A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as an "atheistic system". Where are the rules and laws that would bind it into a system?

It would have but one rule: under no circumstances can you believe in a God (or in "gods," if you prefer).

"System" does not combine with "Atheistic" which annuls the entire given argument as a contradiction and your question along with it. Atheism denotes a non-belief in god and only that.

As above.

Moral values are NOT excluded simply because there is no notice of god in the universe.

No...as I said, an Atheist can choose to invent some, or can adopt some from someone else's system if he wants to. But unless he likes lying to himself, he knows full well that any morals he creates in this way are arbitrary and contingent. There is no reason for him to accept them if they cease to please him.

Again (and I will say this often), an Atheist CAN choose to be good; but he has no reason to think he MUST choose to be good. The truth is that Joe Stalin is as "good" an Atheist as anybody: because the Atheist-moralizer always knows there is no reality to any moral standard an Atheist selects by which to condemn a Stalin.

Without god, morality proceeds creatively on a secular mandate more prone to improvise than fundamentalize.

Strange sentence. I'm not sure what it is trying to convey. If you mean that, absent God, people will continue to fool themselves into thinking there is some necessity to their moral views, you're probably right: but if you mean any actual morality is legitimate without God, then I'd say you should show us why.

Why shouldn't an Atheist be Stalin? There's no objectivity to morality, so why can't he be whatever he wishes...good or bad alike?

...but not wishing to avoid your question: Does any Atheist have anything by way of a moral value that is grounded by Atheism

For the non-theist the moral law, its value and prime directive is to create a "common law" morality which is both creative and current for the times...an ongoing process refined by perception, education and history for at least the last 200 years. The morality of the non-theist doesn't oblige anyone to bend the knee to the statutes of ancient beliefs or what was considered moral then.

Atheism, to repeat, is not a "system" the way Judaism and it's derivatives are systems where politics, religion, morality converge into one entity without separation. It is instead an "in process" morality which has no need for any fixed, "grounded" moral value for that would again inflect some ultimate religious or moral truth within a process which has no need for it. Philosophy doesn't have one either which lasted and as far as I know, never did.

No point continuing as I expect your response to be, "still waiting"!

You're not wrong, of course. You rightly sense that you have not answered the question. To say that morality "progresses" may move the markers, but it doesn't tell us why any marker is ever right at all. Atheism has no "markers," such as that murder, or lying, or slavery, or rape are wrong. It simply has no opinion about these things, and insists by implication that NOBODY can know whether these things are really right or wrong. They are "right" if a "progressive" society says they are, and "wrong" only when you get caught.

Moreover, since we had our most "secular" century so far last century, and killed more people by more technologically "progressive" methods than at any time in history, I think everyone has a right to regard any belief in moral "progress" in need of evidence.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

My guess is that Mr. Can will not be able to acknowledge the validity of any perspective that doesn’t fit within the limits of his belief system. EVEN IF he were privately/secretly to catch a glimpse of logic and truth broader than himself. There is too much at stake. Too much has been invested in maintaining and promoting the vision and identity he is glorified and justified with. Many people would rather die than see or admit beyond that.

Which is why it’s very likely pointless for others to repeat or clarify points. And, in fact, doing so could be interpreted as a sign that such a willful, proud theist platform is even capable of being debated truthfully.

There is very limited truth (if any) in such a closed, static system. It just continually feeds on itself, never expanding beyond its limits – which is unnatural and contrived. Only ego and fear do such things. A truly inquisitive philosopher continually seeks broader truth rather than claiming to possess it!

And only a rabid theist mindset claims to UNIQUELY possess ULTIMATE truth that applies to all.

Love this. Of course it won't penetrate his thick theist body armour. He's too busy being condescending and believing he makes sense. Facts and simple logic obviously mean nothing to him. I'm certainly not going to waste any more time arguing with a godbotherer about who is naughtiest: godbotherers or non-godbotherers.

[Lacewing]

I'm certainly not going to waste any more time arguing with a godbotherer about who is naughtiest: godbotherers or non-godbotherers.

Yes, it seems pretty absurd, doesn't it! Just another transparently fabricated belief for a self-serving theist to obsess on in their ridiculous efforts to prove themselves more righteously correct.

[thedoc]

I'm certainly not going to waste any more time arguing with a godbotherer about who is naughtiest: godbotherers or non-godbotherers.

Yes, it seems pretty absurd, doesn't it! Just another transparently fabricated belief for a self-serving theist to obsess on in their ridiculous efforts to prove themselves more righteously correct.

It is truly amazing how much a non-theist will misconstrue what a Theist says in order to preserve their own delusion. They obsess on topics that Theists constantly contradict, and then accuse Theists of doing exactly what they are doing. To my understanding Theists are not trying to prove who is naughtiest or to prove that we are more righteously correct, Theists are only saying that a Theist has more basis for morality than an Atheist. Is that simple enough for you to understand, or should I type even slower?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm certainly not going to waste any more time arguing with a godbotherer about who is naughtiest: godbotherers or non-godbotherers.

Yes, it seems pretty absurd, doesn't it! Just another transparently fabricated belief for a self-serving theist to obsess on in their ridiculous efforts to prove themselves more righteously correct.

It is truly amazing how much a non-theist will misconstrue what a Theist says in order to preserve their own delusion. They obsess on topics that Theists constantly contradict, and then accuse Theists of doing exactly what they are doing. To my understanding Theists are not trying to prove who is naughtiest or to prove that we are more righteously correct, Theists are only saying that a Theist has more basis for morality than an Atheist. Is that simple enough for you to understand, or should I type even slower?

Well it's reassuring to know that if it were not for the bible, you and Im Can't would both be serial killers.

[Dubious]

There is no such thing as an "atheistic system". Where are the rules and laws that would bind it into a system?

It would have but one rule: under no circumstances can you believe in a God (or in "gods," if you prefer).

This must be among the most insane of your insane conclusions. You show no sense of "limit" in defense of your god! As an über-fanatic this is YOUR own inserted rule. Where is it specified that I'm preempted to believe in God if something transpires which invokes that belief. How many atheists throughout history have reversed their position? How many believers have become atheists? Have you given this statement ANY consideration before you made it?

As stated in a previous post. You are not the man to defend theism at any level. If you have any effect at all it's to reinforce non-theistic beliefs in others. There's too much poison in your views which, to accept, would be like surrendering to a disease.

What's amazing is that to a Fundamentalist of whatever ilk, nothing ever seems absurd in defense of their views except reason and common sense.

There's nothing left to discuss without these somewhat essential ingredients to any conversation. As exemplified by you God emerges as a toxin capable of contorting the human brain into a pretzel.

If there were a God, I'm certain that would not be ITS intention. God - even a conceptual one - is way too BIG for that. It's the other way around; it's the likes of you who have forced god into an evil little clown on the human stage which reminds me of a Stephen King novel. It's not the evil atheist who has sinned against god but hypocritical theists who has deformed Him through caricature. Nevertheless, may you enjoy the farce you created for yourself.

[Harbal]

Well it's reassuring to know that if it were not for the bible, you and Im Can't would both be serial killers.

In principle, that would seem to be the logical conclusion of their argument. In Mr. Can's case, I suspect there is something particularly evil lurking beneath that obnoxious facade of his.

[thedoc]

Well it's reassuring to know that if it were not for the bible, you and I'm Can't would both be serial killers.

In principle, that would seem to be the logical conclusion of their argument. In Mr. Can's case, I suspect there is something particularly evil lurking beneath that obnoxious facade of his.

VT have you killed more than 10 people so far?

And Harbal, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[thedoc]

This must be among the most insane of your insane conclusions.

Dubious, can you provide documentation of your insanity? otherwise you are not qualified to accuse others of being insane.

[thedoc]

I want to thank everyone for these recent exchanges, they have been most amusing.

[Harbal]

And Harbal, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Beating her at what?

I want to thank everyone for these recent exchanges,

Go ahead then, nobody's stopping you.

[Dubious]

This must be among the most insane of your insane conclusions.

Dubious, can you provide documentation of your insanity? otherwise you are not qualified to accuse others of being insane.

...you mean I'd first have to first prove I'm insane to qualify in accusing you two clowns of being insane? I can see why that would seem logical to Cheech & Chong theists such as yourselves. Where do I send the documentation?

[Lacewing]

If there were a God, I'm certain that would not be ITS intention. God - even a conceptual one - is way too BIG for that. It's the other way around; it's the likes of you who have forced god into an evil little clown on the human stage which reminds me of a Stephen King novel. It's not the evil atheist who has sinned against god but hypocritical theists who has deformed Him through caricature.

My thoughts too!

To claim to KNOW an all-supreme god reigning over everyone... and to claim that it has "words" and thoughts and demands and agendas... holy crap, that gets more ridiculous every time I hear it. When considering the vastness of creation (even as limited as we know it), and the vast range of "languages" and "communication" across all spectrums, and the vast levels and frequencies that we have not even discovered yet -- how could we rationally contrive and reduce a concept of God/oneness into our own little limited and ego-bound likeness? That's so self-absorbed.

That which flows through all... informing all... empowering all... naturally and without agenda... must surely be so FREE of our Earthbound dramas and fantasies. A state that we would probably identify as love. And it seems so bizarre that many sects of theism don't consider such a perspective because they're so busy making up what the "rules" are.

[Immanuel Can]

Have you given this statement ANY consideration before you made it?

Of course. It's a definitional truism. One who believes in the possibility of a God, and admits he does not know is, analytically, an "agnostic." He's not an "Atheist." One is only an Atheist if one claims that there IS no God.

Richard Dawkins, the subject of this thread, holds this very view. He claims he is "Not an Atheist," but rather a "Firm Agnostic." And he's wise to do so, in a sense, because he knows very well that Atheism is not a rational position one can hold or defend on logical or evidentiary grounds. But hey, don't believe me: here's the man doing it himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4

Now, no one said anything about it being impossible to convert away from that position. I would argue that it's not only possible but quite necessary. But once one does, one is not an "Atheist" anymore, by definition. One has slid over into "agnosticism" or to "Theism" of some kind.

Don't get so excited. No insult was implied. I was just using the correct language for the correct definitions.

[thedoc]

And Harbal, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Beating her at what?

I want to thank everyone for these recent exchanges,

Go ahead then, nobody's stopping you.

I notice that you don't deny having a wife, and the recent proposal to Lacewing would have been bigamy.

That is most amusing.