Atheists are Intellectually Dishonest

I'm paraphrasing from memory, but recently in a discussion it was argued that Atheists are "intellectually dishonest," and the theory here is that this is because someone would have to essentially be God in order to simultaneously search everywhere in the universe, which would be necessary in order to know that there is no God. For this reason they argued that atheism is intellectually dishonest, adding that agnosticism is the better, more honest choice, if one is going to dare to be a non-believer(as if non-belief is a choice?)

Anyway, I contend that this line of thinking is not entirely correct. While I do agree with the part that a person would need to be omnipotent to be able simultaneously search everywhere in the universe, that dilemma could also be solved with either omnipresence or omniscience, both of which many believers also attribute to God. If, say, you're omnipresent, then by definition you're already everywhere at once. If you're omniscient, then you know everything, including if gods exist, or not.

But what I'm also contending here is that one needn't have any of those three attributes to conclude, in a practical sense, that there is no God/are no gods. More on this in a minute.

For now, let's look at two types of atheists: (1) those who believe that there is no God, and (2) those who simply lack a belief that there is a God(there's a meaningful distinction there, BTW).

But before I get too far into this, I should point out that it is possible and reasonable for someone to be both agnostic and atheist at the same time. Yes, contrary to what many people believe, the two positions are not mutually exclusive, because one deals with belief; the other deals with knowledge. In other words, it's two totally different subjects. I know I've covered this a half a dozen times on this blog, but it seems it can't hurt to repeat it as long as people are going to repeat misinformation or out'n out falsities.

To attempt to illustrate how I or anyone can be both atheist and agnostic, consider that I do not know for sure, and thus, I cannot say for certain that leprechauns do not exist(for all intents and purposes, I'm agnostic when it comes to leprechauns).

Notwithstanding, I still do not believe that leprechauns exist(for all intents and purposes, I'm an atheist when it comes to leprechauns). Note that this is slightly different than me saying, "I believe leprechauns are non-existent!", and it's much different than me saying, "Leprechauns don't exist!".

So, on the one hand I could simply be suspending belief in something until there's conclusive evidence for that something's existence, all the while admitting that I don't know for certain. On the other hand, I could be saying that X doesn't exist and it be implicit that I mean it in a practical sense, not an absolute sense.

Neither of these is being intellectually dishonest or unreasonable, whether agnosticism is overt like in the former, or whether agnosticism is implied, like in the latter.

If we encounter a person who believes that God does not exist, or if someone proclaims, "There is no God!", the same thing applies; this person need not know with absolute certainty that no God exists to be intellectually honest with one's self and others.

Case in point, in the same practical sense that we can say that leprechauns don't exist, we can also say that invisible, supernatural, creator beings don't exist. If someone says that they don't believe in leprechauns, no one tells them that they're being foolish and/or intellectually dishonest. I mean, imagine how that would sound. Well, I contend that it sounds just as absurd to say that non-believers are "intellectually dishonest", including when they profess Atheism instead of Agnosticism. Sorry, I don't have to choose between the two.

Now, with all of that being said, could I, an agnostic atheist, be missing a greater truth? Yes! Of course I could! How about a more awesome truth? Ditto! But here's the rub: I'd only be doing myself a disservice to accept such a greater, more awesome truth on "faith". Once I start accepting things on "faith" and/or because something sounds more awesome than something else, at that point I have chosen a constructed truth over a truth built on facts and evidence. If someone finds fault in truth that's built on facts and evidence, then I don't know, maybe it just could be that I'm not the one who's being intellectually dishonest?

Social Media Christian no. 2,899,761

Hi, all,

Okay, yes, I pulled that number out of thin air :p

But seriously, it really does seem like I've had conversations well into the millions with Christians on social media. Well, yesterday I crossed paths with yet another social media Christian(friend of a friend), a guy who I quickly found out had some very bizarre views on the topic of morality, which of course, he claims comes from Christianity(this is demonstrably false, but that is for another discussion)

It all started with a meme that a mutual friend posted, one where pop skeptic Penn Jillette is pictured and is quoted, saying....

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?

The reasonable among us understand the point he is making. But at least one person, a guy who I will simply call "jj"(his initials), either pretended to not understand the point being made, or willingly misunderstood it, countering back....

Believe me...no true Christian thinks that a 'person' is watching over them.

I remarked back that the distinction he made is irrelevant, because Penn Jillette is simply making the observation that he finds it inconceivable that the only thing stopping some people from murdering and raping is the notion that they're being watched, with the possibility of being judged at a later time.

So, like clockwork, jj fires back....

Anyone who actually KNOWS and believes in the Spirit of God is not going to be drawn to raping and murdering

Did you catch that? Okay, anyone who's ever read a newspaper headline or a social media news feed knows that this is false. For starters, Christians, themselves, are some of the first people to admit that they are drawn to "sin", but always add that the "Holy Spirit" protects them, well, unless they slip up and get caught. When that happens, then they are sure to let you know that they are "forgiven", and this seems to align with one platitude in particular that goes, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"

We all know that one, don't we? And yet, in this instance when I called the apologist out, rather than him point out that Christians aren't perfect and can "sin" like everyone else, he instead attempted the ever popular, "Not a True Christian!" argument, aka, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, the learned Christian apologist proffered that, while Christians can act immorally or unethically, no "True Christian" could ever rape or murder. 'Funny, because just a cursory look at the bible and we see that murdering people is in fact approved by the very character whom jj will no doubt claim makes him and every other "True Christian" incapable of murder. There are countless murders of people commanded by biblegod, including the murder of women and children. Now, are the ones who followed the orders not "True Christians", then? I think of what a great ministry tool it would be if someone could clear this up. But I wouldn't recommend the holding of one's breath.

In any case, at this point I interjected that, statistically, Christians are just as capable of rape and murder as anyone else, which, in hindsight, might not have been the best choice of words. Notwithstanding, there are statistics and studies that have shown that prison populations have a higher number of inmates who identified as Christian than those who identified with other faiths.

But of course, jj latched onto the "statistic" comment like a fly on guano, demanding that I provide said statistics, which, by the way, I did, but a few of them were given by way of a bar graph. I provided graphs (and sources) for two separate years, clearly showing that Christians make up most of the prison population.

Here is one of the actual links I provided...

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

Lo and behold, my Christian interlocutor contested the link, calling one "a meme" and another "vague", while complaining at length because it lacked the precise percentages of the inmates who are in prison specifically for rape and murder, never mind that there are also charts that actually do show these percentages:

So, inmates who committed violent crimes, including rape and murder, make up more of the prison population than those who committed lesser offenses. Given this data, we are then being reasonable to deduce that a very large percentage of that section identify as Christian. It's a matter of doing the math.

And yet, this sort of evidence will not satisfy, and I knew it wouldn't, which is why I didn't even bother with posting the above pie chart. Why didn't I post it? The answer is simple and obvious: Because the social media Christian has taken the intellectually lazy way out and simply redefined what "Christian" means. This way, with a wave of a hand, he can simply say that any person who rapes and murders isn't a "True Christian". How's that for convenience?

I'm sure that I am not the only one who sees how vacuous this sort of argument is. I certainly saw it, so using one of my favorite literary tools..i.e..sarcasm, I pointed out that things like armed robbery, child molestation, and child pornography are not deal breakers in this guy's world; you can still commit these 'not-so-immoral' acts and be a "True Christian".

Of course, this is what all Christians do. I did it when I was a Christian. They all subjectively draw their lines. They all project their own idea of how morals should be.

As one might have guessed, there was dead silence on this issue. Not one iota of interest shown in clearing it up. Not that this is shocking, or anything.