"INTELLECTUAL HONESTY IS ABOUT HAVING HIGH STANDARDS FOR THE TRUTH.
It’s not just about not lying; it’s about stating the truth when you know it, hiding nothing, twisting nothing, leaving nothing out.
Intellectual dishonesty, on the other hand, is a sort of blanket term for being dishonest without necessarily straight out lying. It’s the failure to apply high standards for truth."
For the record anyone can read this discourse to see for themselves the level of dishonesty @Sherlock-Holmes has shown throughout this debate, and from the start.
For example his insistence on repeatedly lying in a sweeping generic way about how atheism is defined, in order to create a straw man argument, even when the atheists here had specifically and repeatedly told him how they defined their lack of belief. Turning into a crybaby now to play the victim after many months of such blatant dishonest is fooling no one, though it is perhaps apropos that rather than honestly address his relentless mendacity, he is continuing in that vein.
Expecting people to tap dance around such dishonesty with euphemisms, or even expecting them to pretend a blatant lie is just a difference of opinion, is simply risible. If you want respect then understand it involves reciprocity.
Now while this is just the second post, note the contradiction and the dishonesty that set the tone, describing atheism as “lofty talk”. When he just stated unequivocally that not knowing obviously mean you don’t believe, emboldened and underlined above. So his own assertion shows agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, indeed they are synonymous. As I have asked repeatedly who bases belief on not knowing, no cogent answer ever offered. Lets move on and see how this dishonesty develops.
No it isn’t, it is saying I don’t hold any belief in any deity, we note again he is dishonestly trying to portray atheism as a claim. We are all born atheists before we even know it.
Note now he has deliberately misrepresented me again, just waved the fallacy away, and then states again that one needs to reject claims in order to be an atheist, when one cannot know whether they are true and would then in his own words above obviously not believe. Here it is again then:
Miracle
noun
- an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
Note in order to disbelieve such claims we make no assumptions about what can and cannot be explained by natural or scientific laws, all we need do is note the claim for divine causation is unevidenced and irrational.
Note this was in mid February where I very specifically explained that not all atheists define their atheism in the same way, but that when deviating from the common usage in the dictionary it is incumbent on anyone to say so, and specifically define what they mean. I encourage everyone to read the discourse and see that @Sherlock-Holmes continued to bait atheists here by dishonestly misrepresenting people’s atheism in a generic way that does not reflect the dictionary definition of the word, and despite every atheist I saw contributing to the discourse telling him specifically he was wrong, yet he dishonestly persist to this day, and is now hurling accusation of incivility at anyone pointing out his dishonesty.
Now there’s this:
I tried to highlight this contradiction and he dishonestly tap danced away from it.