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]

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?

There could be any number of very good reasons for me to do such things. I could be writing a letter to my grandson, who would not have been alive at the time of the events, explaining to him that I was on the golf course when the first plane hit, and heard about it from a call from his grandma (true story). Instead of attempting to tell him of the actual events in my own words, I may barrow from another, if I believe this other material can explain the events better than I could.

So then, as you can see, the above would explain why I would have waited so long to write out the accounts, because before this time, I had no reason to write it out. In other words, when the events occurred, I did not have a grandson. When I do have a grandson, it would be a good number of years before he would be able to read, and understand written language. So the time lapse, and the barrowing from another is explained perfectly here.

However, we are not talking about me, now are we? The reasons I give above, are perfectly reasonable explanations, but these reasons may not apply to the situation you are referring to. Therefore, instead of us dancing around the issue, by me explaining how it would be reasonable for me to do such things, in an imaginary situation, I think it would be better to actually deal with the real situation you may be referring to?

[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?

There could be any number of very good reasons for me to do such things. I could be writing a letter to my grandson, who would not have been alive at the time of the events, explaining to him that I was on the golf course when the first plane hit, and heard about it from a call from his grandma (true story). Instead of attempting to tell him of the actual events in my own words, I may barrow from another, if I believe this other material can explain the events better than I could.

So then, as you can see, the above would explain why I would have waited so long to write out the accounts, because before this time, I had no reason to write it out. In other words, when the events occurred, I did not have a grandson. When I do have a grandson, it would be a good number of years before he would be able to read, and understand written language. So the time lapse, and the barrowing from another is explained perfectly here.

However, we are not talking about me, now are we? The reasons I give above, are perfectly reasonable explanations, but these reasons may not apply to the situation you are referring to. Therefore, instead of us dancing around the issue, by me explaining how it would be reasonable for me to do such things, in an imaginary situation, I think it would be better to actually deal with the real situation you may be referring to?

I appreciate the feedback. However, I'm only dancing around the issue for the moment because I don't want to waste our time going through the trouble of conducting a detailed investigation of the available facts and evidence if the outcome won't significantly change anything. So, I'm just asking on the outset if you would be inclined to revise your confidence level in the belief if there were facts and evidence available to supply you with a good reason to doubt the author of Luke/Acts was alive at the time the claimed event occurred. More specifically, if there are facts and evidence available to support the claim that the author had borrowed material from another source which was written no earlier than 94 A.D., would your confidence stay the same or significantly decrease? By significantly decrease, I do not necessarily mean your confidence level would drop below 51% but drop from something like 100% to 75%. If your confidence wouldn't change significantly with the acceptance of such information, then we can move on to something else.

[Realworldjack]

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?

There could be any number of very good reasons for me to do such things. I could be writing a letter to my grandson, who would not have been alive at the time of the events, explaining to him that I was on the golf course when the first plane hit, and heard about it from a call from his grandma (true story). Instead of attempting to tell him of the actual events in my own words, I may barrow from another, if I believe this other material can explain the events better than I could.

So then, as you can see, the above would explain why I would have waited so long to write out the accounts, because before this time, I had no reason to write it out. In other words, when the events occurred, I did not have a grandson. When I do have a grandson, it would be a good number of years before he would be able to read, and understand written language. So the time lapse, and the barrowing from another is explained perfectly here.

However, we are not talking about me, now are we? The reasons I give above, are perfectly reasonable explanations, but these reasons may not apply to the situation you are referring to. Therefore, instead of us dancing around the issue, by me explaining how it would be reasonable for me to do such things, in an imaginary situation, I think it would be better to actually deal with the real situation you may be referring to?

I appreciate the feedback. However, I'm only dancing around the issue for the moment because I don't want to waste our time going through the trouble of conducting a detailed investigation of the available facts and evidence if the outcome won't significantly change anything. So, I'm just asking on the outset if you would be inclined to revise your confidence level in the belief if there were facts and evidence available to supply you with a good reason to doubt the author of Luke/Acts was alive at the time the claimed event occurred. More specifically, if there are facts and evidence available to support the claim that the author had borrowed material from another source which was written no earlier than 94 A.D., would your confidence stay the same or significantly decrease? By significantly decrease, I do not necessarily mean your confidence level would drop below 51% but drop from something like 100% to 75%. If your confidence wouldn't change significantly with the acceptance of such information, then we can move on to something else.

I have labored over how to respond to this post, and have actually started two different times, with this being the third. I have decided to make my response as simple as possible, by asking a question. What is it that causes you to question, as to whether the outcome would significantly change anything?

[bluegreenearth]

I have labored over how to respond to this post, and have actually started two different times, with this being the third. I have decided to make my response as simple as possible, by asking a question. What is it that causes you to question, as to whether the outcome would significantly change anything?

As far as I'm concerned, if there are facts and evidence to support the possibility that Luke/Acts was written 70+ years after the death of Jesus, then this possibility has not been ruled-out and provides a good reason for me to lower my confidence in the reliability of those sources. However, there are some people out there whose confidence in the reliability of Luke/Acts would remain the same, even if they were provided with facts and evidence supporting the possibility that those sources were written 70+ years after the events they describe. For those people, acceptance of that possibility would not change their level of confidence in the reliability of Luke/Acts. So, what would be the value in asking them to consider the possibility in the first place?

[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?

Here's your double standard folks.

When a question about Bugs Bunny silences a claimant, well how bout that!

[Realworldjack]

I have labored over how to respond to this post, and have actually started two different times, with this being the third. I have decided to make my response as simple as possible, by asking a question. What is it that causes you to question, as to whether the outcome would significantly change anything?

As far as I'm concerned, if there are facts and evidence to support the possibility that Luke/Acts was written 70+ years after the death of Jesus, then this possibility has not been ruled-out and provides a good reason for me to lower my confidence in the reliability of those sources. However, there are some people out there whose confidence in the reliability of Luke/Acts would remain the same, even if they were provided with facts and evidence supporting the possibility that those sources were written 70+ years after the events they describe. For those people, acceptance of that possibility would not change their level of confidence in the reliability of Luke/Acts. So, what would be the value in asking them to consider the possibility in the first place?

I think I have answered all your objections thus far? I cannot answer an objection which has not been presented. It is up to you as to how to proceed from here.

[bluegreenearth]

I have labored over how to respond to this post, and have actually started two different times, with this being the third. I have decided to make my response as simple as possible, by asking a question. What is it that causes you to question, as to whether the outcome would significantly change anything?

As far as I'm concerned, if there are facts and evidence to support the possibility that Luke/Acts was written 70+ years after the death of Jesus, then this possibility has not been ruled-out and provides a good reason for me to lower my confidence in the reliability of those sources. However, there are some people out there whose confidence in the reliability of Luke/Acts would remain the same, even if they were provided with facts and evidence supporting the possibility that those sources were written 70+ years after the events they describe. For those people, acceptance of that possibility would not change their level of confidence in the reliability of Luke/Acts. So, what would be the value in asking them to consider the possibility in the first place?

I think I have answered all your objections thus far? I cannot answer an objection which has not been presented. It is up to you as to how to proceed from here.

My only objection thus far has been that you haven't demonstrated your methodology is reliable. I'm still waiting for that demonstration.

[Realworldjack]

I have labored over how to respond to this post, and have actually started two different times, with this being the third. I have decided to make my response as simple as possible, by asking a question. What is it that causes you to question, as to whether the outcome would significantly change anything?

As far as I'm concerned, if there are facts and evidence to support the possibility that Luke/Acts was written 70+ years after the death of Jesus, then this possibility has not been ruled-out and provides a good reason for me to lower my confidence in the reliability of those sources. However, there are some people out there whose confidence in the reliability of Luke/Acts would remain the same, even if they were provided with facts and evidence supporting the possibility that those sources were written 70+ years after the events they describe. For those people, acceptance of that possibility would not change their level of confidence in the reliability of Luke/Acts. So, what would be the value in asking them to consider the possibility in the first place?

I think I have answered all your objections thus far? I cannot answer an objection which has not been presented. It is up to you as to how to proceed from here.

My only objection thus far has been that you haven't demonstrated your methodology is reliable. I'm still waiting for that demonstration.

I have no idea what you are asking me for? You went on "to make an attempt at reverse-engineering a potential methodology based on my earlier arguments", and I was happy to oblige. You went on to suggest that you would, "continue to dig through my older posts for other relevant source material from which to identify any additional steps that might be included in my methodology". Since I have no idea what you are asking me to do, I responded by saying,

This is great, and takes a lot off my plate. So feel free to continue. It is much appreciated!

Where do we go from here?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #439]

Yes, my ADHD brain was distracted. I'll proceed as previously indicated.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #439]

Yes, my ADHD brain was distracted. I'll proceed as previously indicated.

Better yet, if you do not mind, I would like to move over to the other thread you created where you complain about theists not wanting to participate. I have been wanting to go over there, but I do not like having to keep up with multiple threads. That particular thread deals with pretty much the same thing, and I believe I can make a point there, which I have been attempting to make.