The Atheist Double Standard

If you want to see this kind of skepticism exampled watch the whole debate that the first part of the clip came from. This debate is a long example of exactly this sort of unfair atheism which has one way of handling evidence for most things and a hyper-skepticism when handling evidence for God.

[Valron]

The level of skepticism is changes based on the size of the claim. If my friend says "hey I left you a sandwich in the fridge", that's a very small claim, I don't need to immediately ask for proof, his word will do. An omnipotent being with absolute authority, however, is about as big a claim as you can make.

[meusana]

This ladies and gentlemen is what we call a false dichotomy coupled with a straw man.

[username]

Such a weird clip to show for the point he was making. The clip shows a non-believer saying if "X" happened I would be a believe in God. Then the believer said "wouldn't you say it was a hallucination".

So in the clip it is the believer ASSUMING the non-believer would be super skeptical.

NOT the non-believer actually being super skeptical.

[thorshammer]

It's called critical thinking and the ability to distinguish ordinary claims from extraordinary claims. If my friend tells me he has a dog, I'll believe him without seeing it. If he tells me the dog can speak English, I'm going to need to see it, bring a friend, and a video camera.

[svensvenforkedbeard]

The funny thing is Lane Craig's immediate rebuttal in the clip before Mike starts speaking:

"Boy I was having a hallucination."

He in that one very short statement doesn't rebutt the standard of evidence of the skeptic he is speaking to (Dr.Craig is himself a Christian) he rather ridicules the fact the skeptic he speaks to has a shifting standard of evidence and they both know it.

[stenblann]

Why is Mike so skeptical toward other religions' claims? Two sets of rules, right? Low bar skepticism toward Christianity, and the giant skepticism toward other faiths based on Christians worldview.
I don't have any problem being skeptical toward things that all cultures can agree upon as real.

[Dsims]

Even seeing miracles many disbelieved. Or were unmoved. They just wanted to see something.

[ProgThoughts]

Ah yes, I should be just as skeptical of strangers telling me to get in their van for candy as my mom telling me dinner is ready. My double standards have been exposed.

[Chidds]

One is a regularly occurring measurable and predictable phenomenon. The other is completely extraordinary. If anyone thinks experiencing visions of a god and experiencing the weather are remotely equal in terms of believability, then they need to be medicated.

[DForce]

Extraordinary claims. requires extraorinary evidence.

[rndmavis]

I understand why you're attacking skeptics. They threaten your paycheck

[SeanTalksTooMuch]

Theist cant even define God, let alone give evidence for his existence. If you cant define of show evidence of something, remaining skeptical is quite reasonable

[Guy_With_A_Laser]

This hypothetical works just as well for Christians as it does for atheists. What if the clouds opened up and a Christian saw a vision of a giant figure coming down, but it turned out it was Allah wanting to know why they weren't a Muslim? Or Thor wanting to invite them to Valhalla? Would the Christian response really be 'welp, I guess I was wrong about Christianity, time to start reading the Qur'an'?

Or, likewise, what about people who see visions of the Virgin Mary? UFOs? The Loch Ness monster? We have plenty of eyewitnesses who claim to have seen these things, many contemporary people who you can go talk to. Our intuitive logical framework is that the more outlandish the claim is, the more evidence that we are going to need to believe it to be true.

[arsimckhoi]

it's not two sets of rules, religion doesn't have any standards. That's why we have many faiths but only one standard to explain flight

[gixelz]

that was the worst rebuttal i've ever heard.

[WickedIndigo]

I would argue that your skepticism completely drops when it comes to your religion. Mike Winger said himself that he became a Christian first and then went to seek the evidence. He started with the conclusion and worked backwards to make it make sense to himself. That’s not how any reasonable person would handle any other propositions, yet the religious do it every day when it comes to the god they worship.

[Ponera-Sama]

No, you're right on the money. We have two sets of rules: One for things that are more likely than a hallucination, and one for things that are less likely than a hallucination. In this context, "evidence" just means "information that increases the likelihood of something being true", and the less likely something is to be true, the more evidence you would need to make someone believe it. Rain is a mundane occurance that happens all the time, so I won't demand evidence if someone told me it rained yesterday while I was asleep, but if someone told Mike Winger that it was raining cheeseburgers, I'm sure he's going to need damn good evidence before he believes it.

[Dedalus]

I swear man, Christians just cannot wrap their heads around how weather works.

[Max_Doubt]

This line of "logic" falls apart when you see the problem with this statement: "I don't _know_ if an 8'6" tall woman exists, but I _believe_ she's a good person who likes jazz, hates peas, gets angry at speeders, sad when it rains and wants a new blender." See the cart/horse problem?

[sigmaoctantis]

This man hasn't got a clue. "They wouldn't know what the weather is ... because there's no evidence for anything."
Dear Mike, what about rain, snow, wind, etc.? That is evidence. Try thinking about it.