Who's Less Moral: Atheists or Christians?

[@davidmanhart1]

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

[@jtveg]

Hey. That's a great saying. I'm gonna be using that one. Thanks.

[@stillmaninmotion6081]

Good thing being a Christian means a deep and personal relationship with Jesus, and not a religion. Jesus despised the religious as well. Religion can sadly take the place of the relationship, leaving people in a pit of rules, traditions, and standards they'll never be able to measure up to.

[@davidmanhart1]

John Thimakis Please spread it around. I saw someone else write that. And truer words have never been spoken.

[@davidmanhart1]

Rachel Stillman Even though the skeptic in me rejects any superstition.. I do know that many christians and muslims who are deeply religious are very good people, despite their religion. But they have to thoroughly reject the evil parts of their religion in being so. I give them deep credit for that. Those people are not my enemy. Primarily because they do not see me as theirs.

[@BenGLastreezy]

David Manhart This is so bad, you can never know what is right without a proper goal or else everything comes down to an opinion, morality is an ought, i don't get how someone get an ought from evolution!

[@ultraprincesskenny6790]

IMO: anyone who tries to get someone to convert by harassing someone is immoral.

[@NwoDispatcher]

even those who try to bully others out of their racist beliefs?

[@kstar1489]

Based on what though?

[@aazhie]

@@NwoDispatcher Rascism is not Religion, in spite of the two getting tangled up a good deal.

[@NwoDispatcher]

@@aazhie so says you. Racism is freedom of folk and a beautiful discrimination of those you chose to love. Religion is how a race lives on through the centuries and millennium. F your inquisitions!

[@NoExitLoveNow]

Nice to see a Rebecca Watson video without an influx of haters who have lost all perspective. I guess it is early.

[@amber7591]

KZbin just started suggesting your videos to me and I'm glad they did. Even though i dont even keep up with the atheist/skeptic stuff anymore. You're cool af.

[@ManuelArgoteDelgado]

I'm an atheist, my morality is connected with my emotions and my experiences, I believe that if someone is unable to take the place of the other or if you can not feel guilty, will act immorally regardless of the system of beliefs in which you are enrolled . The moral decay or the dangerous psychopathy may arise no matter what system of beliefs...

[@raiderzgamingvideos]

If you're talking about the interview with Dennis Prager and Christopher Hitchens, he did not say he would feel "less safe knowing they had come from a prayer group" but that he wouldn't feel more, or less safe knowing that.

[@kid_missive]

That "teacher, christian teacher, anthiest teacher, ..." trick seems underhanded. It's such an unusual way to ask a question that it isn't really conversing in good faith, and plenty of logical people's brains would just assume it was a typo and autocorrect it, assuming the question wanted them to specify a religion, and then go on to select a religion based on known statistics or other logic, even if they are not particularly biased. Like is it an IQ test or a bias test? Since bigotry and ignorance are so often comorbid traits I think a fair test should properly distinguish between the two.

[@michaelc.4321]

morality is only existant in sentient organisms and thus has no significance outside of our own perception so trying to weigh morality objectively is about as logical as trying to measure time with a meter stick

[@Never-mind1960]

Excellent point Random! That gives me an idea for an interesting thought experiment for theists: Its 3017. All humans are now androids with all parts that are replaceable with no effort or pain or cost. Nothing anyone could do, could hurt you or anyone. Murder would be impossible because there would be unlimited back-ups of your consciousness. Robots serve all needs. Space conquered with unlimited resources. Rape would be meaningless. Pain and suffering no longer exist. Would there be an objective morality in that world? Would morality have any meaning at all?

[@SpookyTran]

Regarding the hypothetical to Hitchens: I would feel safer knowing almost anything about them. If they just came from the library. If they just came from playing basketball. If they just had dinner.

[@shanexyz3972]

Does "logic" actually require that "a teacher" be the correct answer to the awe inspiring multiple choice question? I am far from a logician, but aren't "a teacher" (A) and "a teacher who is x" (Ab) two separate groups within the contexts of the question?

[@shannonobrien2572]

At 2:27 the statement is made that incest is a immoral act without a victim. What? I listened to this five times. I do so hope that I somehow misunderstood. Please please please explain.

[@mondobear22]

Morality is not subjective; a behavior is determined to be moral when it effects the well-being of a sentient being positively. A deliberate choice that has a negative effect on the well-being of a sentient being is immoral, without reasonable justification. Neutral behavior is considered the moral baseline. Psychopaths are the only people who maintain that a broken window is equivalent, or worse, suffering for the car's owner to the suffering of a child or dog dying in a hot car. How many psychopathic humans exist is a more interesting question and concern.

[@philmcgee4591]

I think believers tell themselves that religious thoughts fortify one's conscience, and the skeptic lacks this conscience upgrade, leading to antisocial behavior. They think this because it makes them feel good.

[@leonidas14775]

Even if you don't feel remotely spiritual, Spiritual but not religious is a much better label to use. It can mean whatever you say it does

[@marksusskind1260]

Rebecca's voice seems to have changed within 4.5 years. This video was one of the "Up Next" after one of her late 2018 July videos.

[@L0LWTF1337]

It's called a new microphone.

[@ConfuzzledTomato]

umm...was this study done on people who are just from USA, or other countries too? because in other countries where the parentage of atheist in the population is larger, the people might think differently of atheists.

[@louisrsanders]

She misses the point entirely. Did you notice he didnt name any cities in first world countries? He didnt name Houston, Chicago or New York. He named cities that from a standard of living view are hellholes. He was talking about radical religion that has taken a hold in these backwards stone age regions of the world.

[@MisterBinx]

Of course most Christians as a whole are moral. Atheists are too. Instead of mom saying, "I'm telling your dad if you don't behave", they heard "god is watching you better be good." The reason I'd be scared of religious people coming from a ceremony is that they're in a state of mind that they are more connected to an all powerful being. They might feel like it's up to them to judge on behalf of god. That could lead to violence, and it does in some places.

[@C0nc0rdance]

The author of this study ought to be invited to speak more at atheist conferences. He's made a career out of understanding bias against atheism and the perception of atheists by religious people. His insights would benefit our community. Here's his CV: www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/CV.pdf If anyone out there is coordinating a conference... maybe give him a call? I see that he's given talks at a local CFI. (lanyrd.com/2013/csicon/scqtfm/)

[@GoddardsJournal]

His findings underscore the need to present the clear case that ethical behavior is innate, or hardwired, in communitarian species as a logical consequence of selecting for group survival. Group survival requires the ability of group members to empathize with other members, and empathy is the bio-logical foundation of ethical behavior, of 'the golden rule'.

[@RossLlewallyn]

It's really nice to see you here, Concordance.

[@derezzed83]

C0nc0rdance Religiosity is correlated with lower divorce rates, less drug abuse and lower criminality. I am failing to understand how this is exactly a bias.

[@C0nc0rdance]

derezzed83 Let's quote the authors of the study: "Scientific research yields inconsistent and contradictory evidence relating religion to moral judgments and outcomes, yet most people on earth nonetheless view belief in God (or gods) as central to morality, and many view atheists with suspicion and scorn." I'm sure religion has all sorts of benefits... but so does the AAA and Mickey Mouse Club. That has no bearing on how non-believers are treated by the religious.

[@derezzed83]

C0nc0rdance well that's just not true. There are half a dozen meta-analyses pointing to reduced divorce, teen pregnancy, crime rates, drug use, reduced alcoholism and higher empathy and volunteering and donation among those who are religious. If you think that short paragraph accurately represents the state of the research in the field, you are being dishonest and so are the authors of the paper, because they are not citing the best-evidence. "so does AAA and Mickey Mouse Club" None of those have even remotely comparable results to religiosity in a societal context.

[@BallisticTomato]

Oh wow. I accidentally stumbled upon your vlogs, and I'm seeing a lot of dislikes in the comparison window. Yet all you do is bring up scientific points and draw your own conclusion to their implications. Its so interesting to me how so many people can think that Atheism is connected to Amoral-ism. Studies also show that, whether by causation or correlation that people with more education tend to be less likely to worship a God. The study you brought up about bias towards Atheist brings up a viewpoint that people have about atheists, and yet all they've done is exactly what you did: formulate their own conclusion.

[@RottingintheMidwest]

A lot of the dislikes come from atheists who don't like Rebecca Watson and downvote her videos for no reason other than not liking her. Even if they might agree with the content of the video. Because they're rational.

[@MissHeathen]

Don't let labels define who you are.

[@leechap3]

Religion offers followers a free pass for their immoral behavior, also called "sins" by means of such things as confession, being "saved", forgiveness, and other such dispensations. Atheists have no such safety net. I take my actions in the world on my own shoulders. If I act badly it is my fault. I must rectify it myself. Self responsibility seems to me to be to the foundation of any moral philosophy, not relying on some ancient figure to suffer and die for me (I don't get the connection) or for some church leader to offer me absolution. So the answer is, atheists are clearly more moral.

[@Disthron]

Another thing Atheists could try is making media, such as movies, that show atheists in a positive light. There are a lot of secular works out there but very few that actually show scepticism or atheism in a good light. They are typically ether the "doubting Thomas" sort or the straight up bad guy. Anyway, grate video. Have a good one.

[@RossLlewallyn]

I've always thought House to be a high-visibility atheist. Though he is a jerk.

[@Disthron]

Ross Llewallyn Precisely my point; in modern media the atheist or the sceptic is never the nice girl. I was watching the Nostaliga Chick video about Volcanoes/ the Pompeii movie where she and Nella pointed out the troupe of the sceptic who dies because he/she didn't believe the "one man who saw it coming"'s flimsy evidence.

[@RossLlewallyn]

Well I was just pointing out a slightly different dimension from your two characterizations. House isn't a "doubting Thomas" or a bad guy. Just a jerk who most of the time, eventually, brilliantly saves lives.

[@alexsch2514]

Doctor who is a good atheist show. Maybe wanna check it out.👌😄

[@aaronsilver-pell411]

Most people are just people.

[@DarwinOrwell2]

I'm giving this a thumbs up just to encourage Rebecca to do more good videos like this instead of the male-bashing she became notorious for.

[@LaetatioLetatio]

I think whats important to note in this subject is that moral values don't come from any religion, even if that religion claims to have a specific moral value as one of its rules. Statistical significance is already a tricky thing, specially in this kind of topic. Moral values are rational and logical, if your actions have positive effects in the environment around you then they are good actions. Treat others how you would like to be treated basically.

[@LI2Chesapeake]

I believe the theory you discuss makes perfect sense. I'm not saying people that have faith are better or moral than those that don't. However those who have faith love, honor and also fear their God. Sins can have consequences. The ultimate fear is exclusion from heaven. An atheist doesn't have any of these fears. That being said I truly believe that there aren't any full atheists. Although many would beg to differ I truly believe they are agnostic. Some obviously more than others.

[@Rezaj]

Hey Rebecca! I actually work at a stereotype lab and I think that's a really cool idea. I don't know how you'd design a stereotype threat study targeted at atheists, since you usually look at underperformance caused by the stereotype. After an "atheists are immoral" prime, would atheists be worse at writing an essay about morality? Or maybe would they make more mistakes on some sort of fairness task?

[@jasonartamis2655]

i love you videos rebecca! thank you!

[@richo61]

I have long given up on expecting atheists to be more reasonable and more moral than Christians. I had thought - it takes a lot of deliberate thought to become an atheist - so they are more likely to have *considered* things before coming to their conclusions. Experience has taught me that I was being simplistic (and overly optimistic) Prejudice and bias is the natural human state and overcoming them takes deliberate effort and good will.

[@vickmackey24]

Completely agree, though you could have worded your opening sentence a little more clearly so people don't get the impression that you think Christians are generally more reasonable and moral than atheists. "I used to think that atheists were more reasonable and moral than Christians, but experience has taught me that moral behavior and rationality have little to do with which side of the God argument you happen to fall on."

[@MaoistRebelNews2]

The problem is that morality is entirely subjective. How do you judge who is more moral? By one overall concept of morality equally applied to everyone, or how much one adheres to their own moral code? If they don't adhere to it, are they therefore immoral, even if their actions correspond to the overall moral view? If two people had completely different moral views they would appear as immoral to each other. If being atheist is immoral to a Christian, then by default an atheist would be seen as immoral by one. Morality is very convoluted.

[@vickmackey24]

Morality is not as complicated as you make it out to be -- at least, it shouldn't be. It's a nuanced subject, sure, but by and large most of us understand what (im)moral behavior is -- just apply the Golden Rule and you'll get the "right answer" most of the time. It only becomes convoluted when you allow bullshit social norms to get in the way and cloud your thinking. Put yourself in the shoes of a homosexual, for instance. Ask yourself, am I hurting someone? Nope. Am I being unfair to someone? Nope. Ok, so I'm not acting immorally. Simple. But wait! All these dumb fucks around me are telling me that I'm acting immorally. OMG, I'm so confused now! What do I do?! Simple. Use the *logical* part of your brain, think about what you're doing, and stop being a sheep. Ok, did that... all their reasons for calling me immoral are preposterously inconsistent and irrational. Not so complicated after all. Obviously there are legitimate moral dilemmas out there that ultimately boil down to personal value judgments (e.g., abortion, medical testing on animals, etc.), but those issues govern a very small minority of the day-to-day decisions we have to make. Those issues are also inherently unresolvable, so we just need to compromise. But by and large, morality is not a complicated issue when you stick with the Golden Rule and apply a little common sense (logical sense). If everyone was actually willing to do that consistently, we would practically be living in a utopia.

[@appointed75]

vickmackey24 The problem with your argument: what if someone decides that, for them, hurting people and being unfair is not immoral? Not everyone adheres to the same moral code, which is what I think Jason was trying to get at. The problem is that, if we are to judge the actions of other people, we must assume that our moral code applies to them. And if it applies to them, it must apply to all (or be unjust). If that moral code is universally applicable and relevant, then it is absolute. Moral absolutes, however, can't exist without an authority to validate them. An absolute, by its definition, cannot be created or defined by a finite being; therefore, you need a higher authority. Whether or not you call that authority "God" makes no difference philosophically, but it must exist, otherwise the moral absolute is not absolute, in which case it cannot be used as the moral standard for every human, thereby making "moral" or "immoral" actions simply a matter of perspective. So, yeah. Morality is pretty complicated.

[@vickmackey24]

Seth Johnson > "The problem with your argument: what if someone decides that, for them, hurting people and being unfair is not immoral?" This is not a "problem," anymore than it's a problem that someone in the world will choose to use the word "apple" to mean "banana," either by accident or ignorance or just plain foolishness. Is it a "problem" with science that we still have Creationist biologists who believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Does _that_, in and of itself, make the peer review process complicated because idiots like that exist? No, of course not. So why should the existence of such people be a problem for morality? People are free to speak gibberish all they want, but they simply wouldn't be speaking English if they used the word "moral" to mean "hurting people and being unfair." That term, as loosely defined as it is, is not a completely vacuous one; it _does_ convey meaning. When I describe someone as a "moral" person, no one suddenly thinks of a person like Jeffrey Dahmer or Hannibal Lecter. Is that a cultural thing? No! It's an English thing. > "otherwise the moral absolute is not absolute, in which case it cannot be used as the moral standard for every human" There are no absolutes in virtually _anything_. Does that mean _everything_ is complicated and a problem? Once again, no. Who is the "authority" when it comes to determining that "apple" doesn't mean "banana" or that the Earth isn't 6000 years old? Oxford? Webster? Some scientific committee? There's no clear answer, and yet by and large we do not consider the meaning of those terms to be problematic or complicated. Why must it suddenly be considered a huge problem when it comes to morality, but not the myriad of other cases where the _exact_ same argument can be made? > "Whether or not you call that authority 'God' makes no difference philosophically, but it must exist, otherwise the moral absolute is not absolute..." As I explained above, almost nothing is absolute, and yet we don't consider almost everything to be problematic or complicated. And it is rather silly to suggest that the existence of a god would suddenly make morality "absolute" (i.e., universally binding). It would not. Many of your objections would apply in that case as well; it would simply be God's opinion of how people should behave. What if God is an evil god whose purpose for creating humanity is to study us like lab rats, or to see us suffer for his own amusement, or to fulfill some other personal goal that has nothing to do with maximizing our well-being? Are we suddenly bound to those goals just because He happens to be eternal? That is complete nonsense. What if there were multiple eternal gods? If you're an atheist, please stop borrowing from dumb religious arguments for morality that make absolutely no sense. > "thereby making 'moral' or 'immoral' actions simply a matter of perspective" It is more of a concept than it is a perspective. Whether you _ought_ behave morally is the perspective, which is not what I'm discussing here. Morality would be complicated if, for example, a very large percentage of humanity was wired completely differently than everyone else and the sensibilities and emotions of people couldn't be accurately predicted. If that were actually true, we couldn't have effective doctors or psychologists because it would be a "problem" determining what it means to feel "sick" or "healthy" for any particular person. Look at morality as a general pattern of behavior instead of an arbitrary placeholder for whatever crap an individual person happens to approve of. It is not my "opinion" that immorality is based on the intentional act of inflicting unnecessary harm or unfairness -- that is the definition every common English speaker understands it to have by its usage. It is a concept. That concept, that _descriptive_ pattern of behavior, _is_ the objective basis for determining whether something should be considered immoral or not. And the reason we don't usually have trouble determining whether that concept applies to a particular act is because our biologies and sensibilities are generally the same. We all, by and large, understand what it means to suffer. This is why the Golden Rule _does_ work in the vast majority of cases and why morality is generally not complicated at all. Do you think the majority of hardened criminals behave the way they do because they don't understand what morality means or have a _different_ definition of morality than non-criminals? Of course not. The problem is that they simply don't _care_ to act morally. For that, we need to instill better values, not better dictionaries. Now, while I do maintain that (im)moral behavior can be fairly easily identified in most cases, I would never suggest that it is an objective fact that you _should_ behave morally. Whether you should behave morally depends on your personal goals and desires. _That_ will always be subjective because those personal goals and desires are based on value judgments. Think about all the objections you're thinking about raising here and ask yourself if you're applying them _consistently_ before you present them. Read this: z15.invisionfree.com/Talk_Reason/index.php?showtopic=272

[@JimSchafer--fishing-and-fun]

Yah. The proving ground remains simple accountability.

[@k3nny111]

vickmackey24 I can only advise you to read Nietzsches "Beyond Good and Evil" and maybe enjoy the always marvellous human experience of being wrong about something you felt certain about.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

You should compare theists going from prayer to atheists going from meditation. In that case - yes, I'd feel safer with atheists. Otherwise you're just comparing a bunch of people who just did something peaceful for a prolonged amount of time to a bunch of people who didn't. _Of course_ the first group is safer and their theism doesn't play any role. I'd argue, if you aren't paranoid about religions specifically - you SHOULD feel safer with theists in that case.

[@DavidLindes]

5:59 - I so long for the day we elect an openly atheist POTUS... (If the U.S. even survives long enough to, let alone me surviving to see it.) Been giving some of my secular tithing to openly atheist political candidates... and a bunch more towards building dual power. :)

[@sympathiea]

I feel as if the title was misleading; it was about societal perception, not an argument itself. Still, the information was interesting and I can always appreciate social/cultural surveys, so thank you nonetheless.

[@sovereignjohn3709]

We need to find out why other people's opinions effect our performance. Do successful people have something within them to overcome the negativity of others?

[@k3nny111]

The play between confidence and success is much more complicated than that. If there would be a simple positive correlation between the two, then everybody would be confident out of his wits, just by natural selection alone.

[@RabanABurr]

We are talking about prejudice here. A sentiment. To pre-judge.... Do you get it? Waffle, yet again.

[@Magnus_Loov]

The last words "Actually elect a politician who is atheist" seems extremely weird from a Swedish perspective. Here it is the opposite. A politician who is openly "Religious" would seems weird and wouldn't probably have a chance to get elected. When it comes to religion Sweden is the polar opposite of USA. About 10% are Christians here. 90% non-believers! The few believers left hasn't promoted religion for the better either (at least not in the press) with a lot of cults/sects involved in moneyscams, brainwashing or even murder! I think Europe (or maybe more northern Europe) in general is much more like this compared to the (Still) very religious USA. What really seems strange to me, is that you have a country that is supposed to be religious with high morals but at the same time also have among the highest deaths by gun per capita (person) in the world! Your swear by god with one hand on the bible but kill with a gun in the other hand at the same time and don't seem to have any interest at all to solve the problem. Talk about double standards!

[@SoftBreadSoft]

+Magnus Lööv Sweden is third in rape.

[@Magnus_Loov]

+Aya Bear What has that got to do with Sweden being very secular?

[@SoftBreadSoft]

***** What has gun crimes got to do with being very religious?

[@Magnus_Loov]

+Aya Bear That was what I asked too. The double standards thing with being both very religious and the gun problem.

[@SoftBreadSoft]

***** Oh my bad lol

[@organicstoner904]

It's funny how in this video you try to soften your tone and not curse. Trying to display your atheist moral precedence? We all know you hate everything that doesn't favor your world view give up the act. You regurgitated speech is nauseating.

[@3V1LW1Z4RD]

I'm a christian but not one of THOSE christians

[@Normandybeach]

Rebecca has no input on who has more morality in life. She doesn't know what she's talking about.

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

Hitchen's point was that he had experienced that situation around the and that he personally felt less comfortable because he was informed of the religious beliefs and was a non-believer. so, while for hitchens, he may have felt less safe, the majority of us live in an area where two things are the case: 1) the vast majority of people in the area where i live act morally the vast amount of the time 2) the vast amount of the people in the area where i live are religious. now, if one were to travel to the places hitchens mentions, i would think i would feel the same way he did... that's a different situation, different environment, different culture that im not familiar with. the study is interesting though and shows how influential religious pressure in society.

[@revzillo]

Morality should be a human attribute, wether you're , athiest, religious or not. Atheist are no less moral than religious people. How many Atheist have killed, or murdered in the name of Atheism, where as there has been more murder, even genocide in the name of religion. There have been murders and atrocities because somebody had a voice in their head saying that Gid or the Devil made them do it. You have to question the morals of extremist religious . They are the least moralistic of people.... I've not heard of extremist atheists. But I apparent ' Hitler was an Atheist , though he was born Catholic, that is one of the things religious people like to through back in our faces. They turn a blond eye to all the murders and genocide which was done in the name of God, and now extremist muslims are doing in the name of Allah and Islam ..... makes you wonder doesn't it , who really does have the most morals ?!

[@DenniWintyr]

I wonder how different the results would be in other countries.

[@k3nny111]

The less religious people are in a country, the less people think of atheism as something that even has specific behavioural attributes (and rightly so). Atheism is by definition a re-actionary term, so it fades away with the circumstance that created it. In a country with virtually no theism, people would stumble over the question wether an "atheist" would do something, since the term became meaningless. So with all likelihood, a less religious country would tend more to either just pick the right answer or would more strongly bash religion.

[@hakoeski]

True, true. Fuckin' Americans.

[@StephMcAlea]

i think it varies vastly by location. Here in the UK if you say youre a person faith then youre likely to face scrutiny. We find it quite suspicious.

[@mastermalpass]

Abstract version: Morality is fucking vague dawg! Long version: When I did an essay on how Morality is addressed in modern media, my research led me to find the topic of Morality to be more complex and confusing than time travel speculation. Morality, though theoretically formed by communities, I think is subject to individual differences. And as time goes on, we discover new circumstances that make our current morals a little difficult to apply. To say a member of a particular group is more or less likely to behave immorally, is crop-dusting over a lot of factors. Though I do understand it's difficult to really experiment on such a thing precisely, I think the ambiguity of study outcomes should always be mentioned. Because what is 'moral' is different for everyone. Not to mention, anyone is capable of holding a moral and not following it. I believe if something infringes freedom, causes physical, or mental harm, without the consent of the individual receiving that 'something,' it is wrong. And that seems like a pretty straight forward idea, until you bring a rapist, for example, into question and everything becomes wildly debatable. Also I'm not a vegan, thereby contributing to things that go against my belief, because I don't have the self-discipline to give up bacon... And I kill a good portion of the spiders I run into, for no other reason than the fact they make me uncomfortable. Now many of you might read that and say it's only a spider, but who am I to decide that my comfort takes priority over the life of another? Sure, spiders kill too, but that's a spider's nature - humans can override human nature. Is it morally right for me to act destructively as humans have always been? Or should I push myself to be completely harmless, as my brain can allow me to be? Back to the subject of rapists - how should they be treated? Should they be put through the same trauma they put their victims through? Should they be put through something much worse, to discourage that behaviour in others? Or should they just be put in a position where they can no longer rape, and people not ask someone to stoop to his or her level in the name of justice? Anyone who answers these questions will have their own reasons for why they think their answer is right. There is no such thing as THE right or THE wrong behaviour, just a 'right' that a majority can agree on. Notes: Jesus, I just put this through a word count and it's 1/5 the length of my essay!... Damn, doing a dissertation a year later has really taught me to ramble!

[@2kzoltan]

Nothing is more annoying than having Feminists identify as atheists.

[@CaptainAndy]

I think a big factor is that atheists don't believe they are being watched and judged all of the time, whereas Christians (in all denominations I'm aware of) do believe they are being watched and judged all of the time. The morality of an atheist relies heavily on "the honour system".

[@Baronstone]

Wow, great video. P.S. You have amazing eyes!

[@theunwantedman112]

On what grounds do atheists base their moral beliefs?

[@UsenameTakenWasTaken]

Depends on the atheist. The only thing that they all have in common is a lack of belief in a deity.

[@theunwantedman112]

@@UsenameTakenWasTaken a negation isn't a commonality. But I get what you're saying. Atheism appears to be a religion for people who want to feel smart rather than be smart.

[@robtbo]

The question of whether someone is more or less afraid of certain types of people says nothing about the morality of those types of people. Like you said, it's about what type of bias you have concerning the people. Given the statements of some vocal Christians, who say they'd be in jail if not for their belief in their god, it's easy to see that people making such statements are not moral, but merely act moral out of perceived coercion. The way I see it, _human_ morality is upheld most by those who respect humanity and understand that cooperation and coexistence is more beneficial to the species than conflict, and it really doesn't matter if they respect humanity because of our DNA or because we're children of some god. (This is not to exclude other species from a right to protection from needless cruelty, but an observation that effective communication is necessary to _share and agree on_ a moral code.)

[@RichardRoy2]

I tend to think all people think they're doing the right thing. So I'd tend to think it depends what you think is right as to whether the act is considered moral. Many seem to think religions have a monopoly on ethics. So I'm guessing that anyone who tries to align an action with morals is going to regard the atheist as being without them.

[@6doublefive3two1]

Viognier and Torrontes are harder to come by at the grocery store and the best ones are south American thus a little more expensive. Chards may be everywhere (thanks 80's), but at least they aren't as impudent as Moscato.

[@k3nny111]

Morality is not something that is more or less present in any person. Morality, roughly spoken, describes the set of behavioural rules we see fit for us and respectively for society. Everybody has this internal set of rules, though its contents can differ widely between people. If people talk about being "more" moral, what they mean is "being more conform to moral trades which are currently most prominent within the given society". Someone who would be considered very moral in ancient greek would be condemned for some of the same trades in western countries today. Talking about morality as if it is something stable and you can have more or less from it is derived from the "good/bad" false dichotomie, which has an eternal law-giver as a pre-requisite. And so goes the atheist and defends his "degree of morality" on a false premisse. Don't let yourself get trapped within an oversimplification, just because it is more convenient to convey to a layperson. "Good/bad" are childish terms and who seriously uses them deserves to be educated, not argued with on an eye-to-eye level.

[@Mister_Peppers]

I was talking to a friend about religion and noticed that when certain people ask we will use deflectors like "I was raised catholic" or "I grew up non-denominational" as opposed to the truth. Mainly because thats what ends that conversation and many people look at you funny if you say anything else.

[@paulj6662]

Common decency and self respect have been hi-jacked by the fear of god, making everything worthless.

[@SotiCoto]

Morals don't make people better. Lack of morals don't make people worse. More often than not, morals are to blame for people behaving like reprehensible douchebags in situations where they might otherwise leave well enough alone. The only result there can be from building accepted but unrealistic standards for human behaviour is that people will embrace the hostile and dissonant aspects of them while failing to uphold the patient and self-restraining aspects. Such morals just feed natural paranoia and out-group hostility for the sake of reinforcing the exclusive in-group dynamic.

[@aaronsilver-pell411]

It depends on your morals. Now doesn't it?

[@davemartin8409]

This question is rather useless because we have to resort to parsing value laden language. Who is less moral? A Theist that beats their slave, or an atheist that beats their slave? We would have to examine the values of each individual and how they are applied to a circumstance. Also as mentioned in the video we have to assess how we relate to, and question our bias based on whom we most relate to. Are we to suspend disbelief and provisionally accept a premise that Discipline and stewardship are virtues, and then determine whom is the most virtuous? The question is meaningless without context and understanding what value laden language supports the original premise.

[@grace4444elkhechen]

It is easy for people to form opinions based on common stereotypes without taking initiative to learn more about certain communities and their true values. Believing in a God/gods and/or religion is often central to people's lifestyles and moral compass. In perceiving others who do not hold such beliefs it is often perplexing to understand. Unfortunately, in our society being different is seen as a fear factor to many people. Religion/ God is definitely not required however to be a good or moral person. For most of us it just doesn't feel good doing harm onto others. Fetishes and psychological disorders do not discriminate! This was a truly wonderful video that brought about an important issue :)

[@ChogTheGreat]

"Us.... And them.... And after all, we're only ordinary men...." - PINK FLOYD

[@terrybradley8297]

Great stuff......I'm thinking about becoming an atheist.....and this helped a lot. :) Actually I'm a Buddhist and we neither believe that god exists nor do we believe that god does not exist ....now that's a confusing stereotype ....

[@TheGreekPianist]

It all depends on the person. There could be a real nice atheist whereas there could be a real vicious/abusive Christian, and vice versa,,,

[@claudiaquat]

Mission Bell Muscatel is least moral wine choice. Don't ask how I know this.

[@ReedBetweenTheLines]

I may be completely wrong here, but I've always understood that arguments depicting instances of atheist moral superiority were, initially, only meant to demonstrate that the christian assertion of moral superiority was unfounded. I didn't ever get the impression that atheists maintain some sort of claim to a moral high-ground, but rather, one less irrational influence.

[@GoddardsJournal]

Everyone knows being religious is seen to _imply_ being moral and it's partly why prison inmates 'get religious' in prison... they're incentivised to don the appearance of default majority to hasten their release. That then leads to data showing higher religiosity among prisoners, leading some like AronRa to (imo erroneously) infer that higher religiosity causes people to end up in prison.

[@jellees]

Actually the bible tells that every human is moraly equall. I wonder who starts these thinkings of wgo is more moral.

[@jtveg]

You aren't actually saying that there are no immoral people? Are you?

[@jellees]

John Thimakis no I say that every human can chose between right and wrong. there doesn't exist a who is more moral. since every human is equal in being moral. but not every human has the same moral standards.

[@jtveg]

jjesss064 I take it you believe morals are objective and not subjective. That is too complicated a topic to go into here, but if you believe the bible is the standard of human morality then you are sadly mistaken. The bible has been shown to be one of the most immoral compilation of books in history (in my opinion). Even Christians pick and choose the morals they follow from the bible.

[@jellees]

John Thimakis probably the reason why you think the bible has low moralities is because the bible is misused allot of times. in the past, people weren't allowed to read the bible. otherwise the "leaders" would lost their power. one of the biggest rules of the bible is to love eachother. some west borrow churches thinks that that not applies to gay people. but that is not true. the bible doesn't say that gay people must burn in hell. god loves them, because god loves everyone. but god hates their act. there is a difference between it. the bible is a good and moral book. but when you misuse it and take things out of context. then things are turning bad. the bible warned about this itself, that people will teach false things to people. I hope I clarified it.

[@steveallen4288]

Even though I don't agree with a lot of what you have to say, I am SO happy that you have an open comment section, that allows others to exchange and debate ideas (a somewhat rare notion on youtube nowadays...) So for that, I thank you

[@kaminarigaston]

Most arguments for religion that actually hold sway with actual believers consist in appeals to emotion. They often aim at fear of death, guilt, moral panic, the desire for a just and meaningful reality... I have no problem believing that a psychopath is more likely to be an atheist (and lie about being one, and use religion to manipulate other people). Maybe thinking that a random psychopath is more likely to be an atheist than a *insert random cathegory* is not biased at all, I think it could be common sense (right or wrong). I'm not saying that a psychopath CAN'T be a theist, they can always rationalize their own theology, but it's not far-fetched to think that they are less likely to fall for someone else's.

[@LMFinney]

Bangladesh is not a city.

[@RebeccaWatson]

I blame the Sudafed!

[@DaveWillmore]

I loved the video and think it is a very good point. My non-tested belief is that we are all human, and as such have a proclivity to do very bad and very good things. When one holds oneself to a group's standards of morality you at least know what they have decided is moral and not moral as you can view and research that morality. If Christian you can examine the Bible, Muslim the Koran, and Hebrew the Torah. This does not make a Christian, Muslim, or Hebrew more moral than another, it simply shows what morality the judge themselves and others against. An atheist or agnostic picks and chooses their base for morality 'a la carte. Since there is no surface identification of what they base their morality upon it is hard to determine if their morality is 'right' or 'wrong' according to my morality. But like everything else. No matter what group one associates with you only know the person after knowing the person's thoughts and deeds. People are people. I don't think anyone wants to be less than most capable and right, but we are all limited.

[@AmoralAtheist]

In my opinion it is debateable if the scenario with the dead chicken is immoral or not. In my opinion it can't be immoral as long as it has no negative effects on anyone (human or animal), there is no soul in the dead chicken.

[@MagnesiumEnterprise]

Do I think Christians or Atheists are less moral? That is a question I feel the answer to which is not as simple as choosing one over the other. If the question were, "Who's less moral: Educated people or Uneducated people," then I feel the answer would be much easier and simpler to answer. However, morals are not simply something educated people have and uneducated people do not have. Morals are more the product of resource availability. The more scarce a resource and the more a resource is seen as necessary, and/or the bigger the threat of loss to that resource, the more immoral actions will be practiced and justified to acquire or protect the resource. War is a pretty good example of this. I think, with males, women were traditionally seen as a scarce sexual resource, so males often fought over them and prevented their loss from things which were perceived as a threat (which was usually other males) to their availability. This protection of mates was probably also practiced by women against other women in regards to their sexual mates, though not to the degree men seem to have done it. These are two other good examples of this. I do not think every instance of resource scarcity is bound to incite immoral behavior in humans or other animals, because there are instances in which resource scarcity does not do so; I just think it is one of those things which happens to be the most effective stimulator of immoral behavior.

[@KrystalKalleen]

I'm presuming you are an atheist yourself. nice interview. I'm sick of have about all these "controlled" tests no matter what they are. these "controlled" tests do not include THOUSANDS of people, usually about 300 and most of the time less. even if you do the same study mutiple times you are not getting the MAJORITY of people's reasonings and ideas. I'm not sure where you went to school, but you need to go back. oh I'm sorry, that wouldn't help you because of your beliefs. and no I'm not an uneducated person making crude comments. I have a doctorate degree in scientific pyschology and mathmatics. my father is an engineer that works for NASA. it's nice to know that people, I'm assuming you went to college, come out with degrees full of nonsense.

[@janistransbian]

i think it would depend on the atheist or the christian. i would trust matt dillahunty over pat robertson, however i would trust al sharpton over richard dawkins.

[@kurtspornberger4689]

We should discern between moral and ethical. Morality is often standardized by society and it is is probable that someone who belives in a spiritual entity judging him is more inclined to follow those moral guidelines without even understanding their origins. An Atheist has 'only' ethics to guide his actions and therefore hase to actually do philosphical work to compile its ethical framework (but he does know the "why" of it as a result). It is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for compliance to ethical standards. Yes i too would think an atheist to be more likely to defile a dead chicken, but only because there is no inherent ethical reason not to (while there are moral reasons aka not socially acceptable). In the same instance an atheist might be more inclined to not kill the chicken for meat in the first place, because a rational ethic sees humans as animals themselves, not elevating them to chosen beings. What i want to say with this is that the way the questions are compiled are a methodological bias in the study and make interpetation more difficult.

[@msginca]

Dear Rebecca, You can't play tennis if you have no arms - You, like myself, are a materialist. No arms, No tennis ... Now ... If a person has brain damage, parts of their brain will lose functionality.(along a spectrum ... visible when scanned) Now ... lets start Egregious abuse during the formative years typically results in elevated stress hormones that cause molecular damage to the cellular structure of the middle and outer cortex, dendritic atrophy, enlarged amygdala, *compromised brocas and wernickes areas* and importantly the ventromedial prefrontal cortex(morals). There's an entire laundry list actually ... but you get the idea. There's a known link between *Trauma* and *Belief* Those who are victimized will grow up and become victimizers (adaptation to environment, facilitated by neural plasticity) The human brain is so sensitive to it's environment, that a *measurable* drop in capability has been observed/evidenced in children growing up in poverty.(even minus the abuse) Ken Ham, and those like him, have brain damage, again, visible when scanned, that's why it's impossible for him to understand what atheists are espousing to him. Hopefully that wasn't TMI, but hey, you can't be *Sober of Mind* and have Brain Damage ... nor can you play tennis without arms.

[@bgm1958]

I couldn't have answered that question at all. Without knowing more about the serial killer how would I know what profession or religion he was?

[@Car1Sagan]

There's a stereotype of "Women being bad at math" 4:18 because statistically, women DO worse than men in math exams. Your power of suggestion is ridiculous.

[@tdobson21]

I wonder if similar surveys like this have been conducted in any other countries. Among the developed western countries the US is unique in it's attachment to religion. Most European counties have become increasingly secular over time but the US hasn't. You can't get elected in the US if you are an atheist for example. I don't think most Americans realize how baffling this is to people from other Western countries. Here in Canada it would be considered inappropriate to ask someone running for office if they believed in God because it isn't relevant. The reason it isn't considered relevant is because we don't think believing in God necessarily makes that person morally superior to a non-believer.

[@Martial-Mat]

Morality is not the issue - actions are what counts.

[@alyssalewis8421]

Society seems to have this idea that psychopaths and sociopaths are more likely to be atheists than religious people because of their inability to relate to things like compassion, empathy, and love. However, Christianity (and other theologies) offers a fabulous ego-boost to a psychopath (you're special. God loves you, and made you the way you are because of his divine plan), and can also play on their fears of punishment. They may also use the social scaffolding of religions to manipulate and control those around them. However, it's a lot harder to tell that someone is a psychopath when all their cruel behavior is normalized and accepted in their religious community. Psychopaths stick out in atheism because it strips them of their camouflage. This gives the illusion that they are more common--because they are more obvious.

[@bizzee1]

When I think of the issue of who is more moral- atheist or theists, I ask the question who thinks that letting children starve, be raped, or drown by tsunami is morally justified when these children could be saved by expending infinitely less energy than lifting one's little finger. 100% of believers in omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent beings have to believe that such a proposition is morally justified. So, I have to conclude that atheists are more moral, because I am an atheist, and I don't think that such a proposition is morally justified.

[@majeric]

Can it not be that regardless of practice, there's an association of moral guidance (regardless of reality) with religious observance? Where as being an atheist, there's no implicit association with morality. Being defined as an atheist, there's no assumptions about their moral compass. Where as with a "Christian", you have some model of their moral observance. (Even if it's messed up and arbitrary). The problem is that this argument is drawing parallels. Atheism isn't a religion. So you cannot compare the behaviour of an atheist to that of a religious person. Being an atheist defines essentially one property. Being a religious observer, defines dozens, if not hundreds of properties.

[@majeric]

In other words, a religious person is more predictable than an atheist person.

[@seanhenderson5996]

An important thing to remember when asking Christians what group an immoral person might belong to is that almost universally Christians like to apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to other Christians.

[@JaketheBakedSsnake]

Well, judaism, Christianity, and Islam all specifically declare sex with animals as immoral. So, we can assume that a believer in one of these religions would hold the same belief, whereas we are told nothing about an atheists opinion on the topic.

[@GuitarHeroPhenomSux]

Christians claim to be more moral but I can't say how many times I've been condemned to hell, told about the apocalypse, or said I was a sinner -- all these things even while I was a Christian mind you. How can someone claim to be more moral while also believing that god told Abraham to sacrifice his son, or flooded the earth, or killed every male first born, or needed his son to be sacrificed to forgive humanity, or that we're all sinners because some guy ate a forbidden fruit? If you want immorality, look no further than religion. It's so immoral that it causes it's believers to not even know what constitutes morality.

[@cobalt49]

We have almost the opposite problem in the UK. Tony Blair's Catholicism wasn't made public until he was out of office at which point there was somewhat of a backlash. That may be in part due to anti-Catholic sentiment though, because David Cameron's attempts at evangelical Protestantism have not been so widely publicised. So while UK politics are staunchly secular, there is still a blind spot when it comes to particular religions, so long as they are seen as "normal" in an otherwise irreligious population.

[@Skraeling1000]

I just love that most of the UK doesn't give a damn about your religion, whether you try for parliament or any other high profile job.

[@Skraeling1000]

James Cook Yup, good points - and here's the reason why Blair was quiet about it (and what they didn't mention in that article was that with all the Catholic/Protestant issues in Northern Ireland, claiming to be Catholic could have stirred up a hornet's nest.) www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jun/22/uk.religion1

[@Firellius]

I don't think it's bias. Well, at least not bias against Atheism. Pitting Atheism and Christianity against one another, which would be more likely to act immorally? The one growing up with moral guidelines such as "Love thy neighbour", "Thou shall not kill" and many other rules, or the one growing up in the absence of such moral guidelines? A Christian who commits murder is someone who forsakes his or her teachings, which in turn disqualifies him or her from being called a Christian. Atheists don't have such guidelines ingrained in their ideology. Conversely though, if you were to ask which would be more likely to display homophobic behavior, I think you'd get an overwhelming majority answering with Christianity. As for the muslims, I think they don't get any mention in either direction because of bias-awareness. I think most people would have thought "I don't know the first thing about muslims" and as such refrain from implying anything. It's logic that makes Atheists appear more immoral than Christianity. An Atheist who kills is still an Atheist. A Christian who kills goes in against what it means to be Christian. Of course, that's just the general perception, not necessarily the truth.

[@tugsn.mccowan1634]

I love her voice.

[@KunChien]

i fail to see what's supposed to be immoral about the dead chicken.... it's allready dead, so it is not animal cruelty... he does it in private, so nobody could feel disturbed... you might as well say "a guy goes to a sexshop, gets a flashlight, takes it home, get's some stress relieved and has a nice dinner afterwards" or "a woman goes to a sexshop, buys a toy, takes it home, get's some stress relieved and has a nice dinner afterwards" i fail to see the actual difference in regards to morality, between the three cases... i mean... the chicken is dead... so it's not really zoophilia, or something.... it's just an inanimate object.

[@Agabmut]

I really wish we would teach children to identify bias within themselves, of course easier said than done, but creating that awareness that such a thing exists in ourselves and others would be a great start. I've had conversations many times with my fellow christians about how amazing it would be if christians really behaved like Jesus and if christians or any religious groups really deserved any kind of positive bias. I've got a lot of great friends who are atheists who are great people who respect me and who I respect regardless of any differences in what we believe.

[@TheFlamingChalupa]

I like your points on atheism. One question, aren't women statistically worse at math? This isn't because being female makes you bad at math, but more because of social pressures that discourage women from pursuing careers in mathematics . Even then, is it not correct to say that men are better at math?

[@michaelwilkes0]

@Rebecca Watson . very interesting. I have heard of these studies about minimizing the effects of stereotypes. Do you know if any real world programs have used the results of these studies yet? Like are there recommended adjustments to standardized forms or exams that businesses or schools have implemented? If it ends up reliably working with religion as well that would be neat.

[@RobKMusic]

If you're not in the cult, you're AGAINST the cult.

[@kaminarigaston]

Also it's not weird for an atheist to believe that a guy commits "inmoral acts" like bestiality, or eating an animal that you fucked, since religion was the medium to encode morality, and atheists are more likely to judge actions by ethical evaluation, rather than just following traditional represive moral edicts. It's not that an atheist wouldn't find objectionsand yuck factor to do that, it's that a theist of most flavours would find, on top of those objections and yuck factor, their religion's ban on bestiality and odd sexual practices in general.

[@phsopher]

The examples don't appear to me particularly good. Let me first clarify that I am an atheist and that I don't believe atheists are any less moral than religious people. The fact that people pick 'atheist teacher' over 'teacher' just tells you that people are bad at math. The fact that people pick 'atheist teacher' over 'Christian teacher' is just common sense. I think it is pretty likely that most psychopaths aren't religious (religious belief in most cases has an emotional basis), so if we pick one psychopath at random they are more likely to be atheist than Christian. It's not that atheists are more likely to be psychopathic maniacs but that psychopathic maniacs are more likely to also be atheist. So, putting the 'teacher' answer aside, I think 'atheist teacher' is the correct answer and "prejudice" is only meaningful when it's wrong. The second set of examples (incest and having sex with a chicken), also don't necessarily measure prejudice. An atheist has no reason to believe that incest (assuming safe sex) or romancing a dead chicken is wrong, a Christian does. If you take a random person and think how likely they are to do those things, for an atheist you only need to think how likely they are to be attracted to their siblings/chickens while for a Christian it's a combination of this likelihood with the likelihood that they will disobey what they believe to be God's commands. Obviously, the latter probability is smaller so again 'atheist' is the right answer. I think better examples would be more mundane cases of violence (no psychopaths) or how likely a person would be to help someone in need.

I agree with the second part of your comment. The behaviour of atheists is more unpredictable since they aren't limited by many of the constraints that religious people are as a result of their education, dogmas and beliefs. On the other hand, unlike what you stated I don't think that a psychopath is more likely to be atheist just because religious belief may have an emotional basis. THere's nothing incompatible with being religious and a psychopath. In support of this, there are societies in which the fraction of atheist population is virtually zero and yet, the prevalence of psychopathies isn't significantly lower.

[@phsopher]

Zephyr López Cervilla The question is not whether it is possible to be both a psychopath and religious but whether more psychopaths are religious than not. I think it is more likely that the majority of psychopaths are non believers though admittedly I wasn't able to find good statistics at short notice. Secondly, in societies where there are virtually no atheists psychopaths would pretend to be religious to blend in. They're sneaky like that.

[@AngstFisch]

4:42 Not rising up the challenge eh. Can't say I'm suprised.

[@oldcomic1]

It is the deeply religious who throughout history have committed the most and greatest atrocities

This will mostly depend on how you define religious.

[@oldcomic1]

Zephyr López Cervilla You would have to create a definition which excludes religious fanatics. That means you would have an inaccurate definition. Don't forget it was not a few rogues who carried out The Crusades and conducted The Inquisition, it was the religious institutions themselves. Today it is mosques that recruit terrorists. Religious violence and atrocities are not aberrations. They are business as usual

[@Anonymous247n]

Hah, interesting. I wouldn't say that "Teacher" is the right answer there, because all answers include the "teacher" word. I suppose... that the first answer is right in most cases, yes, but the first answer is also the emptiest answer. I don't know, does that maybe mean that it's begging the question? I see it like, "Is a killer usually a person?" kind of question. Empty, kinda meaningless. A psychological trick. Still interesting though.

[@vickmackey24]

Let me guess... you feel a bit dumb about picking the wrong answer initially, so the psychological defense mechanism in your brain is telling you to protect your ego by invalidating the question. :) Btw, "begging the question" is a form of circular argument in which the conclusion is assumed in one of its premises. I don't see how that makes any sense here. I think the term you're really looking for is "tautological." And I think that's the whole point of the question. People inadvertently look past the obvious tautological answer due to the biases they've developed through socially-driven stereotypes.

[@AbhishekMohan1]

vickmackey24 Psychological defense mechanism or not, I think he's right. Picking the first answer has no meaning, because whichever answer you pick, you will be agreeing with the first one as well? X

[@Anonymous247n]

vickmackey24 Aah thanks, wasn't sure if it was begging the question or not. Well i was a little frustrated at first, but more than that surprised when she said there is a "correct" answer to such a question. Then after some thought, i came to the conclusion i wrote. Yeah, tautological... i'll look up the meaning of this one :P But i really think it is plain and simple a trick question. But to explain more of my thoughts that i had later. I guess people associate religion with adherence to religious dogma. Most religions (christianity and islam in this question) do have some kind of moral rules, while atheism doesn't have any rules. Atheism is the absence of religious dogmatic rules. SO we could assume that a crazy sociopath would sooner be an atheist.... but on the other hand, we are talking about a crazy sociopath. So it is always possible that the person is also religious at the same time :P Just seems easier to exclude the chance of being bound by religious moral dogma, and conclude atheism.

[@vickmackey24]

Abhishek Mohan The question was "which is more likely...?" The other answers are subsets of the first, so obviously you're "more likely" to be part of the superset than one of the subsets. Are you more likely to be 1) a human, 2) a human with four arms, or 3) a human with a vestigial tail? Hope that helps.

[@Anonymous247n]

vickmackey24 True true. This isn't really a question, it's more a test. Which is more likely: That our hidden number is greater than 10? Or that our hidden number is 12, 14, 17 or 99? That kind of "question" :P I suppose it gets the job done... i assume most people don't put too much thought into answering such questions, so that test shows exactly what it means to show: that there is prejudice against atheism.

[@ImLeSmartest]

What if the people were coming from a physics seminar?

[@JRChadwick]

If you are looking at a broad statistical analysis, women overall tend to score slightly worse in math then men. That doesn't mean women are "bad" at math. Just like how men tend to be stronger than women (arguably a much stronger correlation,) but it isn't always true. I happen to be a man who is smaller than average (5'5", 150lbs) and I have met women who are bigger and stronger than me.

[@cypresshill09able]

***** "patriarchy" is to blame now? Please tell us how women are being influenced by society to be terrible at math. I find that interesting considering how much funding is put in for women in STEM fields and for special programs in primary and high school to support girls in these areas.

[@RealSemiComp]

someone tell me how she has 24,000 subscriber's

[@RealSemiComp]

@Nick Edin This comment is 4years old and she just stated obvious facts you didn't even need a degree to know. It's just going over stereotyping her channel is also growing very slowly even still. I do retract my old statement still I've seen dumber channels and more boring ones with more subs. Now can you answer me why did you reply to a 4-year-old comment?

[@RealSemiComp]

@Nick Edin ​ Also No no no she's not "intelligent and topical" or at least wasn't at that time let me explain. She has had have many cases were she either lies or at least made a mistake such as all cells including red blood cells contain DNA of some form at any given moment. She has had sponsors whose product didn't meet FDA standards or under investigation at the time. Then there were times where she said things like "rape threats better than being skeptical of feminism" during a time in which extreme feminism was all over the news in which many women acted as men might as well be insects and worship women as gods because they give birth to men. I don't know how much she has changed since then granted but 4yrs ago those were the facts.

[@RealSemiComp]

@Nick Edin 1 day is far different from someone's views 4 years ago

[@RealSemiComp]

@Nick Edin It is when you claim that your video was 100% accurate and sponsored saying" 23 and me uses DNA from your red blood cells to test for risk factors" names 4 things 3 of which DNA cannot test for.

[@RealSemiComp]

@Nick Edin whats even better is I found a video that summarizes some of this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHuqi4Bon9mApsk

[@NwoDispatcher]

do atheists believe in honor?

[@NwoDispatcher]

@O. M. Do atheists believe in honesty?

[@NwoDispatcher]

@O. M. honest people are honorable. dishonest people manipulate language to mislead and fool others into enslavement. I think you are a dishonest person.

[@NwoDispatcher]

@O. M. i dont believe honor is a conferred status from other people, accreditation is, I imagine honor is an individual ethos that one holds with their creator, be that the god of the universe or the gods of ones own ancestors

[@NwoDispatcher]

@O. M. why do atheists believe in honesty?

[@NwoDispatcher]

@O. M. What does it matter if you're dishonest if you can fool others to believe that you are honest or worse... Beyond reproach?