A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[surreptitious57]

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?

Once again : atheism is the non belief in imaginary beings. Nothing else. It is not a moral ideology since it has
absolutely nothing to say about morality. You are falsely equating the two when they are not connected at all

And you do not practice atheism. There is nothing to practice

[Immanuel Can]

Once again : atheism is the non belief in imaginary beings. Nothing else.

Well, their "imaginariness" is not to be granted without reasons and evidence, of course: but essentially, what you're saying is exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying it's the ultimate dog-in-the-manger negation, with nothing at all positive to offer the world, and absolutely no moral information in it. We're not disagreeing on that. For just as you say,

It is not a moral ideology since it has absolutely nothing to say about morality.

That's true: it has nothing to say about morality, or anything else, for that matter, except, "I don't like the idea of a God." How vacuous is that?

But it is an ideology. It's a horribly thin one, I admit; but it has this ideological component: that it is based on a pure faith claim, without any evidentiary basis. It's just an "I don't like that," irrational antipathy.

You are falsely equating the two when they are not connected at all

As you can see, I am not.

And you do not practice atheism. There is nothing to practice

Yes. That's my point: it gives the world nothing to "practice," except gratuitous obstinacy; it certainly adds no useful information to morality or, for that matter, knowledge of any kind. It's a real dead stick, that one.

And because it's so dead, historically it has needed to be joined with some other much more definite ideology in order to serve any purpose at all. So the partnering of Atheism with Communism or any other "-ism" isn't to be wondered at. But historically, such pairings have also been total disasters for the human race: for absent God and absent any moral duties, the ideology in question is freed to run riot...usually in oppressive, and often in and homicidal directions.

That bears watching: whenever Atheism is pared with another ideology, it sets that ideology free for expressions of the worst of human nature, with no potential for moral restraint. As you say, Atheism has nothing to offer in the way of morality.

[thedoc]

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?

No Christian that I know has ever claimed to be perfect, everyone makes mistakes, but some are more compelled to admit their mistakes than others, and I didn't say Christians are more compelled, so don't accuse me of that.

[Immanuel Can]

No Christian that I know has ever claimed to be perfect, everyone makes mistakes, but some are more compelled to admit their mistakes than others, and I didn't say Christians are more compelled, so don't accuse me of that.

The argument he offers is silly...I wouldn't bother with it.

If he were right, it would mean that laws don't work. And his evidence would be that some people break laws. How's that logic for you?

It's true that Christians have moral laws. Some may break them, and this calls into question their sincerity as Christians. Even Atheists think that's so: how often do you hear the charge of "hypocrisy" levelled by them against anyone who believes in moral law?

But Atheists have NO moral laws defensible on Atheism. They don't even have a grounds to indict "hypocrisy" itself; for by the light of Atheism, it's not even bad to be a hypocrite!

Unless Atheists DO have some moral precept -- and they claim they do not -- they cannot condemn anything. So what are they whining about? They're whining because deep down inside them, they understand that not only is hypocrisy wrong, but so are things like rape, slavery, etc. They DO know an objective moral law exists: they just don't want it to, because it might cramp their style.

Talk about hypocrisy, then: they want to condemn others, all the while claiming there's no grounds for condemning anyone. But to quote ethicist J. Budzisewski, "Moral skeptics are playing make-believe, and playing it badly." They can't even keep their own story straight.

So I would not hesitate to say that moral laws are helpful to the human race, especially in strengthening resistance to the worst of human behavior, but also rewarding those aspects of human behavior we would want to reinforce. Most of the human race has historically thought that was true.

It takes an Atheist to invent something as useless and destructive as moral nihilism.

[thedoc]

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?

You are loosing it, IC did not claim that Atheism's chief proponents were on this forum, you are twisting his post to say something he didn't post.

[Londoner]

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

That makes no sense.

If you are free to make any choice you want, because you have no moral ideology, then how can that choice be called 'moral' or 'immoral'?

To describe an act as being, or not being, 'moral' you must mean something. It doesn't have to be religious, but it has to be something.

Once again : atheism is the non belief in imaginary beings. Nothing else. It is not a moral ideology since it has
absolutely nothing to say about morality. You are falsely equating the two when they are not connected at all

And you do not practice atheism. There is nothing to practice

If you are an atheist for no reason, say you flipped a coin saying 'if it is heads then I will be an atheist', then that would be true. But if you have a reason to be an atheist, then you must have some sort of a metaphysic. For example it could be a rule like 'I will only believe in the sort of objects accessible to science', so I don't believe in God. So your atheism is putting something into practice i.e. your rule about what sort of things to believe.

And if you had that rule, then it would have something to say about morality. Morality is not an object accessible to science either, so if you do not believe in God then you should not believe in morality.

[Immanuel Can]

And you do not practice atheism. There is nothing to practice

If you are an atheist for no reason, say you flipped a coin saying 'if it is heads then I will be an atheist', then that would be true. But if you have a reason to be an atheist, then you must have some sort of a metaphysic. For example it could be a rule like 'I will only believe in the sort of objects accessible to science', so I don't believe in God. So your atheism is putting something into practice i.e. your rule about what sort of things to believe.

And if you had that rule, then it would have something to say about morality. Morality is not an object accessible to science either, so if you do not believe in God then you should not believe in morality.

Wow. Terrific comment. I'm going to have to think about that, Londoner. Very perceptive. I didn't catch that at all.

You're quite right: unless becoming an Atheist is done on a basis that is totally gratuitous and irrational, it must have either a reason or a metaphysic behind it.

That would make it an ideology, despite what some say. A thin one, perhaps: but an ideology nonetheless.

[Lacewing]

The argument he offers is silly...I wouldn't bother with it.

I'm guessing the reason you hear crickets is because this is how most people feel about your posts! The lack of response (or even readership) is not because you've baffled people with your cleverness and truth, but rather due to the rabid level of self-indulgent and stagnant absurdity you spew. Even after a year of ignoring your posts, I see you're pushing that same old stuff. How you could think that's impressive must simply demonstrate what impresses you. Amazing!

[Harbal]

I'm guessing the reason you hear crickets is because this is how most people feel about your posts! The lack of response (or even readership) is not because you've baffled people with your cleverness and truth, but rather due to the rabid level of self-indulgent and stagnant absurdity you spew. Even after a year of ignoring your posts, I see you're pushing that same old stuff. How you could think that's impressive must simply demonstrate what impresses you. Amazing!

Well said. Spot on.

[Arising_uk]

...

If he were right, it would mean that laws don't work. And his evidence would be that some people break laws. How's that logic for you?

Not really, I just asked how one accounts for atheists being underrepresented in our prisons, presumably it's because they obey the law more than theists.

It's true that Christians have moral laws. Some may break them, and this calls into question their sincerity as Christians. Even Atheists think that's so: how often do you hear the charge of "hypocrisy" levelled by them against anyone who believes in moral law?

Hold on! Are you saying even if one believes in this theist moral law one can break it?

But Atheists have NO moral laws defensible on Atheism. ...

Of course not as Atheism is just the disbelief in the theists claim that there is a 'God'. But atheists can have many grounds for having laws about behaviour.

They don't even have a grounds to indict "hypocrisy" itself; for by the light of Atheism, it's not even bad to be a hypocrite!

Depends what you are being hypocritical about I'd have thought?

Unless Atheists DO have some moral precept -- and they claim they do not -- they cannot condemn anything. ...

We claim nothing of the sort, we just claim that we do not beleive there is a 'God'.

So what are they whining about?

You appear to be the whinny one?

They're whining because deep down inside them, they understand that not only is hypocrisy wrong, but so are things like rape, slavery, etc. They DO know an objective moral law exists: they just don't want it to, because it might cramp their style.

No-one's whining here, you rape, enslave, etc and we'll be judging you upon our current inter-subjectively agreed upon laws of behaviour. As such we're not stoning adulterous women, burning 'witches' and 'heretics' or killing homosexuals over here anymore.

I'm also slightly puzzled how the theist can punish anyone? As presumably that judgement is your 'God's' to make after death not your's.

Talk about hypocrisy, then: they want to condemn others, all the while claiming there's no grounds for condemning anyone. But to quote ethicist J. Budzisewski, "Moral skeptics are playing make-believe, and playing it badly." They can't even keep their own story straight. ...

We don't say there are no grounds for condemning anyone, just that there is no 'God' setting the rules.

So I would not hesitate to say that moral laws are helpful to the human race, especially in strengthening resistance to the worst of human behavior, but also rewarding those aspects of human behavior we would want to reinforce. Most of the human race has historically thought that was true. ...

Exactly, and for a very long time no theist 'God' was around to take the praise for them.

It takes an Atheist to invent something as useless and destructive as moral nihilism.

No, that takes a Nihilist but apparently it takes a Theist to think that without their 'god' they'd behave abominably.

[uwot]

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?

You are loosing it, IC did not claim that Atheism's chief proponents were on this forum, you are twisting his post to say something he didn't post.

Mr Can's arguments are neither with the atheists contributing to this forum, nor anyone that might be considered one of the chief proponents of atheism; Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens are the usual suspects. The argument with them is well and truly lost and Mr Can has withdrawn from any meaningful dialogue with atheists.
Instead, Mr Can is fighting an imaginary beast he has called Atheism. Apparently he has persuaded you that atheism is a proper noun; it isn't. It has consistently been pointed out that there are a number of differences between atheism as professed by actual people, and the hallucinatory Atheism Mr Can is raving against. The main one being that Mr Can's Atheism is an insistence that no god exists and Atheists are required to prove it. Because there is no proof that god does not exist, Mr Can maintains that Atheists are irrational. Well yes, if there were such a thing as an Atheist, they would be. However, no sane atheist would claim to have proof that god does not exist, and not many would even go so far as to say they believe that god does not exist. As has been pointed out repeatedly, atheism is not a belief in the lack of a god, it is the lack of belief in a god.

[Greta]

And you do not practice atheism. There is nothing to practice

If you are an atheist for no reason, say you flipped a coin saying 'if it is heads then I will be an atheist', then that would be true. But if you have a reason to be an atheist, then you must have some sort of a metaphysic. For example it could be a rule like 'I will only believe in the sort of objects accessible to science', so I don't believe in God. So your atheism is putting something into practice i.e. your rule about what sort of things to believe.

And if you had that rule, then it would have something to say about morality. Morality is not an object accessible to science either, so if you do not believe in God then you should not believe in morality.

Atheism can also simply be disinterest in ancient mythology and the whole academic question of deities, which many would have probably written off as unsolvable in their teens and moved on.

[attofishpi]

..reasonable, do you honestly think that homo sapiens would not have moral fibre without Christianity?

You're missing the point completely.

The question is not "CAN an Atheist choose to be good," as anyone CAN choose anything they want -- good or bad. The question is, "Given Atheism, MUST anyone be good?"

Try to keep those distinct in your thinking, and we'll not spend so much time arguing about things about which we may actually agree anyway. So far as I can see, we agree that people CAN do what they want to do: we don't (perhaps) agree over whether or not an Atheist is morally obligated to do the right thing.

You would have to show me why he or she is...and you'd have to show him or her too. That would be rational.

Regardless of someone being Atheist or Theist, yes, people must be good or deal with the consequence of man's justice <-- there is your reason why - consequence, whether it be man's or God's justice is irrelevant to some degree.

[Londoner]

Atheism can also simply be disinterest in ancient mythology and the whole academic question of deities, which many would have probably written off as unsolvable in their teens and moved on.

OK, then to be atheist is only to say something about oneself, one's interests and not God. So if Jack was an atheist and Jill was a theist, then (since they were only describing themselves) they would not be disagreeing with each other. That's possible, but I don't think it is the usual understanding.

And it doesn't solve the morality problem. The atheist who talks of good and bad must still have some criteria for asserting those judgments. What would that be, since science or maths cannot create transcendental values? Where have they 'moved on' to?

[Interjectivist]

Atheism can also simply be disinterest in ancient mythology and the whole academic question of deities, which many would have probably written off as unsolvable in their teens and moved on.

OK, then to be atheist is only to say something about oneself, one's interests and not God. So if Jack was an atheist and Jill was a theist, then (since they were only describing themselves) they would not be disagreeing with each other. That's possible, but I don't think it is the usual understanding.

And it doesn't solve the morality problem. The atheist who talks of good and bad must still have some criteria for asserting those judgments. What would that be, since science or maths cannot create transcendental values? Where have they 'moved on' to?

Who worries about whether their values are transcendental .. whatever that may be? We absorb moral values through childrearing and the wider culture.