Intellectual honesty?

Yet another religious examiner makes a provocative post and yet again I respond. I recently had a talk with Ex about why it's worth doing this. Certainly yes, anything I say to these people falls on deaf ears, yet although I address them, I'm not speaking just to them.

We both agree that the majority of believers (at least in our combined experiences) are fairly decent folk who don't gasp at hearing we're atheists, proselytize to us, condemn us, threaten local schools, picket clinics, or any other such Christian shenanigans we atheists fume over. Such crap is the ravings of the lunatic fringe, the extreme fanatics. Your everyday person who identifies themselves as a believer is pretty pragmatic and mild mannered, however, when the public forum is dominated by the fanatics, these people can be swayed (or coerced) to engage in similar behavior, hold some or all of the beliefs asserted (atheists are immoral and evil, aren't real Americans, are intellectually dishonest, condoms aren't just ineffective against the spread AIDS, they'll make it worse, evolution is just a theory, etc), and, in a sense, become additions to a mindless mob which threatens society. This is why such ravings can not go unanswered. The public forum must have voices of reason to counterbalance the voices of lunacy.

Another reason why I regularly address nonsense arguments by the lunatic fringe is to prove to myself that I can. It's very easy to simply dismiss out of hand the nonsense they assert, but that's not intellectually honest. Doing so makes us no better, and makes us mere dogmatic, faith based creatures like them. No, the correct course of action, I feel, is to make sure you can address such nonsense rationally, especially because although the nonsense may seem obviously to be nonsense, it's often not so cut and dry to demonstrate. Over time, the more you address these arguments, the better prepared you are to do so again, or pick them out cleverly disguised in other arguments and indeed, you will become quicker at getting to the roots of their arguments, so I encourage every atheist to engage in such exercises whenever possible. You never know when you might get blind-sided somewhere, someday, and you would like to be more than a deer in the headlights, no?

Soooo after that long preface, we have Mr. Scialdone's charge of atheists being intellectually dishonest. What? No doubt your first reactions are ones of anger and dismissal, but remember, nothing is gained by such reactions. No, he makes some assertions which if ignored, can fester and grow in the minds of others and become accepted as true. His assertions require a response, and so I gave him one, as many others did. How would you respond? Think about it, and perhaps take a crack at it over there, or some other time when he or any other theist rants and raves.

Comment left for Mr. Scialdone....

Agnosticism refers to knowledge of the existence of a god or gods. You say atheists are technically agnostics, and I would agree, since we don't know if there are any gods, but that cuts both ways. You, and all believers in gods, also are agnostics, for although you believe, you don't KNOW whether what you believe is true.

Atheism, however, is the rejection of god claims because they're unwarranted. This may lead one to assert there are no gods, but technically that's intellectually dishonest, despite the fact that we all, atheist and theist alike, make such assertions daily regarding various other things which we both would agree are unwarranted to believe exist like Nessie or Leprechauns. We scoff and say they don't exist, yet technically that's intellectually dishonest, but it's an acceptable stance to take in society for most of us agree that the evidence for their existence isn't there, thus, belief in their existence isn't warranted.

Now contrast that to assertions by the religious that there definitely is a god. Where's the intellectual honesty there? You may feel in your heart that it's true, but you don't KNOW it's true. You can have faith, but none of you have knowledge, for if you did, it would be front page news and let's face it, then there couldn't be any more atheists. If you had demonstrable evidence, then certainly the existence of your god(s) would be a warranted belief.

You are correct that "there's simply nothing to discuss" if the person across the aisle from you denies the possibility that they may be wrong, which is yet another reason why I would say most theists are intellectually dishonest, for they are incapable of entertaining the possibility that they might be wrong. If we can agree that a god might NOT exist, we can begin to examine any evidence or arguments addressing the existence of any god. It's the beginning of a long process, to be sure...but it's a beginning.
---------------------------

I should also add that there's an old quote from Socrates (I think it was him) that I always keep in mind when responding to arguments:

"A fool tries to persuade me with his words, the wise man persuades me with my own"

I find it useful to, when possible, use your opponents words in your responses. Sometimes they're oblivious to the fact that their assertions actually work against their arguments. This is especially true of theists for, not being intellectually honest, they haven't looked at their position objectively. They hold their belief true and form arguments and make assertions to champion their beliefs without really exploring the full ramifications of those arguments and assertions. In tying up their arguments, they may very well have left enough rope lying around to hang themselves, so rather than battling, all you need to do is point to that, and smile.

As you can see above, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Scialdone's statements about intellectual honesty and the frustration of having to deal with people who can't entertain the idea that they may be wrong; however, clearly, he's confused who's who in that problem of intellectual honesty, and it's no surprise that he has, since he's championing a belief he can't accept as wrong, and therefore can't look at the issue objectively, and THAT is most certainly not intellectual honesty.