Intellectual Honesty

[Danmark]

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude....
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."
Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty.
_ Wikipedia
The question for debate, is not whether intellectual honesty is the proper attitude for debate [I assume everyone agrees, but if there is opposition to this view it would be interesting to hear it], but for routine examples of the kinds of arguments on this forum that violate the principle of intellectual honesty.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

The question for debate, is not whether intellectual honesty is the proper attitude for debate [I assume everyone agrees, but if there is opposition to this view it would be interesting to hear it], but for routine examples of the kinds of arguments on this forum that violate the principle of intellectual honesty.

For me the most blatant example of intellectual dishonesty is the common theist claim that the universe could not possibly simply "just exist" without the necessary requirement of intelligent design, and therefore this proves the necessary existence of an intelligent designer who simply "just exists" without the requirement of intelligent design. I weep for the waste of oxygen required by this sort of convoluted "thinking."

[Wootah]

I am yet to see the cases cited here, animal morality, causality, proven to the extent that one side simply must be intellectual dishonest.

For me the intellectually dishonest issue is not the facts but whether your actions match your ideology. Rarely do I find an atheist that knows their ideology and can justify from their ideology their actions.

However, it is not possible to just take 20 years to work out your ideology either.

Anyone debating with me is free to PM me if they feel I missed something.

[Danmark]

I am yet to see the cases cited here, animal morality, causality, proven to the extent that one side simply must be intellectual dishonest.

For me the intellectually dishonest issue is not the facts but whether your actions match your ideology. Rarely do I find an atheist that knows their ideology and can justify from their ideology their actions.

However, it is not possible to just take 20 years to work out your ideology either.

Anyone debating with me is free to PM me if they feel I missed something.

One has to be very careful not to claim 'intellectual dishonesty' on this forum of course.
So I want to be very careful and not make that specific claim, but at the same time I assert the animal morality studies are convincing. Do you find them dubious, or conclusions from them dubious, or just not strong enough to warrant a charge of 'intellectual dishonesty' if one claims they don't establish morality absent a god?

[Goat]

I am yet to see the cases cited here, animal morality, causality, proven to the extent that one side simply must be intellectual dishonest.

For me the intellectually dishonest issue is not the facts but whether your actions match your ideology. Rarely do I find an atheist that knows their ideology and can justify from their ideology their actions.

However, it is not possible to just take 20 years to work out your ideology either.

Anyone debating with me is free to PM me if they feel I missed something.

Perhaps it is just that you don't accept the justification. I find that is often the case. I don't accept the justification many theists have for their ideology has either.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Wootah]

For me the intellectually dishonest issue is not the facts but whether your actions match your ideology. Rarely do I find an atheist that knows their ideology and can justify from their ideology their actions.

Atheists do not have supernatural beliefs. And yet it is clear to most people most of the time, and not just atheists, that the mutual aid advantages of societal life is far superior to attempting to survive outside of society all alone. As a result most people live within the strictures of what is known as "The Golden Rule," most of the time. It IS the basis of our morality, whether one believes in a supernatural Being, or not.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Wootah]

For me the intellectually dishonest issue is not the facts but whether your actions match your ideology. Rarely do I find an atheist that knows their ideology and can justify from their ideology their actions.

Atheists do not have supernatural beliefs. And yet it is clear to most people most of the time, and not just atheists, that the mutual aid advantages of societal life is far superior to attempting to survive outside of society all alone. As a result most people live within the strictures of what is known as "The Golden Rule," most of the time. It IS the basis of our morality, whether one believes in a supernatural Being, or not.

Indeed. I think for most of us it just 'feels better' to treat others well; it's when someone is a real . . . uh... piece of work that the challenge comes, or when we are called upon to make a true sacrifice. Even then, a lot of people do the heroic thing almost as a reflex in an emergency. Maybe it's time to restart the 'morality without god thread' again.

[Artie]

For me the intellectually dishonest issue is not the facts but whether your actions match your ideology. Rarely do I find an atheist that knows their ideology and can justify from their ideology their actions.

Because atheism isn't an ideology. It's just an absence of belief in gods. Atheists justify their actions by referring to any number of things such as logic, reason, common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, conscience, respect for others, self-respect, love, duty, obligation, responsibility, the laws, the Golden Rule, morals, ethics, good upbringing, previous experience, education, advice from more experienced people etc etc. All those apply whether or not you believe in gods, fairies, leprechauns or whatever. We don't need to justify our actions by claiming it's right or wrong because we think a god says so or that a 2000 year old book says so.

Intellectual dishonesty to me is when one claims something to be true or false ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary to further ones own agenda.

[Danmark]

For me the intellectually dishonest issue is not the facts but whether your actions match your ideology. Rarely do I find an atheist that knows their ideology and can justify from their ideology their actions.

Because atheism isn't an ideology. It's just an absence of belief in gods. Atheists justify their actions by referring to any number of things such as logic, reason, common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, conscience, respect for others, self-respect, love, duty, obligation, responsibility, the laws, the Golden Rule, morals, ethics, good upbringing, previous experience, education, advice from more experienced people etc etc. All those apply whether or not you believe in gods, fairies, leprechauns or whatever. We don't need to justify our actions by claiming it's right or wrong because we think a god says so or that a 2000 year old book says so.

Intellectual dishonesty to me is when one claims something to be true or false ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary to further ones own agenda.

This is an excellent point Artie, and I don't understand why this is so often misunderstood. Atheism does not necessarily mean any thing more than what you have said. I prefer to call it 'non theism,' but in any event it is simply an absence of belief in a personal god. One may be a Republican, a Democrat, a realist, a Buddhist, a Jew, a mystic, or have a wide ranging and interconnected belief and value system, and be a non theist. Non theists should and do disagree aggressively with each other an a wide range of topics. The only thing they necessarily have in common is an absence of belief in the traditional god of orthodox theism.

[Nilloc James]

Responding to wootah:

Why would I base my actions on my atheism? Its such a non-issue to me, its just one thing I happen to not believe.

Im lots of other things as well: a humanist, empathetic, chronic note taker, pen hoarder etc.

Id say my behavior comes from all my beliefs except my atheism.