A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[uwot]

I have repeatedly declared that there are no Atheists [ not atheists] I am telling everyone
what I think [ are not we all ] though no one is obliged to accept it if they do not want to

Well I think you are wrong and I don't accept what you are saying.

Doc, if you just want to discuss something you truly believe in, and have other people reinforce that belief, then you should form a community of people who believe as you do; it'll be like a church and you could bitch about non believers all you like. It is clearly a pattern of behaviour you are comfortable with, but like all churches, it will necessarily be divisive, because only you and your flock will share your belief in Atheism.
As with god, it cannot be proven that Atheists do not exist, but I do not think anyone on this thread has said anything that fits your profile; it is fundamentalist lunacy to demand that atheists be Atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

That’s the reason I keep on saying you’re not the man for the job

Maybe, and maybe not: either way, it matters not at all. What's important is the case in hand. It stands or falls on its own merits, not on my qualities, nor on the various red herrings of what you may raise about other ideologies. None of that is relevant.

This much is crystal clear: that you still haven't offered one thing to defend Atheism against the charge of being irrational and amoral. You haven't, I suggest, because you simply can't. I submit that Atheism isn't defendable.

If that's right, then the OP was right. And now we both know it was.

[Immanuel Can]

I have repeatedly declared that there are no Atheists [ not atheists] I am telling everyone what I think [ are not we all ] though no one is obliged to accept it if they do not want to

Well, most people seem to think differently. But I kind of agree with you, but for a different reason perhaps. I would argue that Atheism is so absurdly irrational that no rational person could sincerely believe it. And if so, people who claim that tag are either misunderstanding what it means, or are simply believing irrationally.

So in that sense, I would say, there are no "real Atheists." But I doubt that's quite what you mean.

[Arising_uk]

...
Well, most people seem to think differently. But I kind of agree with you, but for a different reason perhaps. I would argue that Atheism is so absurdly irrational that no rational person could sincerely believe it. ...

Well if he means his strawman 'Atheism' then we atheists agree with him.

And if so, people who claim that tag are either misunderstanding what it means, or are simply believing irrationally.

No we understand what it means, it means we don't believe him when he says his 'God' exists and we base it upon the rationale that so far there has been no evidence produced to support such an existence belief.

So in that sense, I would say, there are no "real Atheists." But I doubt that's quite what you mean.

Quite right, there are no real 'Atheists' in the sense he wishes, although there appear to be a lot of angry ex-theists who appear to fit his bill.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I have repeatedly declared that there are no Atheists [ not atheists] I am telling everyone what I think [ are not we all ] though no one is obliged to accept it if they do not want to

Well, most people seem to think differently. But I kind of agree with you, but for a different reason perhaps. I would argue that Atheism is so absurdly irrational that no rational person could sincerely believe it. .

Atheists are too rational to believe anything; to find the idea of belief as acceptable or useful.
This is why you continue to be confused on this matter; you've not figured out the most simple and fundamental idea that the word "atheism" is designed to describe.
ATHEISM is about the rejection of a belief.
How many times do people have to tell you before in sinks in?

[surreptitious57]

How many times do people have to tell you before in sinks in

This assumes it will sink in but I am somewhat sceptical of this

[Lacewing]

ATHEISM is about the rejection of a belief.
How many times do people have to tell you before in sinks in?

We can say it until we're blue in the face (and we will because we care that much ), but I've come to the conclusion that theists who aren't grasping this, DON'T WANT TO, and will do whatever it takes to NOT grasp it, EVER, especially not in front of non-theists. If a concept does not further or support their agenda and identity as it stands, they will lack (or refuse to use) the mental wiring that would make broader connections. They just can't "go there". It invalidates too much for them. And they don't have the answers for that.

So they keep whipping up more and more absurdities, hoping to hide (I think) in all the dust they stir up. It's transparently desperate and foolish, but they don't care as long as they never have to actually utter a broader truth from their lips. We can't make them... and they find reassurance in that.

I'm only speaking of theists who are narrow-minded and rigid in this way. There are many theists who have much broader thinking. The former are not open-minded philosophers, they're just rabid with belief.

[Immanuel Can]

ATHEISM is about the rejection of a belief.
How many times do people have to tell you before in sinks in?

It's a rejection of a very specific belief...not of all belief, or just "a" belief. And this rejection has extremely profound and widespread implications.

Essentially it amounts to the ultimate rejection of objective values, ethics, morality, social structure, justice, meaning and purpose in life. Sure, some people continue to believe in these things: even some Atheists do. But Atheism's foundational commitment tells them these things are all ultimately illusory, the kinds of things that only the deluded can practice.

It all begins with a simple, nihilistic, irrational refusal to consider the world's most important question equitably. But this petty obstinacy immediately issues in all sorts of major social and personal pathologies, since it sweeps the human field clear of all that really matters. Once nothing is actually "true" or "good," the worst of human nature is completely free to rage. Who shall rise up to call it "wrong"?

Thus it's utterly disingenuous -- or just absurdly naive -- to present Atheism as if it has no consequences. If Atheism is true, then nothing matters. In fact, then not even this discussion matters: for there is no reason to suppose we owe more to the truth than to error -- particularly if the error happens to please us at the moment.

[Dubious]

That’s the reason I keep on saying you’re not the man for the job

Maybe, and maybe not: either way, it matters not at all. What's important is the case in hand. It stands or falls on its own merits, not on my qualities, nor on the various red herrings of what you may raise about other ideologies. None of that is relevant.

This much is crystal clear: that you still haven't offered one thing to defend Atheism against the charge of being irrational and amoral. You haven't, I suggest, because you simply can't. I submit that Atheism isn't defendable.

If that's right, then the OP was right. And now we both know it was.

What's crystal clear to me and everyone else is that there is not a single argument possible in defense of atheism (which doesn't require defense to begin with) that YOU would even conditionally accept. That being obvious, everything you say about atheism resolves to being bogus from first to last. In simple terms, you cannot be taken seriously. A more reasonable and perceptive theist would seek to avoid the intentional and malicious errors your posts are replete with. What you do confirm is that it's not possible to penetrate the bone-meal of a Fundamentalist. The walls are too thick.

So I disagree. As in all disciplines qualifications matter a great deal; the real Red Herring in this case are the qualifications YOU ASSUME to possess. An overbearing sophist like you who never allows a single counter argument forfeits any credence his own arguments may have. As a Fundamentalist you'll never understand this simple fact forever reiterating the same nasty propaganda against atheists and atheism.

Again, I submit you have failed completely in your defense of theism. Every post of yours proves you are not the man for the job.

[Immanuel Can]

What's crystal clear to me and everyone else is that there is not a single argument possible in defense of atheism (which doesn't require defense to begin with) that YOU would even conditionally accept.

Hey, give me one.

I haven't even heard one moral value...not one...that Atheism will rationally ground.

Give me just one, and you'll have won the argument.

Or give me none, and lose it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

ATHEISM is about the rejection of a belief.
How many times do people have to tell you before in sinks in?

It's a rejection of a very specific belief...not of all belief, or just "a" belief. And this rejection has extremely profound and widespread implications.

Essentially it amounts to the ultimate rejection of objective values, ethics, morality, social structure, justice, meaning and purpose in life. Sure, some people continue to believe in these things: even some Atheists do. But Atheism's foundational commitment tells them these things are all ultimately illusory, the kinds of things that only the deluded can practice.

It all begins with a simple, nihilistic, irrational refusal to consider the world's most important question equitably. But this petty obstinacy immediately issues in all sorts of major social and personal pathologies, since it sweeps the human field clear of all that really matters. Once nothing is actually "true" or "good," the worst of human nature is completely free to rage. Who shall rise up to call it "wrong"?

Thus it's utterly disingenuous -- or just absurdly naive -- to present Atheism as if it has no consequences. If Atheism is true, then nothing matters. In fact, then not even this discussion matters: for there is no reason to suppose we owe more to the truth than to error -- particularly if the error happens to please us at the moment.

For me it's the rejection of all belief.
But you are completely confused.
You pretend that no intelligent person could be a atheist, and yet you are the self-contradictory idea that there is such a thing as "objective moral values" that is not only absurd it is an abuse of language.
All the things you mention are aspirational, not objective. I have no more or less moral views and values than you do. The only difference is your utter arrogance in believing that they are god given. For me equality and freedom are things not give by god, for fucks sake they are not even in the Bible. These things are my aspirations and I realise unlike you that they need to be fought for, not just assumed.

If god is true then nothing matter. Only atheism makes all possible. Belief in god makes you a tyrant.

[uwot]

I have repeatedly declared that there are no Atheists [ not atheists] I am telling everyone what I think [ are not we all ] though no one is obliged to accept it if they do not want to

Well, most people seem to think differently.

No they don't, Mr Can, and here's the irony:

There's an old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood, 1546)

I don't know how you keep missing it. Maybe this will help:

I have repeatedly declared that there are no Atheists [ not atheists]

I would argue that Atheism is so absurdly irrational that no rational person could sincerely believe it.

Mr Can, you have invented an absurdly irrational ideology that you call Atheism. Everyone agrees that it is absurdly irrational, there is no need for you to add further argument.

And if so, people who claim that tag are either misunderstanding what it means, or are simply believing irrationally.

Mr Can, by whatever vestige you are hanging onto reality, try and get a grip. Nobody is claiming that tag. It is one that you have made up.

It's vacuous. It says nothing. It just denies the existence of any Deity...

Well, that much pretty much sums up atheism.

...and by so doing, denies with it any real-world or objective grounds for morality, social development or the meaning of life.

This is where you lose the plot: atheism denies none of those things. It is only because you equate them with your god that you accuse Atheism of denying them. In a way you are emulating Jesus Christ. You evidently see it as your mission to save the world from Atheism, which didn't exist until you introduced it; just as Jesus thought he needed to save us from eternal fire and torture, which only appears in the bible when he brings it up.

[Immanuel Can]

Only atheism makes all possible.

Atheism makes you the unfortunate product of chance -- derived from the most perverse and unlikely kind of accident, heading to absolute nowhere, and morally responsible to nothing in the meanwhile.

Animals have it better. They don't have to know any of that.

[uwot]

...it's utterly disingenuous -- or just absurdly naive -- to present Atheism as if it has no consequences. If Atheism is true, then nothing matters.

It is only your Atheism that is subject to truth; atheism, on the other hand, is a statement about belief. As such it has no consequences beyond the conscience of an atheist.

[Dubious]

What's crystal clear to me and everyone else is that there is not a single argument possible in defense of atheism (which doesn't require defense to begin with) that YOU would even conditionally accept.

Hey, give me one.

I haven't even heard one moral value...not one...that Atheism will rationally ground.

Give me just one, and you'll have won the argument.

Or give me none, and lose it.

You received plenty already. None of them met YOUR criteria...but as mentioned a Fundamentalist will accept no other criteria other than his own. You only drink the wine grown in your own vineyards and no other. Trying to come up with something which you'd accept and in the process negate much of what you've so assiduously affirmed as truth...how likely is that? You know that's true, I know it and so does everyone else. Why present yourself to be a bigger hypocrite then you already are and everyone knows you to be?

As for losing it, I would only have lost had I even half accepted any of your arguments. Theists like you provide the best reasons to either become atheist or or remain atheist. Your brand of theism is totally toxic to any normal thinking brain. Hitchen's was right. Religion does poison everything! You don't have to be dead to be a zombie!