Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Amarok]

I had him in check and he threw over the board saying ' You're  wrong and I don't have to explain why'.

Like fuck you did. I don't get your delusions of grandeur Wooter . But they are grand indeed 

[LadyForCamus]

Pretty long winded about something you claim not to care about.

Way to duck out, Neo...

[Amarok]

Pretty long winded about something you claim not to care about.

You confuse not believing with not caring

[bennyboy]

Atheist:

1) Looks for evidence of God
2) Finds none
3) Says, "I think there's probably no God."
4) "Intellectually dishonest"
5) Fuck off.

Why is this not /thread?

[vulcanlogician]

For 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.

You are not going to get me to budge on the capitalization thing. It's a non-point.

As far as Yahweh's universality, I didn't mean to quote mine or strawman, and you have a point. The entire quote does elaborate more. But I'd have to say the quote in its entirety still misses the point. I assume you've read the OT. It describes a finite god-- the god of a single people. The Jews. The NT describes a new covenant, but it doesn't really describe a new god. So,according to the Bible, where Christians go to learn about their deity, we are dealing with a finite god . The author of the article has a well-developed God concept, and is informed by the likes of Anselm and Aquinas. Most Christians aren't. And it is rather unfair to atheists to "call them out" for criticizing the finite god in the Bible, when the vast majority of Christians believe in this finite god. But don't take my word for it--walk into a Baptist church and describe the philosopher's god to the people inside. They will sneer at it.

I wish, instead of writing articles about how intellectually dishonest atheists are, one of these "enlightened Christians" would lay into the fundamentalists. But there never is good rigorous debate between Christians it seems. If there is ever disagreement, it's solved with a new schism.

I'll tell you something you might not know. I think theism in itself is a rational position. Its not one I personally think is plausible, but if others hold the belief, I don't consider them irrational just for holding it. I have many times challenged my own atheistic position by reading and seriously considering arguments from the other side. (Most apologetics are less than compelling, but some works like William James's Varieties of religious experience makes a pretty good case for belief. I know that many (if not most) other atheists have looked seriously at both sides as well. Forget "the village atheists" for a minute. What about those of us who have given theism a fair shake? Many of us use the arguments listed in the article because they are good arguments.

It may annoy you personally to have your beliefs compared to the pagans whose gods' demands must be met or they will ruin next year's crops. Well guess what? There are plenty of Christians who blame natural disasters on the fact that America legalised gay marriage. Plenty of atheists on this forum argue vehemently against such illogic. The question is: if we don't do it, who will?

It sucks that so many rational believers feel the need to answer insults thrown at ignorant believers. My beef is with them. You and I can have a civil discussion about why you believe, and I don't. But for so many others, there is no rational discussion. We need to bow down to their tribal god or he will create sinkholes over gay wedding cakes. Someone needs to argue against this bullshit, and in the course of my arguments I reserve the right to call illogical belief which is inseparable from paganism out for what it is.

[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 .

[Neo-Scholastic]

It describes a finite god-- the god of a single people. The Jews. The NT describes a new covenant, but it doesn't really describe a new god.

"Tell them 'I am' sent you." Sounds more cosmically fundamental than Baal or Odin to me.

"In the beginning was the Word" Logos...Divine Truth with a capital 'T'...doesn't sound very tribal to me either.

And then there is Job 39...

[GrandizerII]

It describes a finite god-- the god of a single people. The Jews. The NT describes a new covenant, but it doesn't really describe a new god.

"Tell them 'I am' sent you." Sounds more cosmically fundamental than Baal or Odin to me.

"In the beginning was the Word" Logos...Divine Truth with a capital 'T'...doesn't sound very tribal to me either.

And then there is Job 39...

John does feature a transformed version of God but thats not the common theme in the Bible overall.

As for Job, nah. Still a finite petty being.

[Amarok]

"Tell them 'I am' sent you." Sounds more cosmically fundamental than Baal or Odin to me.

"In the beginning was the Word" Logos...Divine Truth with a capital 'T'...doesn't sound very tribal to me either.

And then there is Job 39..

None of this defines your god from any other . More desperate flim flam

[rskovride]

---

It describes a finite god-- the god of a single people. The Jews. The NT describes a new covenant, but it doesn't really describe a new god.

---

---

"Tell them 'I am' sent you." Sounds more cosmically fundamental than Baal or Odin to me.

"In the beginning was the Word" Logos...Divine Truth with a capital 'T'...doesn't sound very tribal to me either.

---

And then there is Job 39...

What about Job 39?  Can you expound on that?