Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

2) Atheists often presume  "belief in scientism, the logically incoherent claim that 'only scientific knowledge is valid/real/genuine knowledge'"

Point #2 is utter horseshit, pure and simple.  While some atheists are also supporters of scientism, this is obviously not the case with the majority of atheists.

While the author is correct that scientism is logically incoherent (I might quibble with her definition, but that's beyond the scope of this reply), there is nothing intellectually dishonest in an atheist using scientific methodology to refute some religious claims (the Flood, the resurrection, the Exodus, etc), because these are claims amenable to scientific investigation.  If theists are going to cite these claims  as potentially veridical events, it isn't just permissible but is incumbent upon atheists to test them with scientific rigor.  But the author seems to want NO testing of ANY claim made by ANY religionists.  That's true intellectual dishonesty, that is.

I agree, though, that not all religious claims are subject to scientific investigation.  One we often hear is 'God is love'.  This may or may not be a nonsensical statement (though I strongly suspect that it is), but I don't know how I'd begin to devise an experiment to test it.

I'm perfectly happy accepting things that I cannot prove scientifically (life on other planets, my wife loves me, bacon crumbles improve apple pie), but so what?  But when Ms Kenienan makes a claim for God that is at least potentially falsifiable, she ought not get her knickers in a twist when people attempt to falsify it.  And she certainly had no business labeling all scientific investigations of religious claims as 'scientism'.

Boru