No Morality in Christianity: Theologian Justifies Genocide and Infanticide

[Irreligious]

From the Wiki page, to which Victus first linked, defining the term intellectual dishonesty:

the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position

emphasis, mine

Objectively, empirically, one cannot practice due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of a position that is based on an inherently unknowable assertion.

[Saturday]

5 bucks says he changed the wiki

[dogpet]

What is the christian criteria for believing their god has magicked itself real & is commanding them to be a tool? Would they demand it perform impossible tricks? Would it have to be flamboyantly supernatural b4 they would comply against their own conscience? Even then would they seek the opinion of a doctor, b4 say, killing someone under instruction of a, well what would it have to be to persuade them exactly?
Will Thomas tell us what would do for him?

[Sol]

Victus wrote

I don't acknowledge it because I don't think it's true. Indeed, later in this post, you will agree with me that they are not exclusive constructs.

Well there you are then, but I am still none the wiser, as to why you don't acknowledge the difference, this is partially due to the seemingly contradictory stance you take later in your post.

Victus wrote

It is, to the extent that intellectual dishonesty and regular dishonesty overlap.

Just there, you use seperate constructions of intellectual dishonesty and regular dishonesty. You address them as two seperate things and then augment the separate nature of them by saying they overlap. You don't say whether they overlap, totally, slightly or hardly at all. But you do seem to be treating them as seperate....... You see my confusion.

Victus wrote

So, again, can you think of an example where someone can be intellectually dishonest without being dishonest more broadly?

Yes, I can think of examples where a perfectly honest person can debate a particular point, but, not in an intellectually honest manner. (the O.P. quoting Lane, would be a weak example.)

Victus wrote

If they mean to different things, then it should be easy for you to isolate the meaning and give distinct examples of each, exclusive to the other.

A broadly usefull example, would be the other often misappropriated phrase,
to "Beg the question" One can beg the question in a debate and it could be allowed in order to further that debate. eg.

Jesus is the son of God. (Initial premise)
If the thrust of the debate is to defend the historicity of Jesus then this is seen as generally an intellectualy dishonest method to further the debate, based on the initial premise. However honest the debater appears to be in their belief in any dodgey facts they may come up with, they are still intellectually dishonest. Because the premise begs the question.

Victus wrote

I agree on this point.

Then let us end on an agreement, as I cannot see us agreeing on the other.