Intellectual Dishonesty

What is an example of intellectual dishonesty?
ONE OF THE MOST common ways to be intellectually dishonest in a debate is to dodge questions while pretending you're answering them.

This seems to be a common approach found on this site.

 

As in:

I like.

 

Here is a link on this topic:
5 Signs of Intellectual Dishonesty and How to Beat It - Learning Mind

 

Good stuff from the link supplied; "The first thing to consider when trying to beat it is to understand the signs that it is being used.

"Here are five common signs or techniques
of someone being intellectually dishonest:

1. "Ignoring or avoiding the question.
   
   
2. "Employing double standards.
   
   
3. "Never admitting error or pretending things make sense when they don’t.
   
   
4. "They are being vague in their answers, often to deceive others.
   
   
5. "They are being dismissive of others’ arguments without giving a proper reason.
   

From another place, I found some indicators;

"In many books that argue a specific point, an author usually accuses his/ her opponent(s) of doing certain things that ultimately discredit them from consideration. The author specifically points out these things and gives examples to prove his point..."

"However, in many cases, an author is guilty of doing some of the same things he accuses his opponents of doing in the same book(s) he wrote to discredit his opponents.

"Everyone has/uses biases and assumptions, whether valid or not. These biases and assumptions shape the way one thinks and are sometimes used to argue a point."

"(We may have) a definite bias regarding (any given particular study). This bias is based on several opinions or theories (we) holds to. (We) could argue that (our) biases are based on "sound principles", but this is beside the point.

"(When we, or someone else) has a theory on (any given particular study) that (we or they), (we or they) assume it is correct based on (our respective) learning.

"When a challenge is presented to us, we automatically explain it through this theory (bias). (We or they may be said to) have a "bias" as the standard, and always go by that bias when confronted with issues of (any given particular study), etc.

"If (we read their writing) several times through, a very definite set of problems (like those above and below, may be seen that) surface over and over again.

"These problems (can) cause (us) to question (the writer's) honesty,
integrity and character.

"These problems are listed below;

1. "The author has a double standard when dealing with groups or individuals.

2. "The author misrepresents people.

3. "The author frequently does not give full/objective evidence when defending his position or attacking his opponents.

4. "The author's assumptions are based on scholarship that is humanistic.

5. "The author has no proof for many of the statements he makes.

6. "The author has no tangible final authority.

7. "The author has little biblical or scriptural foundation for his beliefs."

But do they have a Biblical foundation?

"Upon reading (the writings of one you suspect of Intellectual Dishonestly) we may find that most of their opinions and arguments are based on either some authority other than the bible or their own personal beliefs.

"(Specifically on the subject of textural irregularities, some have) the arrogance to make the following assumptions. These assumptions contradict clear passages in the bible whether in English, Greek, or Hebrew (Genesis 3 for example).

1. "Satan never in 6,000 years of biblical history influenced anyone to change anything God said.
2. "No intentional textual corruption ever survived to make it into any existing greek texts.
3. "Only the original writings of the biblical authors were inspired and inerrant.

"(Again, specifically on the subject of textural irregularities, some have) with these assumptions, have taken the liberty to thrust on the laity their theory, (in this example) of transmission/preservation.

"This theory is based on the following points (of pure guesswork*):

1. "People make mistakes and so we will find mistakes (of fact?, of doctrine?, or irrelevant idiosyncrasies inherent in human involvement?) in the text of the bible (Infallibility vs human error).
2. "People who copied texts sometimes added words (whether conscious of it or not) to make a passage match another passage.
3. "People added to a text (whether conscious of it or not) to honor God or Jesus.
4. "People sometimes combined two readings to make a fuller reading.
5. "The transmission of the biblical text is the same as any other book.
6. "The older reading is probably the better one.
7. "If a reading has no variants, it must be the original."

"Most of these points are based on a humanistic approach" (prevalent among translators, authors of books, and writers of articles and posts, today).

*There can be no specific determination as to when and where, if and when, any one of these various "points" may have ever occurred, or not at all, much less to make a general conclusion that all scripture has, therefore, been tampered with by the flesh with man-made ideas and is utterly unreliable, for faith and practice.

 

Jon, you have said "Penal substitution is a corruption of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

You have stated that "Penal substitution has the potential to damn a soul."

Be careful. Your inconsistency is showing.