Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[GrandizerII]

Only the first part perhaps applies to me. And I do that exactly because Christians do believe in a god that is distinct from the classical God of the ancient Greek philosophers or the God of deists. They believe in a God that has emotions, that really cares about what human beings do in their lives, that punishes whenever they see fit, that sends down commandments and revelations, that manifests physically in this world (whether as man or burning bush or cloud or whatever), that created angels, tested the first of mankind with a tree, is one God but convolutedly three Persons, made a donkey talk one time, and so on. A God that is clearly made in the image of ancient men who didn't know any better and couldn't come up with a better God that would appeal to modern civilized people (so modern civilized people have had to evolve their God to become a better deity). I don't see such a being as Supreme at all, so why should I make that distinction argued by the author? Because their God, over time, has been assigned "maximally great" characteristics? So what? It still remains a diminished god because of what the Christian faith demands of it.