But Kodie, you've just explained why it's important to consider each person individually and give careful attention to the context of interpersonal activity. That's all I'm saying: it isn't appropriate to cast an entire group in perfectly equal moral fault, because people are so much more complicated than that. Not only are people complicated and individual, but as you point out, any person looking at someone else and trying to be "objective" is probably still filtering things through their own prejudices or preferences.
I don't agree that the topic here is faith, at least not from the way I read the OP. I'm pretty sure the topic is dishonesty on the part of a specific ideological group. That's a perfectly valid topic to think about. I've even mentioned in another discussion that I think many Christians are intellectually dishonest to some degree. However, I don't like Nzo's argument because it isn't a good argument; casting the entirety of the opposed side as stupid, deluded, dishonest, or what have you, is not a good argument. Being frustrated (and I get that religion frustrates people, believe me) might make me forgive a bad argument, but it doesn't turn a bad argument into a good one.
Ty, I figure that's a workable definition of "Christian" although some people would probably disagree with me. I would suggest that this claim is not strongly verified by empirical evidence. Historically, there have been two camps within Christianity: those who think there is strong verification (for this and other claims) available from empirical evidence, and those who think such verification is not only unavailable, but destructive to Christianity when it is present.
If I professed to be an empiricist, I would (in order to remain intellectually honest) need to spend a great deal of time and effort dealing with the fact that empirical verification of Christ's supposed supernatural nature doesn't seem forthcoming. Perhaps I would arrive at the idea that empiricism isn't sufficient to find such verification (since empiricism doesn't admit of a supernatural world on any terms whatsoever.) Perhaps I would begin to have doubts about the existence of the supernatural at all. Perhaps I would deconvert entirely, or perhaps not.
I don't think that fact agrees with Nzo's point, which is if I'm reading correctly, that "Every single ounce of your beliefs is intellectually dishonest. Every single claim you've made has either never been proved, or has been disproved time and again. Every single time you utter something about your religion, you are LYING." Disregarding impolitic language, I just don't think this is at all a workable position. What Nzo is saying is that when my beliefs (or anyone's) don't mesh with the "science and logic" that everyone uses in their daily lives, my beliefs are wrong, stupid, condescending, and/or dishonest.
The thing is (again, leaving aside provocative language, which I don't really care about,) what Nzo is effectively saying is that anytime someone's beliefs don't sync up with *his own personal beliefs about the way the world works, and the best way to understand that world* then their position is dishonest. His position assumes that everyone sees things the way he does, it assumes that his position is right *a priori,* and it assumes that it is impossible to honestly enjoy the productive aspects of a scientific industrial establishment while believing that their might be a non-materialistic component of the universe.
This is the way I read the OP. I could be wrong. But if this *is* what the OP says and means, then I firmly do not agree with it, and I think I'm right to do so. Then again, I'm always willing to talk about why I might be wrong. ;D