Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

[Lightningman_42]

I'm not convinced that they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBCHGpP32vo

I find it rather depressing to see atheists use poor reasoning to defend their views on various topics of discussion (including, but not limiting to veganism). Poor reasoning that they'd never accept having theists use against them. I don't automatically assume atheists to hold themselves to higher standards of intellectual honesty. Their ability to free their minds from religious dogma might show that they are skeptical of all irrational ideologies that they've been indoctrinated into, or it might just show that they are selectively skeptical of things they dislike.

A great example of the latter is Matt Dillahunty. I know that TheVeganAtheist has already made videos criticizing him, but Ask Yourself recently provided a fresh perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ask Yourself provided a longer set of video clips of Matt speaking than TheVeganAtheist did, and so now I have an even better understanding of how poorly conceived Matt's anti-vegan stance is.

Having listened to what Matt says, I'm amazed that an atheist who prides himself on having broken free of religious dogma would shamelessly use such absurdly poor arguments against a philosophical stance that he dislikes (veganism).

I think he's a terrible advocate for secular morality because...
1. His "moral code" is ultimately motivated by self-interest ("I deserve to kill & eat animals so long as I allow them the same freedom", even though the latter is something that farmed animals cannot do, and wouldn't even if they could).
2. His unwillingess to extend the same simple considerations to animals, that he shows to humans, is based upon arbitrary personal whims. He's a great example of an atheist who does not have an objective, non-arbitrary moral code.

Matt Dillahunty is a walking billboard for theism.

[brimstoneSalad]

Finally got to watch this. I agree, it's particularly bad when it comes to ethical issues, and particularly when it comes down to a suggestion that they might have to behave better.

One of the things that motivates a lot of atheists to leave religion is the restrictions on certain behaviors (there's reason there too, but the imposition is often what provides the motivation to utilize reason). While those rules are often arbitrary and unfair, atheists can sometimes be triggered by a suggestion that they might be morally compelled to not do something that harms others.

I'm not sure if there were more clips or not. Ask yourself made a few mistakes but he was mostly on the mark.
Dillahunty probably is a good advertisement for theism, although most theists would not pick up on this because they don't want to open the can of worms they'd have to deal with if they got into animal ethics either.

[DarlBundren]

I don't think so. But it really depends on the context. Being an atheist might be a good predictor of intellectual honesty in the US, but it is not in my country, where most people are not religious. Paradoxically, (and rather speculatively) being a religious person here "can" mean you are able to think outside the box. Kohlberg linked moral awareness to intelligence, and I'm not surprised that there are a lot of very intelligent people who consider themselves Christians. Not the best example around, but Chris Langan, whose IQ is 200 (although I don't know if there's a meaningful way to calculate an IQ that high) claims to be religious. Being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean to be intellectually honest, though.

[Greatest I am]

If one is a literalist believer, one has to go into intellectual and moral dissonance.

Intellectual dissonance I would describe as having a real belief in talking serpents and donkeys and moral dissonance as thinking that a genocidal God who kills when he could just as easily cure is a moral God.

Such people are, to me, quite shameful as no one should abuse their own mind, morals and intellect that way.

They are a disgrace to humanity.

Regards
DL

[Jebus]

Chris Langan, whose IQ is 200 (although I don't know if there's a meaningful way to calculate an IQ that high) claims to be religious.

This is not uncommon in the U.S. where a surprising number of scientists and other intellectuals claim to be religious. I can't think of any such person outside the U.S.

[DarlBundren]

This is not uncommon in the U.S. where a surprising number of scientists and other intellectuals claim to be religious. I can't think of any such person outside the U.S.

Isn't Kasparov a Christian? I don't think it's really limited to the U.S., but probably we are still talking about very religious (Muslim, Jewish..) populations.

[Jebus]

Isn't Kasparov a Christian?

He has identified himself as both an atheist and a christian. My guess is that he is atheist but that the Christian part goes well with his anti Putin political agenda.

[PsYcHo]

I may hold an unusual opinion, but I think that anyone who strictly adheres to either Atheism or Theism isn't truly intellectually honest.

I personally think all religions are silly, but the idea that the universe was created from nothing is (if you're being honest..) also silly.

Personally, I hate militant Atheist more than militant Theist... The Atheist should know better and behave with morals not lined out in an ancient book.

[brimstoneSalad]

Personally, I hate militant Atheist more than militant Theist... The Atheist should know better and behave with morals not lined out in an ancient book.

It's kind of apples to oranges, though.
Militant atheists are making arguments against god and saying religion is silly and has brainwashed the sheeple. At worst they're making mean jokes.
Militant theists are killing people and saying people who disagree with them or disbelieve in their god are evil (which in practice justifies them doing what they do, in jihad or otherwise).



One is more focused on criticism of the idea, and in a large part because most of them used to be theists or have friends and loved ones who are religious, the other is focused on the people who hold the idea and are lacking in humanity because of their isolation (they have never in their memories disbelieved, and do not have any friends or family who are atheists or usually even from other religions).

This is not to say that militant atheists could not be as bad in the right environment (there have been cases in history where this has happened, but also cases in history where theism has been even worse), but in general knowing and loving people who are religious as well as having once been theists themselves gives them perspective, understanding, and a little more compassion.

Atheists can be ethically worse than theists when they should know better; look at Matt Dillahunty, where he uses terrible irrational justifications to defend killing and eating animals and basically promoting relativism; a couple centuries ago he would be vehemently defending slavery. The same arguments he uses to criticize the ethics of the religious he completely ignores when they apply to his own rationalizations.

But they can also be more consistent, like Richard Dawkins who recognizes the harm to other sentient beings and doesn't rationalize it away in the same way as Dillahunty; Dawkins apparently even eats vegetarian at home and only eats meat when he's out or at a friend's house, which is a huge step in the right direction. That's probably like an 80-90% reduction in harm.

Anyway, I agree that if we see exactly the same behavior on both sides that the atheist should really know better... but there's a bit of asymmetry there in terms of behavior and harm done in most cases. I don't think it's fair to judge somebody for being a "militant atheist" when in practice that just means making rational arguments against religion and thinking religion isn't good for society, and maybe the occasional bad joke.

I personally think all religions are silly, but the idea that the universe was created from nothing is (if you're being honest..) also silly.

Usually atheists just say they don't know where the universe came from; that doesn't mean believing in a god, it's just saying they don't know.
It's perfectly acceptable to recognize that a god is neither plausible nor (as defined) possible (look at the contradictions in his attributes).
It doesn't commit you to any particular beliefs about the beginning of the universe, and definitely not to the proposition that it was created, or created from nothing.

You can believe quite strongly that Santa Claus did not create the universe without being unreasonable or otherwise claiming to know how the universe came about.

That said, it's not silly to believe it came from "nothing":

1. If you understand a bit of quantum physics, this actually makes more sense than anything else.

2. Even if you don't understand quantum physics so it doesn't make sense to you, it IS reasonable to believe physicists on the matter, since science has given us a lot of practical knowledge and these people are actually in the position to know and understand it. This is quite unlike believing an old book or a preacher on the matter of the universe's origins; religion has produced no substantive knowledge, and these people are not qualified in any regard to answer questions of physics or empirical reality. Appeal to religion is an appeal to an unqualified authority, believing scientists is not because there is reason to trust them on this topic; it is innately reasonable, and the most reasonable knowledge we have.

[PsYcHo]

Personally, I hate militant Atheist more than militant Theist... The Atheist should know better and behave with morals not lined out in an ancient book.

It's kind of apples to oranges, though.
Militant atheists are making arguments against god and saying religion is silly and has brainwashed the sheeple. At worst they're making mean jokes.
Militant theists are killing people and saying people who disagree with them or disbelieve in their god are evil (which in practice justifies them doing what they do, in jihad or otherwise).

If we are only considering current American descriptions Atheist vs Theist, then yes. But communism and fascism (There was this famous non-theist guy...Had a funny mustache.) also have killed millions of people.

The people who initiated the Crusades/"The Final Solution"/Great Leap Forward all had one thing in common. They adhered to their beliefs to the point were they felt justified in killing "undesirables."

Anyway, I agree that if we see exactly the same behavior on both sides that the atheist should really know better... but there's a bit of asymmetry there in terms of behavior and harm done in most cases. I don't think it's fair to judge somebody for being a "militant atheist" when in practice that just means making rational arguments against religion and thinking religion isn't good for society, and maybe the occasional bad joke.

IN MOST CASES-

Here is why I take concern with militant Atheist. At one point in history, Christian were the minority. In one point in history, nazi's were the minority. In one point in history, communist were the minority. At this point in history, Atheist are the minority.

I can guarantee you that the majority of people who joined the nazi/communist/Christian groups in their infancy, did not expect their "movement" to lead to the catastrophic loss of life that they all did.

Despite how different these groups are, they all led to a similar result- millions of people dead, and those of in the future looking back and saying "well, it was at this point that they should have stopped....."

I fucking hate nazi's, but I would defend a nazi from being attacked by an Atheist. (Providing the nazi wasn't attacking the atheist or his property)

If we Atheist bend morality to justify the militant of our group, then we are on a very slippery slope.

And to be clear, I don't thing you are justifying Atheist doing anything immoral, but I feel you are trying to look for reasons to defend Atheist that perhaps you would not accept as an argument from a Theist.

I personally think all religions are silly, but the idea that the universe was created from nothing is (if you're being honest..) also silly.

Usually atheists just say they don't know where the universe came from; that doesn't mean believing in a god, it's just saying they don't know.
It's perfectly acceptable to recognize that a god is neither plausible nor (as defined) possible (look at the contradictions in his attributes).
It doesn't commit you to any particular beliefs about the beginning of the universe, and definitely not to the proposition that it was created, or created from nothing.

I believe that is referred to as Agnostic... (I'm sure you remember our debate on that... )

You can believe quite strongly that Santa Claus did not create the universe without being unreasonable or otherwise claiming to know how the universe came about.

That said, it's not silly to believe it came from "nothing":

1. If you understand a bit of quantum physics, this actually makes more sense than anything else.

I have a minimal understanding of quantum physics. But to say your argument "makes more sense than anything else" doesn't prove that your position (btw, I agree on this point, but I'm arguing against you for reasons...) is correct.

Is your purpose to convince the slim majority who share your grasp of quantum physics that the agreed upon conclusion of quantum physics is in fact correct, are you trying to reaffirm your own beliefs, or are you trying to persuade someone well below your education that you have a theory you adhere to that you believe to be true?

2. Even if you don't understand quantum physics so it doesn't make sense to you, it IS reasonable to believe physicists on the matter, since science has given us a lot of practical knowledge and these people are actually in the position to know and understand it.

I don't like what I'm about to do now, but I hope it makes a point..

Even if you don't understand THE BIBLE so it doesn't make sense to you, it IS reasonable to believe PREACHERS on the matter, since GOD has given us a lot of practical knowledge and these people are actually in the position to know and understand it.[/quote]

(I feel dirty, but I hope the point I was trying to make came through.)

If you are not willing as an Atheist to consider (maybe just for a second) that some version of Theism is correct, then you are no different from a Theist who has never considered that maybe Atheism is correct.

Those of us who pursue truth should question our own beliefs most of all.