A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Londoner]

She clearly said that it was fundamentalist Christians who believed that and not all Christians as you said

That's right, she chose to pick out something that was not representative. That shows that the intention was to find something to sneer at, rather than make a valid point about religion generally.

There are two possibilities; either Christians, Jews and Muslims are as stupid and wicked as is suggested by the series of facile posts above, or they are being misrepresented. It is the second.

[thedoc]

Hmm. Nothing here about not hurting anyone. The guy certainly had his priorities in order, giving himself the top spots. Whoever named them clearly couldn't count.

I would think that not committing murder, and not committing adultery, would cover most physical hurt, and not stealing, lying, or coveting would cover others, unless you don't consider these actions as hurtful, as long as they are done to someone you don't like? There are other commentaries in the Bible that say that you should not hurt others.

[thedoc]

The most spiteful comments are from you. You can barely contain your hatred for the unsuperstitious. You aren't even honest enough to express it openly. I doubt if many are fooled by you, but oddly you seem to have garnered a little fan club on here.

The projection is strong with this one

I stand corrected. The most spiteful person on here is you.

Thankyou, that you consider me as more spiteful than yourself, is a real accomplishment.

[uwot]

She clearly said that it was fundamentalist Christians who believed that and not all Christians as you said

That's right, she chose to pick out something that was not representative. That shows that the intention was to find something to sneer at, rather than make a valid point about religion generally.

Londoner, me old china, you don't half talk some cobblers. The only valid point you can make about religion generally, is that some supernatural being is probably lurking somewhere.

There are two possibilities; either Christians, Jews and Muslims are as stupid and wicked as is suggested by the series of facile posts above, or they are being misrepresented. It is the second.

And this is complete pony. There is nothing you can say about any of the people above, even those who identify themselves as practising, that could misrepresent them all. Religions generally reserve their most apoplectic bile for heretics and apostates. To my knowledge rival Judaic factions have not resorted to murdering each other, but Catholics and Protestants, Sunni and Shia do. It is probably safe to assume that the sociopaths involved hate atheists, but not as much as they hate each other. It is nonsense to ascribe more than a belief in some sky pilot to all of them.

[Immanuel Can]

The projection is strong with this one

"These are not the Atheists you're looking for."

There's also the psychological tactic called "deflecting." When the holes in Atheism appear, the Atheists immediately deflect into, "Yeah? Well, you're bad too," instead of justifying their Atheism on its own terms.

But let's suppose we play along. Even if we granted them 100% that you and I were bad people, that would not go one stroke in the direction of justifying Atheism, if Atheism is simply unjustifiable. If Atheism is, say, intellectual, rational, logical, necessary and beneficial, they really ought to be able to show that it is; but in order to escape that undoable task, they "thin out" their beliefs to the point where it is little more than ignorant, non-evidentiary negation of Theism. But while this seems to save them from having to self-justify, Atheism of this sort deprives the world of all objective moral content -- they have nothing at all to say about morality: at least, nothing they can justify rationally from Atheism.

So to cover up the moral bankruptcy of Atheism itself, they accuse all the various religions of being "just as bad." They deflect attention from their own amorality and confusion to the moral character of their perceived "enemies." Ironically, what they fail to notice is that in order to do so at all they've had to "borrow," quite illegitimately, moral criteria from somewhere! For how can, say, Christianity be "bad," when on every Atheist account, there is nothing that can be bad?

This is what the Ethicist I quoted a few messages ago meant when he said they were "playing pretend, and doing it badly." They don't even try to follow their own "rules." They can't, because "thin" Atheism is so vacuous it fails to prove even modestly practicable.

[thedoc]

The projection is strong with this one

"These are not the droids you're looking for."

I've noticed, but it's still fun to occasionally poke them and watch them dance.

[thedoc]

So to cover up the moral bankruptcy of Atheism itself, they accuse all the various religions of being "just as bad." They deflect attention from their own amorality and confusion to the moral character of their perceived "enemies." Ironically, what they fail to notice is that in order to do so at all they've had to "borrow," quite illegitimately, moral criteria from somewhere! For how can, say, Christianity be "bad," when on every Atheist account, there is nothing that can be bad?

This is similar to the argument that Creationists use against evolution, they claim that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism. They fail to understand that evolution and all of science is based on evidence, which is a different situation to creationism that is only based on faith in what is written in the Bible. So claiming that Christians are "just as bad" as they are, is admitting that they are bad, just as claiming that evolution is a religion just like creationism, is admitting that creationism is a religion.

[thedoc]

The projection is strong with this one

"These are not the Atheists you're looking for."

I like the first version better, they are acting more like droids. They are only parroting what they have been told, they are not thinking for themselves.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The projection is strong with this one

"These are not the Atheists you're looking for."

I like the first version better, they are acting more like droids. They are only parroting what they have been told, they are not thinking for themselves.

Oh really? Who exactly am I 'parroting'?? And who is 'they'? The irony is strong here: a religious nut who believes he has divine 'visions' claiming that others are acting like 'droids'. Heck, you can't even define what exactly it is that you do believe in, so what are you on here arguing about it for??

[vegetariantaxidermy]

" When the holes in Atheism appear, the Atheists immediately deflect into, "Yeah? Well, you're bad too," instead of justifying their Atheism on its own terms.

They can't, because "thin" Atheism is so vacuous it fails to prove even modestly practicable.

This is so pathetic it almost induces nausea. How can there be 'holes' in nothing??? And what the hell is 'thin atheism'?? What on earth do 'atheists' have to justify to you? Do you seriously expect anyone to believe you actually mould your behaviour on the bible? You or any other kristian? If you could actually think you would know that there is no such thing as 'morality'. Idiots use the word instead of 'dogma'. There are such things as empathy, kindness, fairness, and rationality--and anyone can have those, including other animals. If anything, religion stunts and distorts those qualities.
Btw, I don't expect you to understand a word of this. Religion destroys a person's ability to think rationally, which is why arguments between those who are free of superstition and those who aren't are completely pointless and never get anywhere. Honestly, I couldn't give a flying rat's arse what you believe, except that kristians insist on shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats, including controlling secular laws that everyone is forced to live by. It's all about control and has nothing whatsoever to do with 'morality'.

[Immanuel Can]

So to cover up the moral bankruptcy of Atheism itself, they accuse all the various religions of being "just as bad." They deflect attention from their own amorality and confusion to the moral character of their perceived "enemies." Ironically, what they fail to notice is that in order to do so at all they've had to "borrow," quite illegitimately, moral criteria from somewhere! For how can, say, Christianity be "bad," when on every Atheist account, there is nothing that can be bad?

This is similar to the argument that Creationists use against evolution...

Hmmm...not seeing that.

I'm making the point that they are contradicting themselves, not just the Theists. For if, as Atheism implies, all facts are simply morally neutral, it is impossible to turn around and call anyone or anything, from rape to slavery to mass-murder to earthquake deaths to cancer "bad" in a moral sense. Likewise, if they insist that a Theist is, for some reason, a "bad" person or has behaved "badly" in some way, they are contracting themselves.

In contrast, non-evolutionists often use evidence and logic (some don't, of course, but what of that?). So whatever else one says about their arguments, at least they're not self-contradicting...they're contradicting the Materialists.

Self-contradiction is the best indicator one can ever get of irrationality.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So to cover up the moral bankruptcy of Atheism itself, they accuse all the various religions of being "just as bad." They deflect attention from their own amorality and confusion to the moral character of their perceived "enemies." Ironically, what they fail to notice is that in order to do so at all they've had to "borrow," quite illegitimately, moral criteria from somewhere! For how can, say, Christianity be "bad," when on every Atheist account, there is nothing that can be bad?

This is similar to the argument that Creationists use against evolution...

Hmmm...not seeing that.

I'm making the point that they are contradicting themselves, not just the Theists. For if, as Atheism implies, all facts are simply morally neutral, it is impossible to turn around and call anyone or anything, from rape to slavery to mass-murder to earthquake deaths to cancer "bad" in a moral sense. Likewise, if they insist that a Theist is, for some reason, a "bad" person or has behaved "badly" in some way, they are contracting themselves.

In contrast, non-evolutionists often use evidence and logic (some don't, of course, but what of that?). So whatever else one says about their arguments, at least they're not self-contradicting...they're contradicting the Materialists.

Self-contradiction is the best indicator one can ever get of irrationality.

You mean 'bad' in a 'moral' sense as opposed to 'bad'?

[uwot]

The projection is strong with this one

"These are not the Atheists you're looking for."

That's because the Atheists that Quixote and Panza are looking for don't exist.

There's also the psychological tactic called "deflecting." When the holes in Atheism appear, the Atheists immediately deflect into, "Yeah? Well, you're bad too," instead of justifying their Atheism on its own terms.

The irony here is that Mr Can has modelled a fictitious "Atheism" on his own belief system; he has projected his way of thinking onto others. He assumes that Atheism is a specific creed made up of positive ontological and moral principles, just like his christianity. Among the many things that have been pointed out to Mr Can, frequently and by different contributors, is that there is no such thing; it is just a straw man that Mr Can puts between himself and anyone calling themselves an atheist; thus saving him the bother of arguing with anyone but himself.

If Atheism is, say, intellectual, rational, logical, necessary and beneficial, they really ought to be able to show that it is; but in order to escape that undoable task, they "thin out" their beliefs to the point where it is little more than ignorant, non-evidentiary negation of Theism.

I took a very long time for Mr Can to acknowledge that there is a difference between affirming 'There is no god' and 'I do not believe there is a god', but it finally seems to have sunk in. Again, it has been pointed out that very few people affirm the former, and it has been granted that if anyone thinks they have proof that no gods exist, the onus is on them to share it. Most atheists are of the thinned out sort, myself included, and it is again ironic that Mr Can disparages this position as "non-evidentiary" as the complete lack of evidence for any god is precisely the reason I'm a thinned out atheist.

[Lacewing]

So again...no answers.

Differences in perspective can be equivalent to speaking in different languages... or occupying differing landscapes. For example, theists have words/beliefs/ideas that MEAN NOTHING to a non-theist.

Yet, many theists condemn non-theists based on a perspective (of words/beliefs/ideas) that has NO MEANING to that non-theist... or even perhaps to OTHER theists.

If you cannot hear/process when other people tell you that your language and concepts don't apply to them, how intelligent is it for you to continue thinking that your perspective is all there is? When you want an answer only in your own language, why not state that limitation truthfully, rather than telling people that they're not answering at all?

It is your own limitation Mr. Can.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The projection is strong with this one

"These are not the Atheists you're looking for."

That's because the Atheists that Quixote and Panza are looking for don't exist.

There's also the psychological tactic called "deflecting." When the holes in Atheism appear, the Atheists immediately deflect into, "Yeah? Well, you're bad too," instead of justifying their Atheism on its own terms.

The irony here is that Mr Can has modelled a fictitious "Atheism" on his own belief system; he has projected his way of thinking onto others. He assumes that Atheism is a specific creed made up of positive ontological and moral principles, just like his christianity. Among the many things that have been pointed out to Mr Can, frequently and by different contributors, is that there is no such thing; it is just a straw man that Mr Can puts between himself and anyone calling themselves an atheist; thus saving him the bother of arguing with anyone but himself.

If Atheism is, say, intellectual, rational, logical, necessary and beneficial, they really ought to be able to show that it is; but in order to escape that undoable task, they "thin out" their beliefs to the point where it is little more than ignorant, non-evidentiary negation of Theism.

I took a very long time for Mr Can to acknowledge that there is a difference between affirming 'There is no god' and 'I do not believe there is a god', but it finally seems to have sunk in. Again, it has been pointed out that very few people affirm the former, and it has been granted that if anyone thinks they have proof that no gods exist, the onus is on them to share it. Most atheists are of the thinned out sort, myself included, and it is again ironic that Mr Can disparages this position as "non-evidentiary" as the complete lack of evidence for any god is precisely the reason I'm a thinned out atheist.

I was with you until the last paragraph. Religios are always saying they KNOW their god exists. Why on earth shouldn't atheists say they know he doesn't? I really couldn't care less what they think about anything, or whether it hurts their tender feelings to hear it. Actually, a complete lack of evidence on their part is as much proof as it's possible to get. Of course, there is no possible physical proof to disprove the existence of ANYTHING. And if proof was found then it would make their god part of the natural world, so their 'evidence' would render their god nonexistent anyway. Being 'supernatural' , by definition, means no evidence can ever be found I don't fluff around saying 'I do not believe there is a Santa Claus'. Or 'I have no belief that naked cherubs are orbiting Neptune'. Or 'I don't believe there is an invisible elephant in my living room'. There is no way I am ever going to be able to prove those things don't exist. I don't see any difference whatsoever. They are just things that you shouldn't even have to bother saying. I certainly don't believe I should have a special label just for not believing in their silly imaginary master.