, the Gospels are accounts of historical events, which lead up to the resurrection, with the letters after the Gospels giving instruction to believers at the time, of how one should now live, in light of those events.

I have no objection to what the author of the above has to say, because the author is simply giving a comparison between the Koran, and the NT, which is not an insistence upon the NT as being a reliable source.

Moreover, the author above is not the one who wanted to make such a comparison. Rather, that would have been you! However, instead of attempting to defend the comparison you were attempting to make, you now seem to want to insist the author above, was somehow attempting to insist the NT would be a reliable source, when this would not have been the objective in the least.

[bluegreenearth]

GOOD GRIEF! Where would you get such an idea?

Take up your objection with the person who wrote the following:

Next, while the Koran is focused upon how one should live their lives in order to please God, the Gospels are focused upon what is claimed to be historical events, in which one of the authors assures his audience, had been, "carefully investigated from the beginning". Moreover, what we have in the Koran, is claimed to have come from God, while the NT is not claiming to be information which came from God, but rather an account of historical events. In other words, the Gospels are accounts of historical events, which lead up to the resurrection, with the letters after the Gospels giving instruction to believers at the time, of how one should now live, in light of those events.

I have no objection to what the author of the above has to say, because the author is simply giving a comparison between the Koran, and the NT, which is not an insistence upon the NT as being a reliable source.

Moreover, the author above is not the one who wanted to make such a comparison. Rather, that would have been you! However, instead of attempting to defend the comparison you were attempting to make, you now seem to want to insist the author above, was somehow attempting to insist the NT would be a reliable source, when this would not have been the objective in the least.

Fair enough. However, if your response to the comparison was not to argue in favor of the NT being more reliable than the Koran, then what would be the significance of describing the differences between them?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #0]

What I'm saying is that the inclusion of claims that can't be shown to be true - that defy what we know about the world, should lead us to conclude these tales are unreliable as to truth, or historical value.

My friend, if you would like to stop at the point where the "astounding" comes in, and simply dismiss the claims based upon this alone, I have no problem with this in the least. The problem comes in, when there are those who choose to stop right there, who then seem to want to insist that I should hold the same position. Because you see, although you would be correct to say these claims have not been shown to be true, they have also not been shown to be false. I am more than willing to analyze any sort of facts, and evidence you may have which would point to these claims as being false. However, simply citing that the claims would be "astounding", while giving another explanation which would be "astounding" as well, simply is not going to cut it.

What's so astounding about dead folks being em real good at it?

If you can't think of any sort of scenario where these works would be based on fiction, you display an -ahem- astounding lack of imagination,

Ahem? You are making my point! This is sort of comical, because as a Christian, I have been accused of having to use my imagination in order to be a Christian, when this is not the case in the least. In other words, in order to read the content of the NT exactly the way in which it has been written, requires no imagination at all. However, as you have just demonstrated, in order for me to dismiss the claims, I would have to have a traffic imagination, in an attempt to come up with scenarios which may explain the events we have, which would not be "astounding". So then, I think we can clearly see the side which must use the, "imagination"!

How terrific an imagination must one have to accept the fact that poking sticks in the ground won't change an animal's colors?

and an astounding inability to see this problem through anything but the rose colored glasses of theistic hopes and prayers.

You have a problem here. Whether you would like to believe it, or not, I would much rather not believe the claims. I mean, if one truly understands Christianity, I cannot imagine such a person, wanting to believe the claims. The problem I have is, after years now, I have not heard any sort of explanation of the facts, and evidence we have, which would not include the "astounding". Therefore, I see no need in rejecting one "astounding" explanation, for the sake of excepting another "astounding" explanation. Moreover, we do indeed have facts, and evidence in support of the "astounding" claims made in the NT, while I am being ask to reject this "astounding" explanation, with the facts, and evidence involved, in order to accept another "astounding" explanation, with not a shred of facts, and evidence in support, other than, "dead folks, stay dead".

The medical literature is quite clear on this, death is a temininal affliction.

Further evidence the theist will hold fast to their god concept in spite of possible alternative explanations for tales of events that can't be shown to have occurred.

As far as I remember, you have not offered any "alternative explanation"? I will be more than happy to consider it, but I would have to hear it first. In other words, I can't just use my, "imagination" here.

Ever hafta wait an interminable amount of time at the Piggly Wiggly awaiting on some dead guy to count out his change for a two dollar ham hock?

Ever see a surfer trip over some guy walking across a wave?

Ever see a cow change colors because someone poked a stick in the ground?

We shouldn't examine these "letters" on a table separate from the magical claims they contain.

I certainly am not asking anyone to do such a thing. Again, if there are those who would like to stop as soon as they read the "astounding", I have no problem with that in the least. My problem comes in when I sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and either way I am left with an "astounding" tale, which draws me to the conclusion that I cannot make a determination based upon what would be, "astounding", because either way I go, I am left with the "astounding". Unless of course, you are prepared to supply me with an explanation of the facts, and evidence we have, which would not include the, "astounding"?

You're trying to defend belief in supernatural claims as somehow on a par with beliefs that don't rely on "eyewitnesses" we can't ask about any of their claims.

It's a common enough tactic to include references to true, albeit mundane stuff, in order to give credence to claims that make a farce of reality.

Are you claiming it would be a fact that the NT authors used this "tactic"? Or, are you simply saying it would be a "plausible" explanation? I would be more than happy, as I have time, to work with you through how "plausible" it would be.

That's the most reasonable and logical conclusion, barring outright fraud.

Plausibility ain't fact.

Back at ya, my friend! In other words, simply saying that it is "plausible" to think the claims in the NT would not be true, "ain't" making it a fact.

What's fact is that dead folks don't go shopping for ham hocks.

[Realworldjack]

GOOD GRIEF! Where would you get such an idea?

Take up your objection with the person who wrote the following:

Next, while the Koran is focused upon how one should live their lives in order to please God, the Gospels are focused upon what is claimed to be historical events, in which one of the authors assures his audience, had been, "carefully investigated from the beginning". Moreover, what we have in the Koran, is claimed to have come from God, while the NT is not claiming to be information which came from God, but rather an account of historical events. In other words, the Gospels are accounts of historical events, which lead up to the resurrection, with the letters after the Gospels giving instruction to believers at the time, of how one should now live, in light of those events.

I have no objection to what the author of the above has to say, because the author is simply giving a comparison between the Koran, and the NT, which is not an insistence upon the NT as being a reliable source.

Moreover, the author above is not the one who wanted to make such a comparison. Rather, that would have been you! However, instead of attempting to defend the comparison you were attempting to make, you now seem to want to insist the author above, was somehow attempting to insist the NT would be a reliable source, when this would not have been the objective in the least.

Fair enough. However, if your response to the comparison was not to argue in favor of the NT being more reliable than the Koran, then what would be the significance of describing the differences between them?

How about the fact that you were the first to attempt to make the comparison, by attempting to suggest the two would be pretty much the same. I never would initiate making the comparison, but am more than happy to do the comparison when there are those who would like to do so. What we ended up seeing was there is indeed a tremendous difference between the two. Does this demonstrate the one would be more reliable than the other? Well, I do not see how it would. However, when one decides they want to make such a comparison, in order to make the argument the two would be pretty much the same, I think it is worth the time to demonstrate just how different they really are.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #338]

You are demonstrating the fact that you simply would like to stop when you arrive to the "astounding". As I have said, I have no problem with the position you take. The problem is, the position you hold does not in any way demonstrate there would be no reason to hold the opposing position.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #338]

You are demonstrating the fact that you simply would like to stop when you arrive to the "astounding". As I have said, I have no problem with the position you take. The problem is, the position you hold does not in any way demonstrate there would be no reason to hold the opposing position.

You're the one who seems so stuck on the term, but let's go with that, as you address the following...

What is so astounding about dead people staying dead?

What is so astounding about poking sticks in the ground doesn't change an animal's coloring?

What is so astounding about folks not being able to walk on water?

Why do you reject these facts when you assert Christian belief ain't based on double standards?