A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Londoner]

There is no moral obligation within atheism at all but atheists are nevertheless capable of making moral choices
And so it is those choices that determine their sense of morality rather than their non belief in imaginary beings
And if you were ever to give up Christianity you would still be a moral being although one not bound by ideology

That my moral choices determine my sense of morality would be circular. How then could anyone choose to do something which is not moral?

If we choose, (as opposed to tossing a coin) then we must be applying some sort of criteria. If we call it a 'moral choice' then (atheist or theist) we must be applying moral criteria. So both are 'bound by an ideology'.

So, maybe the moral atheist claims they have a better ideology than the moral theist, but they can't claim to have none at all.

[thedoc]

but they also reject the idea that a religious person can choose to follow the precepts of a particular religion or reject them.

Really? I don't reject that... and all the theists I know don't reject that.

They assume that a person who claims a particular religion is bound to follow the precepts that the Atheists assign to that religion.

I don't know who you've been talking to... but I don't think that's a common assumption. Theists have so many different levels and degrees of belief, regardless of whatever religious affiliation they have. That's just natural. I think that theists (rather than atheists) are more likely to assign everything as black or white... because their faith and belief must be fed by certainty... which the "black or white" categories offer them, yes? And that's why it might be hard if not impossible for an atheist to answer to some theists' mindsets and understanding, because everything must fit into the theist black or white model. An atheist doesn't function like that.

(Postby thedoc » Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:46 pm

I have watched several of these programs in the past, and even tried to call into the show, but apparently my call wasn't controversial enough for the screen-er to pass me through to the on line show.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... experience )

Perhaps the hosts of the show were trying to state their beliefs in language that the callers could understand, Some of the callers were obviously fundamentalists, and not well versed in anything but what was in the Bible, and even that, some didn't show a very clear understanding of the Bible.

[surreptitious57]

There is no moral obligation within atheism at all but atheists are nevertheless capable of making moral choices
And so it is those choices that determine their sense of morality rather than their non belief in imaginary beings
And if you were ever to give up Christianity you would still be a moral being although one not bound by ideology

That my moral choices determine my sense of morality would be circular. How then could anyone choose to do something which is not moral

If we choose ( as opposed to tossing a coin ) then we must be applying some sort of criteria. If we call it a moral choice then ( theist or atheist )
we must be applying moral criteria. So both are bound by an ideology

So maybe the moral atheist claims they have a better ideology than the moral atheist but they cant claim to have none at all

Moral choices include not only the moral but the immoral as well

There is no moral ideology with regard to atheism so atheists are entirely free to make whatever moral
choices that they want to. And because there is none then it cannot be compared to any theist ideology

[Arising_uk]

...
After all, most Western polities were formed around a Theistic worldview. ...

And yet most of their politics and views were formed by Pantheonists?

But nowadays, although they are still populated by about 90% religious people of one kind or another, ...

Not in the UK.

they operate essentially on a sort of methodological secularism or Atheism.

What I mean is that they act as if some sort of non-Theistic morality is possible, and that we all believe in it. And that's all that's currently securing our rights. However, if that worldview that underpins our polities cannot rationally ground an account of morality, then we're all potentially in big trouble, I think you can see. ...

The rational is simple, it makes life more pleasant.

So here's what I'd like: I'd love for the Atheists to be able to say, "We believe you have the right to freedom of life, liberty, conscience, etc., we know why we believe that, and we can argue cogently as to why people who don't believe in it are obligated to change their minds." That would be great for us all. ...

And yet your 'God' does not allow this freedom of conscience'?

On the other hand, what if they can't? I see no wisdom in accepting fakery for the real thing here; the stakes are too high for that. So I'm not going to invent an easy platitude to cover for them, or loan them a Theistic moral principle based on suppositions they deny, in order to get them what they cannot seemingly get for themselves.

So before your 'God' was invented everyone behaved immorally?

If they've got anything, I say let them speak for themselves.

{The crickets continue.}

I hear a big fat silence from you most of the time.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't believe it's a question of "must" but a question of "choice"

Oh, but surely it is.

Any system of thought that holds itself to have anything to contribute to the human moral situation must advocate for some things and against others. Otherwise, it's simply morally blank -- uninformative and morally useless. That is what Atheism may indeed be (And that is what I believe it is, in fact. However, I am eager and prepared to hear why it's not: as I said, we rely on methodological Atheism for a lot these days.) And if it is simply blank, then it leaves the field open to the best and worst of human behaviour in equal measure and with equal indifference.

To be morally useful, a system of thought needs to prescribe some kind of moral obligation. And if it is worthy of rational belief, it must do so on a rationally-consistent basis. But Atheists happily tell me (they are proud of it, if you can imagine) that their system is entirely uninformative of anything beyond their antipathy to Theism. They fail to see that this makes it simply amoral -- useless for any moral purpose.

Atheism cannot shape a "good" society, because it doesn't even have a concept of "good." It cannot prescribe or penalize against "bad" behaviour, because it has no concept of "bad." Not only does it lack these values, by nature of denying the existence of any larger purpose for existence, it despoils everyone else's morality as well. It declares any morality at all simply illusory. So it's the ultimate in amorality, really.

CAN an Atheist choose to be good? Of course: we've said that repeatedly. MUST they choose not to be a Stalin or a Mao? Alas, no: they may choose to be any kind of rogue, blaggard or homicidal maniac they wish. And historically, that has too often been the option. Historically an Atheist leader of a country is more likely than not to end up killing at least 200,000 of his own citizens.

All that, and he remains just as "good" an Atheist as any Atheist can be.

So yeah, I think "must" is pretty darn important.

[thedoc]

I don't believe it's a question of "must" but a question of "choice"

Oh, but surely it is.

Any system of thought that holds itself to have anything to contribute to the human moral situation must advocate for some things and against others. Otherwise, it's simply morally blank -- uninformative and morally useless. That is what Atheism may indeed be (And that is what I believe it is, in fact. However, I am eager and prepared to hear why it's not: as I said, we rely on methodological Atheism for a lot these days.) And if it is simply blank, then it leaves the field open to the best and worst of human behaviour in equal measure and with equal indifference.

To be morally useful, a system of thought needs to prescribe some kind of moral obligation. And if it is worthy of rational belief, it must do so on a rationally-consistent basis. But Atheists happily tell me (they are proud of it, if you can imagine) that their system is entirely uninformative of anything beyond their antipathy to Theism. They fail to see that this makes it simply amoral -- useless for any moral purpose.

Atheism cannot shape a "good" society, because it doesn't even have a concept of "good." It cannot prescribe or penalize against "bad" behaviour, because it has no concept of "bad." Not only does it lack these values, by nature of denying the existence of any larger purpose for existence, it despoils everyone else's morality as well. It declares any morality at all simply illusory. So it's the ultimate in amorality, really.

CAN an Atheist choose to be good? Of course: we've said that repeatedly. MUST they choose not to be a Stalin or a Mao? Alas, no: they may choose to be any kind of rogue, blaggard or homicidal maniac they wish. And historically, that has too often been the option. Historically an Atheist leader of a country is more likely than not to end up killing at least 200,000 of his own citizens.

All that, and he remains just as "good" an Atheist as any Atheist can be.

So yeah, I think "must" is pretty darn important.

I still don't see that it is a must rather than a choice, what is it that compels anyone to choose good over evil? Even in religion an individual can choose to do evil yet claim to do good. Someone I know told me a story about a member of a congregation who made a great show of putting a $20.00 bill in the offering plate every Sunday, many years ago. Then one Sunday the tellers were counting the money and there were no $20.00 bills in the offering. Apparently the person was faking putting the bill in the plate, depending on someone else putting one in to cover his deception.

[Harbal]

But Atheists happily tell me (they are proud of it, if you can imagine) that their system is entirely uninformative of anything beyond their antipathy to Theism.

I did an impromptu polling exercise outside my local church, a couple of Sundays ago. On questioning the congregation, individually, as they left the church, I was shocked to discover that 90% of them had beaten up an elderly person within the previous six months, 45% had committed an act of genocide, and a further 12% would have liked to have committed one but for the lack of opportunity, 15% admitted to openly masturbating on public transport and half of them had had sex with a domestic animal, without it's consent. The only atheist I spoke to turned out to be the vicar, whose only crime, as he put it, seemed to be pandering to the "fucking idiots" sitting in the pews.
In contrast: Our local Boy Scout group, all atheists (although they're not allowed to admit it), each spend 20 hours per week doing odd jobs, running errands and collecting shopping for the older people in the community. One particularly accommodating young chap even did something (we're not sure what) to bring sexual relief to one old biddy who's hormones had suddenly resurged after 25 years of being nowhere to be seen. She never gave him so much as a thank you, and guess what, back in the day she used to be the local Sunday School teacher.
So, Emmanuel, and forgive me for saying this, but when you rattle on about atheists, quite frankly, I think you're making it all up.

[thedoc]

I did an impromptu polling exercise outside my local church, a couple of Sundays ago. On questioning the congregation, individually, as they left the church, I was shocked to discover that 90% of them had beaten up an elderly person within the previous six months, 45% had committed an act of genocide, and a further 12% would have liked to have committed one but for the lack of opportunity, 15% admitted to openly masturbating on public transport and half of them had had sex with a domestic animal, without it's consent. The only atheist I spoke to turned out to be the vicar, whose only crime, as he put it, seemed to be pandering to the "fucking idiots" sitting in the pews.
In contrast: Our local Boy Scout group, all atheists (although they're not allowed to admit it), each spend 20 hours per week doing odd jobs, running errands and collecting shopping for the older people in the community. One particularly accommodating young chap even did something (we're not sure what) to bring sexual relief to one old biddy who's hormones had suddenly resurged after 25 years of being nowhere to be seen. She never gave him so much as a thank you, and guess what, back in the day she used to be the local Sunday School teacher.
So, Emmanuel, and forgive me for saying this, but when you rattle on about atheists, quite frankly, I think you're making it all up.

67% of all statistics are made up on the spot, thankyou for demonstrating this for us.

[Arising_uk]

How do the theists account for the under-representation of atheists in our prisons?

[thedoc]

How do the theists account for the under-representation of atheists in our prisons?

They don't get caught because they don't feel compelled to confess.

[Arising_uk]

They don't get caught because they don't feel compelled to confess.

You saying all those theists in prison are there because they handed themselves over through guilt?

And why did they act immorally in the first place, given what IC says about a belief in 'God' and morality?

[Arising_uk]

No, I believe in one God, it is only your misunderstanding that creates 3 separate Gods. ...

But the Son, the Father and the Holy Ghost are not each other, so what are they? If they are all the 'God' then they are each other?

Whatever information you think you have about God is incorrect, and as an unbeliever that is understandable, you are an outsider looking in, thinking you understand what is going on. ...

Well you're not wrong there as I have no 'God's' so enlighten me, what is going on and what is the correct information about this 'God'?

How do you know that Odin, Allah, and others are different and separate? ...

How do you know there is 'a God'?

Still, I've read the Norse sagas and they have an All Father, Odin, who is the boss 'God' of a whole bunch of 'Gods' and also the actual father of a couple of them, he also has a wife who's a 'God' as well. Now tell me how that fits your 'God'? As from what I read those believers believed as fervently as you.

I've read the Koran and have a couple of Muslim friends and have met and discussed Islam with quite a few Muslims and have met and challenged the more fundamentalist of them. They say there is no 'Son' nor 'Holy Ghost', only 'Allah' who is the only 'God'. A such they appear to differ from you and as such I think that means you and they have a different 'God'.

I've also met a few of the African Anglicans and they firmly believe their 'God' is not the 'God' of the Muslim's. Not least because the Bible tells them that there are other 'Gods' but that their 'God' is the one true 'God'.

You talk like you think you are an expert in Gods, but your posts reveal that you really know nothing about God, or what believers believe.

I can only report what believers tell me they believe. You say they are lying?

But again, you are right. I'm only an expert in that I report what I'm told by believers like yourself. Me, I have no 'God' or 'Gods' in my life but still appear to be able to behave. Which is more than can be said of many believers.

[Immanuel Can]

I still don't see that it is a must rather than a choice, what is it that compels anyone to choose good over evil? Even in religion an individual can choose to do evil yet claim to do good. Someone I know told me a story about a member of a congregation who made a great show of putting a $20.00 bill in the offering plate every Sunday, many years ago. Then one Sunday the tellers were counting the money and there were no $20.00 bills in the offering. Apparently the person was faking putting the bill in the plate, depending on someone else putting one in to cover his deception.

Yes, this sort of thing happens. Human beings are perfidious, it's true. And even those who genuinely try to do right often fail. But when they do, does that signify that those people have been "good" or "bad"?

You see, if you take a religion that says, "Do not steal," then from it we know what stealing makes one. If we take one that says "Do not murder," we know what murdering makes one. One is disobedient to moral truth. One is behaving badly. One is a bad person.

But what if the ideology (like Atheism) has nothing whatsoever to say about the moral condition of that situation? If we truly believe and practice our Atheism, how are we equipped by it to assess anything morally?

Quite simply, we're not. And absent any reason to trust whatever residual Judeo-Christian instincts we may have left, how do we explain to ourselves why, say, giving to charity might be good, and killing children might be bad? We can't. We're morally at sea, with only our momentary preferences to guide us, and nothing whatsoever to say to anyone who behaves in any way we find reprehensible...

Because on that count, Atheism is utterly vacuous; not because I say so, but because it's chief proponents do. They relish the fact that beyond its obstinate, gratuitous opposition to Theism, it has absolutely no proposition to offer. And they hold that up as a reason, as they say, that it cannot be criticized. Stating nothing else, it cannot be challenged, they think.

However, it's pretty clear it won't lead us to wisdom, it won't help us frame the good society, and it won't even help us sort out rudimentary good and bad. It's just empty.

[uwot]

How do the theists account for the under-representation of atheists in our prisons?

No idea, but from an atheist point of view, the main problem is the narcissism of theists. People who are vain enough to believe they are the object of some god's affection, are more disposed to a sense of self entitlement and self righteousness. Bearing in mind that they can persuade themselves of an entire metaphysics for which there is no evidence, justifying pretty much any behaviour is child's play. This might be trivial, like the banal rudeness of Mr Can or ostentatiousness around the collection plate, or it might be any crime you can think of up to and including torturing heretics, raping kafirs and murdering abortionists.

[uwot]

... what if the ideology (like Atheism) has nothing whatsoever to say about the moral condition of that situation? If we truly believe and practice our Atheism, how are we equipped by it to assess anything morally?

Quite simply, we're not.

Not by Mr Can's criteria, because according to him being moral is the same thing as doing what pleases god. The problem is, the primary source on the will of god, the bible, is frequently ambiguous and even self contradictory. Given the necessity of interpretation, 'what pleases god' becomes what pleases you.

And absent any reason to trust whatever residual Judeo-Christian instincts we may have left, how do we explain to ourselves why, say, giving to charity might be good, and killing children might be bad? We can't.

This argument is frequently recited, but it is always an astonishing admission that theists need to be told by god that things like killing children might be bad.

Because on that count, Atheism is utterly vacuous; not because I say so, but because it's chief proponents do. They relish the fact that beyond its obstinate, gratuitous opposition to Theism, it has absolutely no proposition to offer.

He has lost the argument, now he is losing his mind. Has anyone here written anything that could be interpreted in such a way, even by the likes of Mr Can?