Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[rskovride]

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

I can see why she makes this point because it may have some bit of truth to it. However, if we are talking about what should be included or excluded within epistemology, only some atheists presume this, certainly all christian theists, if intellectuall honest, must add natural and special revelation to what is considered knowledge.  Not to mention sensus divinitatis being used for justification in JTB.  They trample all over it.

[Succubus]

I see Keneinan for all her self righteous blather isn't above creating objections out of thin air. This quote is not just a strawman it's blatant lies, a complete fabrication.

3.1 Chronological bigotry, i.e. the absurd belief that human beings who lived prior to (say) Richard Dawkins were one and all somehow mentally inferior to anyone living today, up to and including the greatest minds of the past. This would also include the belief that all human beings in the past were incapable of skepticism or critical thinking, or were somehow exceptionally gullible or credulous in a way we, the Enlightened Moderns, are not.

Chronological bigotry? This must be a very recent development as Google has no knowledge of it. And she accuses atheists of intellectual dishonesty???

[Minimalist]

A condition common among religitards.

Except Christians are not atheists. They believe in a god. Atheists don't believe in any god.

Also, they don't seem to dismiss other gods for similar reasons we do. Have you not seen Huggy's terrible reasoning for why he believes Odin doesn't exist (in that recent Odin thread)?

There are thousands of gods that religitards do not believe in. 

I try not to take Huggy very seriously.  He's been here a long time and has never made any sense.

[Succubus]

A few choice cut from her twitter page:

If 1 atheism is a lack of belief in God then 2 all inanimate objects are atheists, so 3 the average atheist IQ is effectively 0.

Atheists have a very deep-seated hatred of reality.

And I have had many atheists assure me that is in fact the case. I have been repeatedly told, by atheists, that rocks & bricks are atheists.

And this from Quora:

That being said, there are at least two dozen highly plausible metaphysical demonstrations of the existence of God, at least some of which some of the greatest minds have found logically compelling—and which, taken as a combined whole, represent a very formidable case for the existence of God

No dear. A thousand bad arguments don't make one good one and you as a philosopher should know this.
Afaics that blog of hers is the sum total of her work since she obtained her degree. She's an attention whore, plain and simple.

[robvalue]

I constantly ask how I can distinguish God from nothing at all. I've yet to be given an answer.

If people like this had anything of substance, they'd be presenting it rather than trying to attack atheists for being sane.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not to mention sensus divinitatis...

Glad someone brought this up.  For those who don't know, sensus divinitatis is basically an argument born out of desperation, beginning with that particularly deluded mystic, John Calvin.

Calvin claimed that no one really disbelieves in God, as SD is a spiritual sense, just as sight and hearing are physical senses - we can all sense God, much in the way we can all sense rocks, trees, the postman, etc.  For Calvin, claiming disbelief is as wrong as a sighted person claiming they can't see the rocks and trees all around him.  But SD is unlike the physical senses in that it cannot be damaged - it is simply not possible to be spiritually 'blind' or ''deaf', so ALL claims of disbelief are either irrational or dishonest.

Special plead, much?

Boru

[robvalue]

Not to mention sensus divinitatis...

Glad someone brought this up.  For those who don't know, sensus divinitatis is basically an argument born out of desperation, beginning with that particularly deluded mystic, John Calvin.

Calvin claimed that no one really disbelieves in God, as SD is a spiritual sense, just as sight and hearing are physical senses - we can all sense God, much in the way we can all sense rocks, trees, the postman, etc.  For Calvin, claiming disbelief is as wrong as a sighted person claiming they can't see the rocks and trees all around him.  But SD is unlike the physical senses in that it cannot be damaged - it is simply not possible to be spiritually 'blind' or ''deaf', so ALL claims of disbelief are either irrational or dishonest.

Special plead, much?

Boru

I've heard quite a few people on YouTube say similar things. "There's no such thing as atheists". I mean, really. I can smell the desperation through my screen.

[possibletarian]

I get the 'God and gods' thing at least from a single believers perspective.

The problem is that from an unbelievers point of view, those who consider who 'God' and 'gods' are differs from religion to religion.

Also when asked for evidence for their particular Mighty God, (such a creature would have undeniable evidence surely) , they themselves demote God to a god by providing zero evidence.

---

A condition common among religitards.

Except Christians are not atheists. They believe in a god. Atheists don't believe in any god.

Also, they don't seem to dismiss other gods for similar reasons we do. Have you not seen Huggy's terrible reasoning for why he believes Odin doesn't exist (in that recent Odin thread)?

I tend to agree, A Christian cannot be considered an atheist in any way, believing in more than zero gods demotes you from that logical position.

It's a bit like being married, you may be unmarried in regards (not married to) to all other women on the planet, but the act of marrying one means that you can never be a bachelor in regards to all other women on the planet.

Atheism is a disregard all, rather than a choose one and disregard all the rest.

[Succubus]

Whereas 'I' don't get it, I'm tired of rereading the thing and I just don't understand what she's at.

A persistent inability or refusal to distinguish God from a god or gods.

Unless she's saying, 'that's not the god 'I' believe in' in which case my response would be; whatever god you believe in is the god I don't believe exists.

Am I making sense.

[robvalue]

I only consider myself "probably an atheist", since almost every theist defines God differently (if they bother to define it at all, which is rare).