Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Mister Agenda]

Unanimously, huh? Let's see the comprehensive survey that can't find a single varying source...and how about a definition not made by a theist, any of those? Atheists were saying they just don't believe in any gods over 150 years ago, but what do we know about what we believe and don't believe? Even Routledge, one of your own sources, acknowledges negative atheism.

[rskovride]

 
Keneinan’s blog post is clearly a list of generalizations, one that IMHO does indeed apply to a majority of the most active atheist AF members. As such she is not attempting to “refute” the so-called arguments. Her intended audience appears not to be persuadable atheists; but rather, believers. It provides believers with warning signs for when an atheist is not interested in a serious discussion but rather intent on scoring rhetorical points.

Or this is her attempting to poison the well.  I agree that what she said is not irrelevant, but an attempt to preemptively discredit atheists? I think so.

[Edwardo Piet]

Not really. Changing the name of someone else's imaginary friend doesn't make a person a dick.

Thanks for proving my point.

Nope. Because you're still the dickhead here for irrelevant reasons, and the fact you have an imaginary friend is just a fact.... I mean, you are a theist right? And the God you believe in is imaginary and childish right? And you do have a relationship with him like you would a friend right?

Changing the name of someone else's imaginary friend doesn't make a person a dick. If I had an imaginary friend called Alf and you insisted on calling him Benny, you wouldn't be a dick just because I was a moron who had never grown up. Who cares what I called my imaginary friend, it wouldn't make you a dick for being unable to resist having a little harmless fun with my unbelievable idiocy.

Theism is too cheap to cheapen.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thanks for proving my point.

Nope. Because you're still the dickhead here for irrelevant reasons, and the fact you have an imaginary friend is just a fact.... I mean, you are a theist right? And the God you believe in is imaginary and childish right? And you do have a relationship with him like you would a friend right?

Changing the name of someone else's imaginary friend doesn't make a person a dick. If I had an imaginary friend called Alf and you insisted on calling him Benny, you wouldn't be a dick just because I was a moron who had never grown up. Who cares what I called my imaginary friend, it wouldn't make you a dick for being unable to resist having a little harmless fun with my unbelievable idiocy.

Theism is too cheap to cheapen.

...and so you double-down on proving my point.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nope. Because you're still the dickhead here for irrelevant reasons, and the fact you have an imaginary friend is just a fact.... I mean, you are a theist right? And the God you believe in is imaginary and childish right? And you do have a relationship with him like you would a friend right?

Changing the name of someone else's imaginary friend doesn't make a person a dick. If I had an imaginary friend called Alf and you insisted on calling him Benny, you wouldn't be a dick just because I was a moron who had never grown up. Who cares what I called my imaginary friend, it wouldn't make you a dick for being unable to resist having a little harmless fun with my unbelievable idiocy.

Theism is too cheap to cheapen.

...and so you double-down on proving my point.

How exactly does it prove your point if your beliefs really are indeed akin to an imaginary friend? Seems to me like you're doubling down on dickishness by doubling down on merely stating that it's dickish to change the name of someone's imaginary friend, without having the intellectual honesty to explain properly or give an actual argument for how it is dickish.

I have explained why it isn't dickish, you haven't bothered to explain why it is, and you're just kind of being a dick to be honest.

[RoadRunner79]

Nope. Because you're still the dickhead here for irrelevant reasons, and the fact you have an imaginary friend is just a fact.... I mean, you are a theist right? And the God you believe in is imaginary and childish right? And you do have a relationship with him like you would a friend right?

Changing the name of someone else's imaginary friend doesn't make a person a dick. If I had an imaginary friend called Alf and you insisted on calling him Benny, you wouldn't be a dick just because I was a moron who had never grown up. Who cares what I called my imaginary friend, it wouldn't make you a dick for being unable to resist having a little harmless fun with my unbelievable idiocy.

Theism is too cheap to cheapen.

...and so you double-down on proving my point.

I'm just curious, where do you place the over/under on how many posts, before someone denies posts like this, and claim the article is a straw man?

[Edwardo Piet]

And that's the thing, the 'imaginary friend' comparison isn't a straw man. The fact you guys believe your imaginary friend created the universe and has magic powers doesn't make him any less of an imaginary friend. You can call him what you like, he's still a friend to you who is imaginary.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...and so you double-down on proving my point.

I'm just curious, where do you place the over/under on how many posts, before someone denies posts like this, and claim the article is a straw man?

I guess until it stops amusing me to see how far someone is willing to beclown himself.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm pretty sure that on an atheist forum, it's the folks with imaginary friends who are the clowns.

[Neo-Scholastic]

How exactly does it prove your point if your beliefs really are indeed akin to an imaginary friend?

Because they aren't the same. You're simply asserting that they are without offering any reasonable comparison - which is the point of the blogger.