Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Aegon]

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

Then what the hell am I doing all this yoga for? MY CHAKRAS AREN'T ALIGNED DAMMIT

[Amarok]

Your not just a clown Wooter your a intellectual three ring circus .

[brewer]

Can any of you find anything about her philosophy degree or the places where she has worked?

It would be interesting to me to have some additional background.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

They are the same though... but you can't see it because you think your imaginary friend is real and really has magic powers and really did create the universe.

God is your friend right? He's certainly not not your friend right?

Only difference is you don't think he's imaginary. But of course, that doesn't mean he isn't. And since he only exists inside the imagination....

[Amarok]

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.

Niope it's you who is denying there is a difference under the same conditions

[bennyboy]

Am I the only one who thinks this thread was meant to be a circle jerk right from the start?

[polymath257]

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???

Here's the problem. Those who lived before about a century ago were simply not well informed about things we have learned over the last century. And we have learned *a lot* over the past century concerning how the universe works.

So, yes, Aristotle was an intellectual giant. He was the first to consider many issues of great importance and created a scheme in which to understand an analyze a great many things. This was an immense intellectual achievement.

But Aristotle was also *wrong* about most things he talked about. This does not undermine his intelligence. But, but, being the first in an area of study means you are much more likely to be wrong in your speculations. There will be things you miss that later investigators will see. There will be guesses you make that don't pan out. And, it is likely that the system you create has fatal flaws. But *someone* needs to be the first and that someone deserves credit for opening the area to study.

But Aristotle was wrong in his physics. He was wrong in his metaphysics. He was abortive in his logic. ALL that means is that we have learned a few things in the 2300 years since Aristotle was alive.

So, no, those who lived in the past were not intellectually inferior than those alive today. But hose alive today have the huge benefit of standing on the shoulders of those who came in the past and hopefully can see a little bit farther. Arguments that seemed conclusive 500 years ago seem trite and clearly wrong now (ontological argument anyone?).  Ideas that were universally accepted in the past are known to be badly wrong today (alchemy). So, it isn't just 'gullibility' that is the issue: it is also access to the knowledge that has been discovered. And those in the past simply didn't have access to many of the things we know now.

[Edwardo Piet]

Am I the only one who thinks this thread was meant to be a circle jerk right from the start?

A circle jerk is just what happens when a bunch of people agree strongly with each other and express it.

It's echo chambers that are the real problem. But theism doesn't have anything to offer so it's not like it even fucking matters in this case how much we echo each other lol. We're not dealing with an alternative view here.... we're dealing with people who are the equivalent of someone who believes Elvis is still alive....

Actually, that's more believable.

[Amarok]

Chronological bigotry, 

Yay made up terms she has hit Ayn Rand levels of stupid

[Succubus]

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

Thanks for proving my point.

@Vulcanlogic - See, this is the level of discourse the blogger is talking about.

In 'Atheist Forums' plural, this is to be expected, on more neutral grounds we are likely to be more... accommodating.

---

Can any of you find anything about her philosophy degree or the places where she has worked?

It would be interesting to me to have some additional background.

I spent about 20 minutes and found nowt.

Edit. She claimed to have lectured at various universities but that means fuckall.