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 #350]

Yet you promote the Christian religion.

How in the world do I "promote the Christian religion"? Being here on this site, debating folks who are opposed, is not in any way "promoting the Christian religion".

When I said, "It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "supernatural", this was in response to you saying,

Why accept one religion based on the supernatural

The point was, my acceptance of Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with the "supernatural".

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #349
This conversation continues to get better, and better, as we go. In the end, you really have no real objective objections to the truth of Christianity. Rather, you appeal to science, and object to the behavior of Christians, neither of which have a thing in the world to do with Christianity being true, or false.

Do you think it's true that Jesus walked on water?

Do you think it's true Jesus rose crom the dead?

Do you think it's true poking sticks in the ground will change the color of animal?

I submit dor the observer that your xontinued reticence to adress these Christian claima is because they will show the irrational thinking of rhe Christian. Especially where Realworldjack continue to claim there's "reason to believe" in what in any other book would be labeled fairy tales.

The topic we are debating, is outside the realm of science.

Od course supernatural claims are outside the realm of science. But we can bet good money if science could support supernatural claims, you'd be ahuffing and apuffing science's support.

Science, has not, and cannot demonstrate whether an historical event such as a resurrection has occurred.

Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?

In determining where double standars may apply, I consider your answer here fundamental in seeking to determine if you, a Christian, ain't employing double standards

You carry on about how reasonable are Christian beliefs, but you just cant quite allow yourself to answer this most basic, most core Christian belief.

It's my contention that you won't admit to believing it, because such a belief is an embarrassment to rational thought.

Snip repetitive commentary

...So then, it seems you have put your faith in science, to answer a question which is not even in the realm of science, to be able to answer.

Actually, I put my heretofore wasted faith in you answering rhe following questions...

Do you believe Jesus walked on water.

Do you believe Jesus came back to life?

Do you believe poking sticks in the ground changes the colors of animals?

Your next objections simply seems to be the behavior of Christians, and I could not agree with you more. However, I do not see how the behavior of Christians would have a thing in the world to do with the content of the NT being true, of false?

I presented such in response to your comments regarding why skeptics might still be questioning Christian claims lo, these two thousand years after first declaring em.

Snip yet more unconfirmable claims.

Conclusions?

What should we think of the Christian who won't, here in debate, answer questions that directly get at claims of Christian belief being reasonable?

Motivation is of course difficult to assess, but here in a topic regarding double standards, it's my contention that avoiding these most basic, fundamental questions is sound indication the claims are unsupportable, unreasoned, illogical, and downright goofy.

And then to carry on as if Christian claims and beliefs are "reasoned" or "reasonable", that's where the double standard kicks in... Refusing to accept that...


Folks can't walk on water.

Dead folks stay dead.

Poking sticks in the ground doesn't change the colors of animals.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #353]

Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?

In determining where double standars may apply, I consider your answer here fundamental in seeking to determine if you, a Christian, ain't employing double standards

You carry on about how reasonable are Christian beliefs, but you just cant quite allow yourself to answer this most basic, most core Christian belief.

It's my contention that you won't admit to believing it, because such a belief is an embarrassment to rational thought.

How in the world have I not answered this question? I am absolutely convinced Jesus was raised from the dead, based upon the facts, and evidence involved. What we call the Gospels is the story of the life of Jesus, leading up to the crucifixion, and resurrection. Walking on water, and other such events, would simply be minor details. In other words, if Jesus did indeed rise from death, walking on water would be a minor detail leading up to such an event. With this being the case, I accept the story as being accurate, but the walking on water would pale in comparison to the resurrection.

So then, I have not been avoiding answering this question, because it has been my argument all along. In other words, I am indeed absolutely convinced of the truth of the resurrection claims, and my argument has been, there would be facts, evidence, and reason in support of this position, which you fail to address. Rather, you avoid addressing these things I bring up, and rather appeal to science, and the behavior of Christians, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the claims made in the NT.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #343]

In my last post, I neglected to respond to all that was said. Allow me to correct that here.

Nevertheless, I accept the differences between the Koran and the NT

Of course you do now, because you have no choice. But for some reason a few post ago, you seem to be suggesting they were pretty much the same?

I was already aware of the differences you described but didn't bother taking those differences very seriously at the time because my comment was obviously intended as light-hearted humor rather than as a serious objection or argument. By all means, you are invited to suggest another non-Christian text containing accounts of the paranormal or the supernatural that would be more analogous to the NT letters. If your line of reasoning is consistently applied, shouldn't it provide you with a sufficient justification to accept the paranormal or supernatural claims documented in that analogous text as historical and true?

[JoeyKnothead]

How in the world have I not answered this question?

If ya did, I missed it.

I am absolutely convinced Jesus was raised from the dead, based upon the facts, and evidence involved.

What facts lead you to believe folks can rise from the dead?

What we call the Gospels is the story of the life of Jesus, leading up to the crucifixion, and resurrection. Walking on water, and other such events, would simply be minor details.

I consider "minor" to be a subjective term, but all the same...

What facts can you present to support the belief / contention that folks can walk on water?

Snip duplicative comments

So then, I have not been avoiding answering this question, because it has been my argument all along. In other words, I am indeed absolutely convinced of the truth of the resurrection claims, and my argument has been, there would be facts, evidence, and reason in support of this position, which you fail to address.

I can't address facts that you've yet to put in evidence regarding the resurrecting, and the water walking. Remember, the bible is not authoritative in this regard, within this section of the site.

Rather, you avoid addressing these things I bring up, and rather appeal to science, and the behavior of Christians, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the claims made in the NT.

As I said before, regarding your kinda wondering why skeptics are to this day challenging these Christian claims, I do so in order for the reader to see how scant, to non-existent such evidence is about em. And how based on magical belief so Many Christians seek to impose their beliefs on others through force of law. Up to and including laws designed to restrict the rights of homosexuals, and the rights of women to decide what happens with their own bodies.

I do address these claims, when I challenge their veracity, and notice how weak arguments are in support of em.

As well, as these are claims of the Christian, I'm not bound to refute em, but am allowed to challenge em, per site rules.

I consider such pertinent to the OP, where we're fussing over double standards. So many Christians want the right to believe as they wish, but then seek to deny others their rights to believe as they wish (homosexuals, women).

There's the double standard regarding that bit.


"Oh", he said in a poor impression of Columbo, "one more question"...

Do you believe that poking sticks in the ground will change the color of animals?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #343]

In my last post, I neglected to respond to all that was said. Allow me to correct that here.

Nevertheless, I accept the differences between the Koran and the NT

Of course you do now, because you have no choice. But for some reason a few post ago, you seem to be suggesting they were pretty much the same?

I was already aware of the differences you described but didn't bother taking those differences very seriously at the time because my comment was obviously intended as light-hearted humor rather than as a serious objection or argument. By all means, you are invited to suggest another non-Christian text containing accounts of the paranormal or the supernatural that would be more analogous to the NT letters. If your line of reasoning is consistently applied, shouldn't it provide you with a sufficient justification to accept the paranormal or supernatural claims documented in that analogous text as historical and true?

I'd propose that oral traditions of any other supernatural claims / religions should be considered here as well. I propose such in light of "eyewitness" claims that were passed on orally, as opposed to written down sometime, somewhere, by the original "eyewitness".

Where's the cutoff regarding what supernatural claims should be considered legit? Is there a cutoff?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #355]

I was already aware of the differences you described but didn't bother taking those differences very seriously at the time because my comment was obviously intended as light-hearted humor rather than as a serious objection or argument.

Okay, I am fine with this concession. Therefore, when you made these comments,

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?

So, you were not serious about this in the least? Would this also mean that you understand that such a comparison would not matter in the least? I understand this to be the case, which is why you will never see me make such a comparison. However, when there are those who would like to make such a comparison, I am more than willing to oblige, and it seems sort of strange that every time this occurs, the one who wanted to make such a comparison, quickly understands it was not a very good idea.

So then, would you agree that it is a completely illegitimate argument to attempt to compare one claim, against another claim, when the one claim would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other?

By all means, you are invited to suggest another non-Christian text containing accounts of the paranormal or the supernatural that would be more analogous to the NT letters.

I am not aware of any other religious texts which would be "analogous to the NT letters". Are you? If so, I will be glad to consider them.

If your line of reasoning is consistently applied, shouldn't it provide you with a sufficient justification to accept the paranormal or supernatural claims documented in that analogous text as historical and true?

Again, I am not aware of any these "analogous texts" you may be referring to? Maybe you can help me out by supplying one, since we seem to agree that the Koran would not be an "analogous text"? Next, I did not, and do not accept the Christian claims based upon, "the paranormal or supernatural claims". Rather, these things would be what would cause me to pause concerning the claims. It is when I move on past these things to actually analyze, 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 for the claims to be false, where I no longer had any reason to pause.

Next, I do not, and could not have possibly rejected every other claim which may include the "paranormal or supernatural" because I could not have possibly considered them all. However, and again, I would not have to know a thing about any of them, in order to understand if there would be very good reasons to believe the Christian claims. You see, the thing is, I am not the one who is insisting that what I believe must, and has to be correct, while all other claims, must, and has to be false.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #355]
So, you were not serious about this in the least? Would this also mean that you understand that such a comparison would not matter in the least? I understand this to be the case, which is why you will never see me make such a comparison. However, when there are those who would like to make such a comparison, I am more than willing to oblige, and it seems sort of strange that every time this occurs, the one who wanted to make such a comparison, quickly understands it was not a very good idea.

So then, would you agree that it is a completely illegitimate argument to attempt to compare one claim, against another claim, when the one claim would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other?

The intention was not to compare two different claims against each other but to compare the methodology you use when investigating the claims from the Koran to the methodology you applied in the investigation of the claims from the NT letters. I have not been able to establish that you are applying your methodology consistently because you seem to have difficulty describing it such that it can be replicated for use in the analysis of claims other than those from the NT letters. If your methodology for investigating the claims in the NT letters is so unique that it can only ever be used when examining those particular documents, then you must be applying a different methodology in your investigation of other claims. So, is the methodology you are applying to the NT letters the same methodology you are applying to other texts or not?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #356]

What facts lead you to believe folks can rise from the dead?

I have never suggested that I "believe folks can rise from the dead". Rather, I am convinced by the facts, and evidence involved that Jesus did in fact die, and was raised from death. As far as the facts, and evidence is concerned, as I have said over, and over, there have been book volumes wrote on the reasons there would be to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and for one to ask one to supply such evidence here on this site, would be to demonstrate one who seems to be under the impression that it is all so simple, when it is not that simple in the least. In other words, it is not as simple as a lot of Christians make it out to be when they say things like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it". However, it is also not as simple as, "dead folks stay dead". Or, "Christians behave badly". Or, "science says it, I believe it, and that settles it". All of these responses demonstrate one who is under the impression that it is all so simple, and those who are opposed to what it is I think, must have a thinking problem.

Meanwhile, here in the "real world", there are those of us who understand it is not that simple at all. Therefore, we are fine sharing with others what we believe, along with why we believe as we do, not insisting that we must, and have to be correct, but are rather willing to listen, and consider the arguments of those opposed, without insisting there would be no reason involved in the conclusions they may have come to.

Moreover, in this thread, I have supplied you with at least some of the reasons I believe as I do, and you have failed to address any one of these points, but have rather appealed to science, along with the behavior of Christians, neither of which has anything to do with the facts, and evidence I have supplied.

What facts can you present to support the belief / contention that folks can walk on water?

Again, there have been book volumes authored on the reasons there would be to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. Therefore, I could not possibly supply you with all the reasons I am convinced this to be true. However, I have in fact supplied you with some of these reasons, and you have failed to address these reasons, and have rather appealed to science, and the behavior of Christians. This would be like me giving you facts, and evidence in support of man walking on the moon, and you going on to insist that I give you facts, and evidence in support of how we actually made such a travel.

My point is, the reports we have, are simply the events which lead up to the crucifixion, and death of Jesus, along with the resurrection. I am giving you at least some of these facts, and evidence, which you ignore, and now you want me to give you facts, and evidence to support the walking on water, which would really be beside the point, if there were facts, and evidence to support the resurrection. Again, if Jesus was resurrected, walking on water would be a minor detail, don't you think?

Again, you continue to act as if all one has to do is to dismiss the claims based on the claims being astounding, when nothing could be further from the truth. The thing is, there would have to be a whole lot involved in order for these claims to be false, and thus far I have failed to see where you have offered any sort of scenario which may explain the facts, and evidence we have.

I can't address facts that you've yet to put in evidence regarding the resurrecting, and the water walking. Remember, the bible is not authoritative in this regard, within this section of the site.

I have given you the fact that we know Paul would have existed, and he would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have meet with those who would have been eyewitnesses to what they were proclaiming, and all you did there was to suggest that maybe Paul may not have existed, which would cause the whole thing to become even more astounding. But, I am certainly use to you simply rejecting the astounding, by excepting anything else at all, no matter how astounding it may be, as long as it does not involve what you would rather not believe.

As I said before, regarding your kinda wondering why skeptics are to this day challenging these Christian claims, I do so in order for the reader to see how scant, to non-existent such evidence is about em.

Well, you are not doing a very good job. In fact, the more I converse with folks such as yourself, the more confident I am in the position I hold.

And how based on magical belief so Many Christians seek to impose their beliefs on others through force of law. Up to and including laws designed to restrict the rights of homosexuals, and the rights of women to decide what happens with their own bodies.

You need to save these comments for the Christians who behave in such a way. I have already demonstrated I agree with you on this, and for you to continue to bring it up, is not in any way helping your argument.

I do address these claims, when I challenge their veracity, and notice how weak arguments are in support of em.

You need to do more than "notice". You actually need to demonstrate this to be the case, and thus far you are failing miserably.

As well, as these are claims of the Christian, I'm not bound to refute em, but am allowed to challenge em, per site rules.

I can tell you this, it is not in any way a challenge for you to appeal to science, or the behavior of Christians, neither of which challenge the Christian claims.

I consider such pertinent to the OP, where we're fussing over double standards. So many Christians want the right to believe as they wish, but then seek to deny others their rights to believe as they wish (homosexuals, women).

There's the double standard regarding that bit.

Again, save it for the Christians this may apply to, because I have demonstrated it does not apply here.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #359]

The intention was not to compare two different claims against each other but to compare the methodology you use when investigating the claims from the Koran to the methodology you applied in the investigation of the claims from the NT letters.

No matter what the intention, I think we have clearly demonstrated that bringing up such comparisons demonstrates nothing either way. Moreover, I believe we also have discovered, it may be best for at least some, not to attempt to bring up the comparison at all, because when we actually make such comparisons, we quickly find out it may not go well for the one who would like to make the comparison.

As far as the "methodology I use when investigating the claims from the Koran", I have not investigated the Koran, and know very little about what it may have to say, or if there would be any facts, and evidence in support of what it might claim. Therefore, I could not possibly reject the Koran as being false, because I would have no idea. However, I do not have to know a thing at all about the Koran, nor any other religion in the world, in order to determine if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims.

I have not been able to establish that you are applying your methodology consistently because you seem to have difficulty describing it such that it can be replicated for use in the analysis of claims other than those from the NT letters.

That is exactly because I have only studied the NT, and have not studied any other religion. Therefore, I could not possibly reject another religion as being false, if I have not studied that particular religion.