Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Amarok]

Thanks for proving my point.

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

Lol you mean calling something what it is . And not tiptoeing around the absurdity of your beliefs . Because your ilk get butthurt when we do.

[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.

I spent about 20 minutes and found nowt.

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

Another unsupported claim, the burden of proof expands.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

The thing is... as I have already explained... it's not a straw man to say that someone with an imaginary friend has an imaginary friend. You have a friend, that friend is imaginary... the fact you believe he isn't imaginary and has magic powers and created the universe is all irrelevant. He's literally an imaginary friend regardless.

It's very difficult to make a strawman out of theism by making it childish.... because it's already fucking childish.

---

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.

You've whined on and on about me strawmanning your friend and yet you've still yet to display any evidence that your friend is anything more than imaginary. So who's really beclowning themselves?

---

Thanks for proving my point.

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

Lol you mean calling something what it is . And not tiptoeing around the absurdity of your beliefs . Because your ilk get butthurt when we do.

QFT. That's exactly right.

"How dare you make fun of my beliefs by labeling them with a term that precisely describes how absurd they really are!"

[notimportant1234]

I don't really like how the"burden of proof thing" is used by most people. I mean some just throw it out and expect the other part to do all the talking.
No, this is not the case. If two people are talking and one says he is an atheist and the other says he is a theist, the burden of proof should fall on the person who challenges the oposite belief.
I see this as a tool used to make people argument their position . If I make a statement and you say it is false you have to argument it, but in order for me too disprove your argumentation I need too make an argument, I can't say " no this is certainly false".


As for the intellectual dishonesty , it depends on what you claim.

[Amarok]

On this we must disagree

[notimportant1234]

On this we must disagree

Why ? I don't see it normal for me to answer your argument with a blunt " No, this is false" justified by the burden of proof in a healty conversation.

[GrandizerII]

I don't really like how the"burden of proof thing" is used by most people. I mean some just throw it out and expect the other part to do all the talking.
No, this is not the case. If two people are talking and one says he is an atheist  and the other says he is a theist, the burden of proof should fall on the person who challenges the oposite belief.
I see this as a tool  used to make people argument their position . If I make a statement and you say it is false you have to argument it, but in order for me too disprove your argumentation I need too make an argument, I can't say " no this is certainly false".


As for the intellectual dishonesty , it depends on what you claim.

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

[notimportant1234]

I don't really like how the"burden of proof thing" is used by most people. I mean some just throw it out and expect the other part to do all the talking.
No, this is not the case. If two people are talking and one says he is an atheist  and the other says he is a theist, the burden of proof should fall on the person who challenges the oposite belief.
I see this as a tool  used to make people argument their position . If I make a statement and you say it is false you have to argument it, but in order for me too disprove your argumentation I need too make an argument, I can't say " no this is certainly false".


As for the intellectual dishonesty , it depends on what you claim.

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.

[Minimalist]

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

Xhristards dismiss gods that millions of other people believed in for millennia and who believed in them for no better reason than xhristards believe in their horseshit.  Perhaps one can say that xhristards are merely stupider than pagans?

[RoadRunner79]

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.

That is exactly what it is.