A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Lacewing]

Well, it's easier to tell yourself that than to think, I understand. If It lets you dismiss the argument when it gets scary. But what you should perhaps consider doing is asking yourself this: is it true?

Really, nothing else ought to matter: and if it does, maybe you should ask yourself why it does.

Say it to yourself. It applies to you more than anyone else here.

[Arising_uk]

... you cannot name a single humane Atheist country. ...

The UK.

[Londoner]

Given the alleged randomness of the origin of the universe, what we ought to expect, from every scientific law we know, is pure chaos. Nothing ought to cohere or produce order. Where the very intricate order of our universe comes from is a huge question, scientifically. One does not even need to be a Theist to understand that.

In what sense is it ordered? What would a less ordered, or a more ordered, universe be like? Any sort of universe is going to be in some sort of an order, simply by virtue of existing. The order of any universe is seen in the relationship of one part to another part, and there will always be some relationship.

This is true: and for that reason, we know that science is not the comprehensive answer to all the important questions in the universe. For deductively, we know there must have been a "why": and if science cannot speak to that, then it is science's limitation that is on show.

How do we know there must be a 'why'? It might simply be a 'brute fact'.

And also, you can never answer a 'why?' question, for example if the answer was 'God' we would just move onto 'Why God?'

We certainly could if the Supreme Being had spoken to us concerning that. So maybe the real question is, "Has God spoken?"

And how would we answer that? Isn't the problem that he could only speak to us through the material universe, which means we can say 'it is only the material universe'. For example, if it was through scripture, then since scripture is written (and understood) by humans, why can't it just be humans speaking?

We don't know that it (morality) isn't an external "object" as you put it, or "reality," as I would. But what we do know for sure is this: if morality is not objective and external, then it's merely a social ephemera, an odd phenomenon (since it's universal) but one for which we can find no explanation as to why we ought to believe in it at all, or why anyone should.

If we accept that morality exists, we end up having to accept that a moral Law-Giver must exist as well. Absent such, there's no reason we have to be moral at all.

I would tend to agree, although there are alternatives. We could argue it arises from man's particular nature, of both being an object in the world and also conscious of himself as separate from it. That we can form a morality that is objective in that it reflects this existential condition. (A view not necessarily contrary to theism)

No. No more than observing a painting done by you might tell me that you are intelligent, or that you have artistic skill. I could infer a great deal about you from what you had chosen to paint, how you'd made the paint behave, the technical control with which you executed your design, and the aesthetic insight the design represented...among other things. The creation would bespeak the creator...you.

Wouldn't such an inference be really be a reflection of the observer? You infer that the painting had a creator because you can imagine yourself creating it.

By contrast, suppose I (as painter) had a completely different aesthetic. Now you see a blank canvas, or what appears to be a random selection of marks. Those who shared my aesthetic would see evidence of a creator in this painting, but those that didn't would not, so how would you know whether to infer an intelligent creator or not?

I think the evidence is not in the painting, but in the observer. What we see in the painting is a reflection of our existing assumptions.

I think not. The savagery and cruelty of Saudi society is certainly related to their concept of God, but it has little to do with Theism more generally. Their "god" is certainly not the most probable one, nor the one I believe exists. Delusions about God always take their toll -- whether because of a wrong view of His nature, or because the ideologues in question refuse to think of Him at all.

But how to settle who is right, and who is deluded? You or the Saudi?

But let us ask, how have Atheist societies fared? Are they, in distinction to, say, America and the UK, which have a residual Christian past, bastions of tolerance, humanity and wisdom? Well, there were certainly few more Atheist societies than North Korea today, or perhaps Red China or the Soviet Union, or Albania, or Pol Pot's Cambodia...and how did they all do? They killed 148 million in the last century, as I've pointed out before. In fact, just as you cannot name a humane Muslim country, you cannot name a single humane Atheist country. And at some point, you've got to ask what their ideologies have to do with all that, don't you?

I think that is a little extreme. I have been in Muslim countries where although there is poverty, harsh conditions and sometimes cruel rulers, the individual people have been far kinder and more hospitable than you would find in the American 'Bible belt'. For most of history, Jews and other religious minorities were safer in Muslim countries than in Christian ones. We have the examples of the many civil wars between Christians, that were accompanied by massacres worse than anything perpetrated by Islamic state. Not to mention the genocides that accompanied Christian empire building. If we are going to have Christianity come out favorably in a comparison, we have to use the 'no true Scotsman' argument, that says whenever a Christian country - like Germany - did awful things, that doesn't count because at that period they were not 'true Christians'.

In my opinion, in terms of behaviour there is not much to choose from between theists and atheists, or between the theists. I think that there is no system of belief that cannot be perverted, given the right pressures.

Once again, I appear to be objecting to everything you say. It isn't that I wish to be antagonistic, it is just that I have had similar conversations with other people, and these are the points that come up. I am genuinely curious about the way you would respond. From my point of view, I think that ultimately these are not the sort of questions that can ever be settled in the sense of proving 'I'm right - You're wrong', so I can pick holes in what you say forever...but of course I can offer nothing better as an alternative.

With religion, you can never prove, but you can sometimes convince.

[Harbal]

Well, on that point we agree...Atheism truly doesn't deserve "anything" -- if by "anything" we mean trust, belief, entertaining, authority, admiration...

Trust: In what way do you consider yourself to be more trustworthy than me?

Belief: There's no merit in believing something merely because you would like it to be true, which certainly would seem to be the case with the likes of you.

Entertaining: This is only my opinion, of course, but I think that, when I make the effort, I can be considerably more entertaining than you.

Authority: You've got me on this one. I don't have any authority so we'll have to call it a draw, being as you don't have any, either.

Admiration: No, I don't attract much admiration. Do you?

What you say about people is true. But what you say about ideology is not.

I don't remember saying anything about ideology, you're the one who keeps using the word. As far as we "atheists" are concerned, does simply having a lack of belief in something we find implausible amount to an ideology?

Ironically, "tolerance" is a Christian virtue, not an Atheist one.

Tolerance is available to anyone who wishes to practice it. If I were to reject it just because it is associated with a religion I don't happen to subscribe to I would be as bad as you.

So I'm listening.

You are only listening so you can disagree with what you are hearing. Because you have a weak argument, the only course open to you is to be automatically dismissive of any challenge to it.

"Concocting"? Are you saying it's not true? I can prove it is. Or are you denying the existence of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il,..

It's a fucking statistic man, we all know you can make statistics say whatever suits you.

Certainly there's no virtue in unity if all it does is to"unite" cruelty with mercy,

Or bigotry with stupidity. But, I am still willing to tolerate both your bigotry and your stupidity because you don't carry enough weight to do any harm with them.

Have a nice day.

[Immanuel Can]

In what sense is it ordered?

In the very basic sense that your molecules stick together. In the more expansive sense that the Earth retains its integrity and produces life. And in the even more expansive sense that things like science and observation make sense. In all this, there is manifest coherence.

How do we know there must be a 'why'? It might simply be a 'brute fact'.

There must be at least a causal "why," even if you discount the possibility of a teleological one.

And also, you can never answer a 'why?' question, for example if the answer was 'God' we would just move onto 'Why God?'

Analytically incoherent. You can only ask "why" for events that have a beginning...like scientifically, we know that the universe does. We cannot ask, "Why is 2+2 = 4...it's analytic in the nature of what we are positing to be as described. We can argue over its empirical existence, if we wish; but it makes no sense to make irrational and self-contradictory postulates about it, like "a god with a why." It's like "a bachelor with a wife."

We certainly could if the Supreme Being had spoken to us concerning that. So maybe the real question is, "Has God spoken?"

And how would we answer that?

We'd go see if He'd done it.

...since scripture is written (and understood) by humans, why can't it just be humans speaking?

Which "scripture"? For some, it clearly COULD be just humans speaking. But if God has spoken in one or another Scripture, that would be different.

We don't know that it (morality) isn't an external "object" as you put it, or "reality," as I would. But what we do know for sure is this: if morality is not objective and external, then it's merely a social ephemera, an odd phenomenon (since it's universal) but one for which we can find no explanation as to why we ought to believe in it at all, or why anyone should.

If we accept that morality exists, we end up having to accept that a moral Law-Giver must exist as well. Absent such, there's no reason we have to be moral at all.

I would tend to agree, although there are alternatives. We could argue it arises from man's particular nature, of both being an object in the world and also conscious of himself as separate from it. That we can form a morality that is objective in that it reflects this existential condition. (A view not necessarily contrary to theism)

Yes, we could argue that. But then, what is the duty-conferring property of it? Why should we believe in something, or practice something, that is merely a human construct?

No. No more than observing a painting done by you might tell me that you are intelligent, or that you have artistic skill. I could infer a great deal about you from what you had chosen to paint, how you'd made the paint behave, the technical control with which you executed your design, and the aesthetic insight the design represented...among other things. The creation would bespeak the creator...you.

Wouldn't such an inference be really be a reflection of the observer? You infer that the painting had a creator because you can imagine yourself creating it.

No doubt that can get in there -- and will get in there, if we're not careful. But it would not be true to say that we can imagine the entire painting. If it exists, and if I did not create it myself, then somebody other than me did. And again, I learn more about him than about my own prejudices by looking at the painting, though I may learn about both.

By contrast, suppose I (as painter) had a completely different aesthetic. Now you see a blank canvas, or what appears to be a random selection of marks. Those who shared my aesthetic would see evidence of a creator in this painting, but those that didn't would not, so how would you know whether to infer an intelligent creator or not?

You wouldn't. Design is a feature of intelligence: but randomness is not. You would have no data upon which to base a judgment, then.

I think the evidence is not in the painting, but in the observer. What we see in the painting is a reflection of our existing assumptions.

But surely you're only thinking of modern, abstract art. As I have said above, I think we DO learn some things about ourselves by the way we look at a painting; but if we recognize it as a product of another creator, I think we learn far more about him or her -- provided we're open to looking at it that way.

Of course, if all we WANT to see is our own prejudices, then yes, that is very much all we are likely to see.

But how to settle who is right, and who is deluded? You or the Saudi?

I suggest an open court. Let him bring his "god" to the dock, and let the others come as well. Let us see which One stands up to all the tests of integrity, coherence, truthfulness, justice, and so on.

But let us not do this: let us not shut down the argument out of a misguided sense of multiculturalist tolerance. Let's make every view take the test, and make our minds up based on the evidence, back off out of a fear of seeing the evidence.

But let us ask, how have Atheist societies fared? Are they, in distinction to, say, America and the UK, which have a residual Christian past, bastions of tolerance, humanity and wisdom? Well, there were certainly few more Atheist societies than North Korea today, or perhaps Red China or the Soviet Union, or Albania, or Pol Pot's Cambodia...and how did they all do? They killed 148 million in the last century, as I've pointed out before. In fact, just as you cannot name a humane Muslim country, you cannot name a single humane Atheist country. And at some point, you've got to ask what their ideologies have to do with all that, don't you?

I think that is a little extreme.

I think it's a little empirical.

I have been in Muslim countries where although there is poverty, harsh conditions and sometimes cruel rulers, the individual people have been far kinder and more hospitable than you would find in the American 'Bible belt'.

Oh, agreed. Did I not already say repeatedly that just because one espouses an ideology -- good or bad -- that does not imply one is following it?

For most of history, Jews and other religious minorities were safer in Muslim countries than in Christian ones.

Untrue, actually. Dhimmi status has always been extremely dangerous for "people of the book." But more interestingly, how did the Atheists fare in Muslim countries?

"What Atheists?" you ask? A very interesting question, that.

We have the examples of the many civil wars between Christians, that were accompanied by massacres worse than anything perpetrated by Islamic state. Not to mention the genocides that accompanied Christian empire building. If we are going to have Christianity come out favorably in a comparison, we have to use the 'no true Scotsman' argument, that says whenever a Christian country - like Germany - did awful things, that doesn't count because at that period they were not 'true Christians'.

But wait: did we not just say that it does not follow that if one calls oneself an Atheist one is bound to be immoral or amoral? Why would we assume the contrary in the case of people who call themselves Christians? Are there no standards for these things?

The problem with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is that being Scottish has nothing to do with what one does: but does being a Christian? Think again: for if we say, "No true humanitarian eats babies for lunch," are we guilty of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? By analytics, surely not: for to be a humanitarian means to have regard for humans, no? And to devour babies for lunch indicates something quite different.

So we must ask, What is entailed in being a "true Christian?" And that's not hard to find. According to their Leader, the rule is, "...by their fruits ye shall know them."

In my opinion, in terms of behaviour there is not much to choose from between theists and atheists, or between the theists.

No difference? You'd better check history, then.

I used to live in the Developing World. I never once saw an Atheist mission. I never saw anyone receive a dollar or a pound in "Atheist Aid." I never found an Atheist who was giving up his life for the poor. I discovered no educational, medical or other social help organizations sustained purely out of the goodness of the Atheist heart...

You will find likewise if you look, I assure you.

But you will find 148 million dead bodies in the hands of Atheists in the 20th Century alone.

As the Leader said, "...by their fruits ye shall know them."

I think that there is no system of belief that cannot be perverted, given the right pressures.

Quite true. But if a believe can be, as you say, "perverted," then it can also be "true": for how else would we be capable of assessing its pervertedness? And if a belief can be both "true" or "perverted," then there is no "No True Scotsman" fallacy in saying so.

Once again, I appear to be objecting to everything you say. It isn't that I wish to be antagonistic, it is just that I have had similar conversations with other people, and these are the points that come up. I am genuinely curious about the way you would respond. From my point of view, I think that ultimately these are not the sort of questions that can ever be settled in the sense of proving 'I'm right - You're wrong', so I can pick holes in what you say forever...but of course I can offer nothing better as an alternative.

The danger with complex questions is that we give up on them and say, "This can never be settled." Maybe it can, and maybe it can't...but we'll never know if we take that view.

Moreover, I think that in this case, it can.

With religion, you can never prove, but you can sometimes convince.

Well, taken literally, the same is true of science. Science doesn't "prove"; it increases the probability of something being guessed correctly...it "convinces."

Not a bad thing to be able to do, though.

[Immanuel Can]

Trust: In what way do you consider yourself to be more trustworthy than me?

I don't recall saying I was. I said that Atheism, not a particular Atheist, was not trustworthy.

I don't remember saying anything about ideology, you're the one who keeps using the word. As far as we "atheists" are concerned, does simply having a lack of belief in something we find implausible amount to an ideology?

Well, are you a real Atheist then, or just an Agnostic? If you are the former, then you make the positive claim that "there are no such things as gods." But if you make such a claim, and if you claim to be rational as well, then surely you owe your rational account of why you believe that so positively.

"Concocting"? Are you saying it's not true? I can prove it is. Or are you denying the existence of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il,..

It's a fucking statistic man, we all know you can make statistics say whatever suits you.

That's a platitude, not a fact. "We all know" is just a reference to popular misconception. Some statistics are just very clear. In fact, my statistic comes from the entirely secular source, the Encyclopaedia of Wars. Have you got a better, more fair-minded source on hand?

Certainly there's no virtue in unity if all it does is to"unite" cruelty with mercy,

Or bigotry with stupidity. But, I am still willing to tolerate both your bigotry and your stupidity because you don't carry enough weight to do any harm with them.

Have a nice day.

Ah. Yes, I remember this aphorism: "When logic fails, we must resort to cream pies." Okay. Nice day to you too.

But seriously, no hard feelings. I don't dislike you. I may disagree with you, but that's very different.

[uwot]

Immanuel Can is just farting out his usual ill informed, self-righteous nonsense. If you are in any doubt that Mr Can knows fuck all about science, consider this:

Given the alleged randomness of the origin of the universe, what we ought to expect, from every scientific law we know, is pure chaos.

Actually, every scientific law we know is a description of order. There is no scientific law that implies total chaos, not quantum mechanics, not even chaos theory.
As for atheism being responsible for millions of deaths in the 20th century, the characters of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are routinely trotted out by credulous nincompoops like Mr Can. They fail to appreciate what those and other despots understood very well: religions are personality cults; be it Jesus, Mary, Mohammed, Buddha, Zoroaster, (one for you, reverend Bob) John of Patmos, Ras Tafari, all the way down to Charles Manson, David Koresh, all the other opportunistic nutters, and back up to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Slow witted, ignorant people want leaders, and having aligned themselves, will defend the object of their adoration on pain of ridicule, violence and even death. They generally subscribe to the principle of an eye for an eye, at least, so have no compunction about giving as good as they get; beheading kafirs is the most grisly example. Mr Can, having been brought up in a state that doesn't tolerate religious violence, because it is secular, is too unworldly to resort to actual confrontation, instead he responds with the ridicule he is exposed to.
Then there's all the guff about good theists being compelled to behave themselves; well, so are good atheists. Ya know? Satanists believe in god too.

[Immanuel Can]

Say it to yourself. It applies to you more than anyone else here.

Back in the primary school yard, we used to just say, "I know you are, but what am I?"

It was as relevant and witty then as now.

[uwot]

Well, are you a real Atheist then, or just an Agnostic? If you are the former, then you make the positive claim that "there are no such things as gods."

No Mr Can, that is not what atheism requires. You still don't understand the difference between:
I do not believe that god exists
And:
I believe that god doesn't exist.
Seriously; get your head around that and you will appear much less ridiculous.

[Harbal]

Say it to yourself. It applies to you more than anyone else here.

Back in the primary school yard, we used to just say, "I know you are, but what am I?"

It was as relevant and witty then as now.

If you think that's witty you still have the sense of humour of a child.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well, are you a real Atheist then, or just an Agnostic? If you are the former, then you make the positive claim that "there are no such things as gods."

No Mr Can, that is not what atheism requires. You still don't understand the difference between:
I do not believe that god exists
And:
I believe that god doesn't exist.
Seriously; get your head around that and you will appear much less ridiculous.

I've been banging that into him for ages. It won't sink in.
Even despite the fact that "I believe that god does not exists", is ridiculously question begging; a question theists can never answer with any clarity or uniformity.

For me the very idea of belief is inadequate.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think that's witty you still have the sense of humour of a child.

I see you're unfamiliar with irony....

[Harbal]

I see you're unfamiliar with irony....

If your sight is as good as your judgement then I'm afraid that doesn't mean much.

[Immanuel Can]

Still waiting to hear what any Atheist can tell us about moral obligation in his / her worldview.

And man, it's quiet out there. All I can hear are the crickets chirping.

[Dubious]

And man, it's quiet out there. All I can hear are the crickets chirping.

...only in your case it's from the inside out.