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]

You continue to ask for evidence in support of the claims, and the letters we have contained in the NT would be evidence. Not only have I referred to these writings as evidence, I have went on to demonstrate how one could reasonably conclude the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. We know it to be a fact that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. Therefore, if the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, (which the evidence overwhelmingly supports), then we have an author, of one of what we refer to as the Gospels, being alive at the time of Jesus, acquainted with Paul, and more importantly the other Apostles, who would have been witnesses, which means this author may have very well substantiated everything he wrote, just as he assured Theophilus that he had done.

One can base it solely upon the facts we have. You know, like the fact this author was addressing an audience at the time, who could have very well verified what was being said? Or, the fact that the author actually tells his audience at the time that he had in fact, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning"? Or like the fact, this author begins his second letter reporting on the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to focus upon the actions of Paul, when the journeys of Paul begins, and does not report on the Apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them? Or like the fact, that this author actually begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when reporting on the events of Paul's travels, as if he were there to actually witness the events he records? Or like the fact that we have letters in which the author certainly claims to be Paul, and he goes on to mention the name of Luke being with him on his travels? Or, like the fact, in one of the letters attributed to Paul, which would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, this author states to his audience at the time, "only Luke is with me"? Or, like the fact, the author of the second letter, just so happens to end his second letter with Paul being under arrest?

Despite anticipating the accusation that I am straw-manning your methodology, I've decided to make an attempt at reverse-engineering a potential methodology based on your earlier argument for no other reason than to provide myself something to work with while I wait for you to supply me with your actual methodology. Given your argument above, I can at least make an educated guess at what some elements of your methodology might be:

Step 1 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts would have been alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred.
Reasoning - Authors who were alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred may be more reliable than people who were not alive or in the area at the time but reporting on what they heard from other people.

Step 2 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts may have been writing to a particular contemporary audience at the time.
Reasoning - A contemporary audience is presumed to have had the interest, time, and resources available to verify the accuracy of the information provided in those authors' reports.

*So far, these are the only two potential components of your methodology I am able to reverse-engineer from the content of your argument. I will continue to dig through your older posts for other relevant source material from which to identify any additional steps that might be included in your methodology. Of course, you are always welcome to provide me your methodology rather than have me construct one based on your earlier posts.

[William]

You continue to ask for evidence in support of the claims, and the letters we have contained in the NT would be evidence. Not only have I referred to these writings as evidence, I have went on to demonstrate how one could reasonably conclude the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. We know it to be a fact that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. Therefore, if the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, (which the evidence overwhelmingly supports), then we have an author, of one of what we refer to as the Gospels, being alive at the time of Jesus, acquainted with Paul, and more importantly the other Apostles, who would have been witnesses, which means this author may have very well substantiated everything he wrote, just as he assured Theophilus that he had done.

One can base it solely upon the facts we have. You know, like the fact this author was addressing an audience at the time, who could have very well verified what was being said? Or, the fact that the author actually tells his audience at the time that he had in fact, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning"? Or like the fact, this author begins his second letter reporting on the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to focus upon the actions of Paul, when the journeys of Paul begins, and does not report on the Apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them? Or like the fact, that this author actually begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when reporting on the events of Paul's travels, as if he were there to actually witness the events he records? Or like the fact that we have letters in which the author certainly claims to be Paul, and he goes on to mention the name of Luke being with him on his travels? Or, like the fact, in one of the letters attributed to Paul, which would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, this author states to his audience at the time, "only Luke is with me"? Or, like the fact, the author of the second letter, just so happens to end his second letter with Paul being under arrest?

Despite anticipating the accusation that I am straw-manning your methodology, I've decided to make an attempt at reverse-engineering a potential methodology based on your earlier argument for no other reason than to provide myself something to work with while I wait for you to supply me with your actual methodology. Given your argument above, I can at least make an educated guess at what some elements of your methodology might be:

Step 1 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts would have been alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred.
Reasoning - Authors who were alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred may be more reliable than people who were not alive or in the area at the time but reporting on what they heard from other people.

Step 2 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts may have been writing to a particular contemporary audience at the time.
Reasoning - A contemporary audience is presumed to have had the interest, time, and resources available to verify the accuracy of the information provided in those authors' reports.

*So far, these are the only two potential components of your methodology I am able to reverse-engineer from the content of your argument. I will continue to dig through your older posts for other relevant source material from which to identify any additional steps that might be included in your methodology. Of course, you are always welcome to provide me your methodology rather than have me construct one based on your earlier posts.

I have been doing similar work with a Christian at the moment, who is rather frugal with his sharing on methodology and explaining his actual beliefs [for there are so many differing beliefs among Christians] as a handy means of processing the data and feeding it back to them in non-assumptive bytes.

This way, possible strawmen are avoided and thus time saved and channeled into more productive and constructive pursuits...rather than being misplaced in an effort to squeeze out helpful information, given too sparsely to be of any immediate usefulness.

[Realworldjack]

You continue to ask for evidence in support of the claims, and the letters we have contained in the NT would be evidence. Not only have I referred to these writings as evidence, I have went on to demonstrate how one could reasonably conclude the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. We know it to be a fact that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. Therefore, if the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, (which the evidence overwhelmingly supports), then we have an author, of one of what we refer to as the Gospels, being alive at the time of Jesus, acquainted with Paul, and more importantly the other Apostles, who would have been witnesses, which means this author may have very well substantiated everything he wrote, just as he assured Theophilus that he had done.

One can base it solely upon the facts we have. You know, like the fact this author was addressing an audience at the time, who could have very well verified what was being said? Or, the fact that the author actually tells his audience at the time that he had in fact, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning"? Or like the fact, this author begins his second letter reporting on the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to focus upon the actions of Paul, when the journeys of Paul begins, and does not report on the Apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them? Or like the fact, that this author actually begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when reporting on the events of Paul's travels, as if he were there to actually witness the events he records? Or like the fact that we have letters in which the author certainly claims to be Paul, and he goes on to mention the name of Luke being with him on his travels? Or, like the fact, in one of the letters attributed to Paul, which would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, this author states to his audience at the time, "only Luke is with me"? Or, like the fact, the author of the second letter, just so happens to end his second letter with Paul being under arrest?

Despite anticipating the accusation that I am straw-manning your methodology, I've decided to make an attempt at reverse-engineering a potential methodology based on your earlier argument for no other reason than to provide myself something to work with while I wait for you to supply me with your actual methodology. Given your argument above, I can at least make an educated guess at what some elements of your methodology might be:

Step 1 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts would have been alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred.
Reasoning - Authors who were alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred may be more reliable than people who were not alive or in the area at the time but reporting on what they heard from other people.

Step 2 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts may have been writing to a particular contemporary audience at the time.
Reasoning - A contemporary audience is presumed to have had the interest, time, and resources available to verify the accuracy of the information provided in those authors' reports.

*So far, these are the only two potential components of your methodology I am able to reverse-engineer from the content of your argument. I will continue to dig through your older posts for other relevant source material from which to identify any additional steps that might be included in your methodology. Of course, you are always welcome to provide me your methodology rather than have me construct one based on your earlier posts.

Yes! Thanks for this. I started to answer your other post, and was struggling to understand what you were looking for? This sort of helps, and we can work from here.

Before we move on to the steps you have supplied, allow me to attempt to explain to you what step 1, really was for me. Although I was not interested in the least, in attempting to determine if Christianity would be true, or not, I had no other choice. With my step 1 being explained, let us move on to the steps you have supplied.

Step 1 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts would have been alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred.

While this would be far from my step 1, I think we have something to work with. During my examination of the facts, and evidence we have, I was consuming material from both sides of the equation. With this being the case, there were those who were insisting that we have no idea who the authors of the Gospels, may have been. These folks go on to insist, the accounts we have, may have been authored by those decades later, who would not have been around at the time of the events recorded, and may have been passing on, what had been past on to them.

Therefore, it is not like I was attempting to "Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts would have been alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred". Rather, I was attempting to discover, if there would be any sort of facts, and evidence to support the idea that these authors would not have been alive at the time. What I failed to discover was, any sort of facts, and evidence to support such an idea. What I did in fact discover is, we can know beyond a reasonable doubt, that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. We can also know beyond a reasonable doubt, that Paul would have known, and spent much time with the Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making from their very lips. Moreover, we have overwhelming evidence in support of the author of the letters to Theophilus as being a traveling companion of Paul. With this being the case, we can have confidence that this author would have known the Apostles as well, and would have known the claims they were making, first hand. Therefore, we have very strong evidence, that the majority of what we have contained in the NT, would have been authored by those who would have been alive at the time of the events recorded.

The point is, I was not looking for evidence to support the idea the authors would have been alive at the time. Rather, it would have been the exact opposite.

Reasoning - Authors who were alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred may be more reliable than people who were not alive or in the area at the time but reporting on what they heard from other people.

Ah, no! Reasoning - There are those who are insisting that we can have no idea who the authors may have been. Their reasoning is, if these authors would not have been alive at the time, then we have reason to doubt the reliability of the content of what they authored. Since we have identified very good evidence in support of the majority of the NT, being authored by those who would have been alive at the time, these folks are going to have to move on to some other reason to doubt the reliability, because I think we have just discovered their doubt rests upon, "fake news".

'So, you see, it is not me who is insisting the authors being alive, make the content more reliable. Rather, it is others who are insisting that if the authors would not have been alive, then we should question the reliability. Since we have very good reasons to believe the majority of the NT would have been authored by those who were alive at the time, what does this do to those arguments? Well, it means they are going to have to give me another reason to doubt, since this one is not working out.

Step 2 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts may have been writing to a particular contemporary audience at the time.

Well, it is not as though this is what the facts, and evidence "SEEM TO CONFIRM", this would simply be a fact. The letters to Theophilus, were of course addressed to Theophilus. All the letters of Paul were addressed to particular Churches at the time, or to the individuals addressed. So I do not believe one would have to do a lot of searching, in order to identify this to be the case.

Reasoning - A contemporary audience is presumed to have had the interest, time, and resources available to verify the accuracy of the information provided in those authors' reports.

Ah, no! The overwhelming majority of the NT, can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by anyone other than the intended audience, and they certainly could not have known about any sort of Bible. Therefore, how can anyone contend, the authors were writing religious propaganda, in an attempt to persuade the masses, when the letters were addressed to those at the time, who were already persuaded?

Of course, it is true, if one is writing to those at the time, there is a danger of being found to be a false witness by those you are addressing. As an example, if the author of the letters to Theophilus, was intending to write out what he knew to be false information, in these long, and detailed letters, one would think the author would have had in mind such danger. However, I do not see how one would be able to use this sort of thing to somehow insist the information must, and had to be true.

*So far, these are the only two potential components of your methodology I am able to reverse-engineer from the content of your argument. I will continue to dig through your older posts for other relevant source material from which to identify any additional steps that might be included in your methodology. Of course, you are always welcome to provide me your methodology rather than have me construct one based on your earlier posts.

No! This is great, and takes a lot off my plate. So feel free to continue. It is much appreciated!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #423]

Allow me to attempt to explain to you why I am struggling to understand what is being asked for. Doing this, may explain the trouble you are having with the other Christian. When one ask for my methodology, I am not even sure what they are asking for? BGE, has now given me an example, by using a step method. As I explained to BGE, my step 1, would have been, I was not even interested in attempting to determine if there would be any reason to believe the Christian claims, but I had no other choice. So, what was step 2? Well, since I had no choice, I began to study the evidence, for, and against.

Now, where do we go from here? Am I to attempt to go through the whole process which lead me to the conclusion I have? Am I to cite every book I have read, with the reasoning behind, the conclusions I had come to at each, and every stage? I mean, what is being ask for here?

[bluegreenearth]

Step 1 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts would have been alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred.

While this would be far from my step 1, I think we have something to work with. During my examination of the facts, and evidence we have, I was consuming material from both sides of the equation. With this being the case, there were those who were insisting that we have no idea who the authors of the Gospels, may have been. These folks go on to insist, the accounts we have, may have been authored by those decades later, who would not have been around at the time of the events recorded, and may have been passing on, what had been past on to them.

Therefore, it is not like I was attempting to "Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts would have been alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred". Rather, I was attempting to discover, if there would be any sort of facts, and evidence to support the idea that these authors would not have been alive at the time. What I failed to discover was, any sort of facts, and evidence to support such an idea. What I did in fact discover is, we can know beyond a reasonable doubt, that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. We can also know beyond a reasonable doubt, that Paul would have known, and spent much time with the Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making from their very lips. Moreover, we have overwhelming evidence in support of the author of the letters to Theophilus as being a traveling companion of Paul. With this being the case, we can have confidence that this author would have known the Apostles as well, and would have known the claims they were making, first hand. Therefore, we have very strong evidence, that the majority of what we have contained in the NT, would have been authored by those who would have been alive at the time of the events recorded.

The point is, I was not looking for evidence to support the idea the authors would have been alive at the time. Rather, it would have been the exact opposite.

Reasoning - Authors who were alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred may be more reliable than people who were not alive or in the area at the time but reporting on what they heard from other people.

Ah, no! Reasoning - There are those who are insisting that we can have no idea who the authors may have been. Their reasoning is, if these authors would not have been alive at the time, then we have reason to doubt the reliability of the content of what they authored. Since we have identified very good evidence in support of the majority of the NT, being authored by those who would have been alive at the time, these folks are going to have to move on to some other reason to doubt the reliability, because I think we have just discovered their doubt rest upon, "fake news".

'So, you see, it is not me who is insisting the authors being alive, make the content more reliable. Rather, it is others who are insisting that if the authors would not have been alive, then we should question the reliability. Since we have very good reasons to believe the majority of the NT would have been authored by those who were alive at the time, what does this do to those arguments? Well, it means they are going to have to give me another reason to doubt, since this one is not working out.

Given your clarification above, it seems to me that this portion of your methodology could be supplemented with the following sub-step:

Step 1b - Identify facts and evidence you would expect to find if the authors who documented the reported account were not alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred.
Reasoning - If the authors were not alive or in the area at the time the claimed event occurred, then you would have a justification to doubt the reliability of those sources.

So, what facts and evidence would you expect to find if an author was not alive or in the area at the time a claimed event occurred?

Step 2 - Identify facts and evidence that seem to confirm the authors of the reported accounts may have been writing to a particular contemporary audience at the time.

Well, it is not as though this is what the facts, and evidence "SEEM TO CONFIRM", this would simply be a fact. The letters to Theophilus, were of course addressed to Theophilus. All the letters of Paul were addressed to particular Churches at the time, or to the individuals addressed. So I do not believe one would have to do a lot of searching, in order to identify this to be the case.

Reasoning - A contemporary audience is presumed to have had the interest, time, and resources available to verify the accuracy of the information provided in those authors' reports.

Ah, no! The overwhelming majority of the NT, can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by anyone other than the intended audience, and they certainly could not have known about any sort of Bible. Therefore, how can anyone contend, the authors were writing religious propaganda, in an attempt to persuade the masses, when the letters were addressed to those at the time, who were already persuaded?

Of course, it is true, if one is writing to those at the time, there is a danger of being found to be a false witness by those you are addressing. As an example, if the author of the letters to Theophilus, was intending to write out what he knew to be false information, in these long, and detailed letters, one would think the author would have had in mind such danger. However, I do not see how one would be able to use this sort of thing to somehow insist the information must, and had to be true.

Given your commentary above, it seems to me that this portion of your methodology could remain mostly as I had written it with the exception of the "seems to confirm" language:

Step 2 - Identify facts and evidence that confirms the authors of the reported accounts may have been writing to a particular contemporary audience at the time.
Reasoning - A contemporary audience is presumed to have had the interest, time, and resources available to verify the accuracy of the information provided in those authors' reports.

I'll also add the following sub-step:

Step 2b - Identify facts and evidence you would expect to find if the authors were writing propaganda.
Reasoning - If the authors were writing propaganda in an attempt to persuade the masses, such an exhibition of a bias would provide a sufficient justification to doubt the reliability of those sources.

So, what facts and evidence would you expect to find if an author was writing propaganda?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #426]

Step 1b - Identify facts and evidence you would expect to find if the authors who documented the reported account were not alive and in the area at the time the claimed event occurred.

I will answer this below.

Reasoning - If the authors were not alive or in the area at the time the claimed event occurred, then you would have a justification to doubt the reliability of those sources.

Ah, no! Justification, is a strong word. I may have some sort of reason to have doubts. But, I do not believe we can say the doubts would be, "justified". In other words, having a reason for doubt, is a far cry from the doubt being, "justified".

So, what facts and evidence would you expect to find if an author was not alive or in the area at the time a claimed event occurred?

It is not what I would, "expect to find". Rather, it would be what I would not "expect to find". In other words, if the authors would not have been alive at the time, I would not expect to find, facts, and evidence, which would lead me to believe the authors would have been alive at the time. However, this is exactly what I found, with no facts, and evidence in support of the authors not being alive at the time.

Step 2 - Identify facts and evidence that confirms the authors of the reported accounts may have been writing to a particular contemporary audience at the time.

Again, it is not that they "MAY HAVE BEEN". Rather, it is a fact, which can be demonstrated.

Reasoning - A contemporary audience is presumed to have had the interest, time, and resources available to verify the accuracy of the information provided in those authors' reports.

Ah, no! This would have nothing to do with it, as I explained in the last post.

Step 2b - Identify facts and evidence you would expect to find if the authors were writing propaganda.

Correct! In other words, since there are those who accuse the authors of writing, "religious propaganda", one would have to look to see what facts, and evidence would support such an accusation?

So, what facts and evidence would you expect to find if an author was writing propaganda?

Again, it is not "what facts and evidence would you expect to find". Rather, it would be the facts, and evidence I would not expect to find. In other words, if the authors would have been writing, "religious propaganda", I would not expect to find that they were only addressing audiences, who would have already been persuaded.

[JoeyKnothead]

It seems as if my target doesn't want to address the following, as several attempts to get such addressed have come up empty, so I'll put it to the observer...

I was alive during the time of Bugs Bunny.
I was alive during the time of Martin Luther King Junior.

Do you beleive me when I say Bugs Bunny was a real, physical, walking and breathing being?
Do you believe me when I say Martin Luther King Junior rose from the dead?


Why might my target wish to avoid answering these questions, that we might better understand "double standards" - the topic of this OP?

Are the answers too embarrassing? Too revealing? Just why might these questions / answers be so problematic to someone, anyone, who believes claims presented by ancients, who are unavailable for cross examination?

In a thread about double standards?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #426]
It is not what I would, "expect to find". Rather, it would be what I would not "expect to find". In other words, if the authors would not have been alive at the time, I would not expect to find, facts, and evidence, which would lead me to believe the authors would have been alive at the time. However, this is exactly what I found, with no facts, and evidence in support of the authors not being alive at the time.

If there were facts and evidence demonstrating where an author had most likely borrowed material from another source that was written much later, would you be less inclined to believe the author was alive or in the area at the time of the claimed event?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #426]
It is not what I would, "expect to find". Rather, it would be what I would not "expect to find". In other words, if the authors would not have been alive at the time, I would not expect to find, facts, and evidence, which would lead me to believe the authors would have been alive at the time. However, this is exactly what I found, with no facts, and evidence in support of the authors not being alive at the time.

If there were facts and evidence demonstrating where an author had most likely borrowed material from another source that was written much later, would you be less inclined to believe the author was alive or in the area at the time of the claimed event?

First, this would depend on what one means by, "much later"? As an example, I was alive at the time of 9/11. It has been a decade now. If I were to author a letter describing the events, and barrow material from another, right now, this would not in any way indicate that I was not alive at the time. If we were to go out another ten years, we would now be at twenty years, and this would still not demonstrate I would not have been alive. In fact, depending on the age of the author, we could end up several decades out, and would still not have demonstrated the author would not have been alive at the time. So, how far out are we talking here?

Next, I am not sure how one can "demonstrate" something to be, "most likely"? Maybe it is best for you to share with me such evidence?

[bluegreenearth]

First, this would depend on what one means by, "much later"? As an example, I was alive at the time of 9/11. It has been a decade now. If I were to author a letter describing the events, and barrow material from another, right now, this would not in any way indicate that I was not alive at the time. If we were to go out another ten years, we would now be at twenty years, and this would still not demonstrate I would not have been alive. In fact, depending on the age of the author, we could end up several decades out, and would still not have demonstrated the author would not have been alive at the time. So, how far out are we talking here?

Next, I am not sure how one can "demonstrate" something to be, "most likely"? Maybe it is best for you to share with me such evidence?

As an eyewitness to the 9/11 event, why would you feel the need to borrow material from another source that was written decades later? Why would you wait several decades before documenting your own observations?