Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Amarok]

or me personally, I could identify with, and understand a number of the issues that this lady talks about.  I may have some disputes with the way in which the ideas are presented at times, but generally I agree with the message.  For one, I don't think that every instance or even a majority are necessarily intellectually dishonest.  I think it is more charitable if I'm making an assumption to think they are just stupid (the village atheists), rather than intellectually dishonest.  As well, they may not be intellectual at all, and are just provoking.  This could be intellectually dishonest, if they know better, but often I find myself questioning, if some really have given much thought or effort into understanding what they are criticizing.

In the article:  for subpoint 1, I believe that the citation of J.J.C. Smart is prior to the other discussion (even though you addressed this last).  With this, I believe that the rest of this section should be seen in light of this quotation (at least that is how I read it).  I would agree, that a 3-4 year old, likely isn't going to have a strong grasp or knowledge of the differences between the gods of polytheism and as Smart said a more sophisticated view in monotheism.  As such, I read it as hyperbole rather than with a strict literalism.  The point being, that it isn't that difficult to understand that there is some key differences in the behavior and roles of these mortal gods.   To finish the quote by JJC Smart -  "They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy."

Given this, I don't think the quibble about capitalization is about the capitalization itself, but in acknowledging why and what the distinction that is being made by it's capitalization.  Again, this goes back to the citation given at the beginning of the argument.

Now it could be, that the "atheist" in question has not been made aware some particular distinction.  However especially for those who hang around on the internet, and have interacted with those who make a more sophisticated argument I think it can approach the level of intellectual dishonesty.  If I still start out arguing against evolution with "from the goo to the zoo" or "it's just a theory" when I know better, then I think that is intellectually dishonest.   Now you combine this with a number of other mis-representations found in section one, and I think a case can certainly be made. You have either earned the description of being intellectually dishonest or being stupid.

Similarly, if you would like to make a point about politics, I think that starting out your idea by calling your interlocutors conservtards or libtards  drastically takes away from any intelligence that may be contained there after.

Long winded whining and table thumping .