The dishonesty of claiming to be an “Avowed Gnu Atheist!” within the conversation of “Intellectual Honesty.”

I have heard the term thrown around a few times now. As far as I can ascertain, a Gnu is a form of African Antelope and GNU is an acronym for a Linux operating system.

However… I have to laugh when ever I hear the terms “Avowed Atheist” and “Intellectual Honesty” or “Integrity” used within the same context. The very term used within that sentence is one that has a priority within the speakers framework of belief.

That priorital statement of faith, makes them committed to that reference, no matter what other evidence is shown to the contrary. It means no matter what another person may say, or the experience they may share is of importance to them. The important thing to them is that they make it known that they are an Atheist, full stop!

Now I don’t care if someone is an Atheist or not. I don’t care if you are a believer of aliens or not. I don’t care if you don’t care, that I don’t care, that you don’t care, that I don’t care!  If you can follow that sentence, can you explain it to me Winking smile

However, don’t use the term “Intellectually rigorous” or “Intellectually honest” within the framework of being an “avowed atheist” within the same breath or conversation. They truly do not match!

About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in atheism, Intellectual honesty and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The dishonesty of claiming to be an “Avowed Gnu Atheist!” within the conversation of “Intellectual Honesty.”

  1. Drewe says:

    Craig, that brings to mind a post I am working on – we all have pre existing opinions. you can be an intellectual atheist, but that is based on your pre excluding god, creation, revelation, etc from the discussion … We all have these presuppositions, but it is their extent and our honesty of them that makes it! So as you say, it is not honest, you just think it is 🙂

    • Anonymous says:

      Well said. Its when we recognise our iwn predujices, honest discussion can take place.

    • tildeb says:

      …you can be an intellectual atheist, but that is based on your pre excluding god, creation, revelation, etc from the discussion…

      Sorry to be blunt that that point is rubbish and you can easily prove it to yourself: when did you EVER exclude Ometecuhtli and Omecihuatl from your theological considerations? When did you refuse to consider their role in your life?

      The answer is: NEVER.

      You did not ‘pre exclude’ them because you never had any good reason to consider them in the first place. So be honest: you are an atheist towards all gods and goddesses not because you intentionally exclude them from your theology but because non belief is your default position.

      The interesting question is, how can you know your current theology is better informed? Childhood indoctrination, perhaps?

  2. tildeb says:

    What definition of the word ‘avowed’ are you working with? Mine is To acknowledge openly, boldly, and unashamedly. The reference to ‘gnu’ is about confronting religious privilege and publicly criticizing it.

    It is because I respect what’s true about reality and its role to arbitrate what is true about it that I highly prize intellectual honesty and so remain dedicated to consistency. I do not place more importance on my substituting my beliefs in their place as believers do and prostitute my critical faculties to make the necessary allowances for the glaring inconsistencies that must be embraced to maintain beliefs. You, in contrast, are an atheist to all other belief claims you don’t believe in but make an exception to the beliefs you do hold. To do this, you must cast aside respect for reality’s role to determine what is true about it and accept absurd claims without evidence or good reasons… often in direct conflict with knowledge. This bifurcation between your beliefs and reality is difficult but necessary to maintain in the service of your faith, and the cost of this appeasement is your intellectual honesty where what’s true simply doesn’t matter; only what you believe is true matters. And it is from this starting point that you then draw all kinds of incorrect assumptions, assertions, and attributions. Just look at how you have drawn all these misguided conclusions in this post from an incorrect assumption about what you believe the term ‘avowed’ means. You look foolish.

    Learn from this, Craig. Question your assumptions first and do your due diligence. By starting off honesty you could have simply checked what the term means – or even ask, if all else fails – before running off with your incorrect assumptions as if they were true in fact simply because you believe it to be so, which has the effect of leading you into promoting falsehoods. That’s dishonest, by the way, but the question you have to ask yourself is: do really care as long as it serves your beliefs?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s