A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[henry quirk]

this is serving no purpose whatsoever

73 pages of nuthin'...a friggin' blight to the eye...a damned shame...(largely) good folks sinkin' in a memetic swamp.


I won't mention any names

[Harbal]

I won't mention any names

Very wise, henry, we don't want any more tantrums. Besides, the main culprits know who they are.

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie,

Speakin' only for myself, here...


has Atheism even got one thing to commend itself as a position?

Nope...it's just a placeholder I apply to a conclusion which comes at the end of an assessment.

The assessment is on-going, the conclusion is tentative.


Can Atheism find any basis for recommending itself in its own right?

Nope...I wouldn't recommend it to any one, for any reason.

Why?

Cuz folks will arrive at what they arrive at without me poking, prodding, cajoling, or appealing.

Some will go theist, some will go atheist...never known a body to go either way without a natural skew in place to begin with.

Now, why don't you buncha doofi leave each other be for a while...you're all givin' theists/atheists a bad rep.

See, this is what I like about you, Henry. In all this sea of blather, you're the only guy who has the nerve to ante up and say something to the point.

I'm never sure whether your cantankerous demeanor is real or feigned. However, I secretly hope that somewhere there's a Henry who's just as cranky and direct as you put on. That would be fun. He'd be a good guy for a beer and a bit of homespun philosophy.

You're my kind of Atheist....an honest one.

[attofishpi]

this is serving no purpose whatsoever

73 pages of nuthin'...a friggin' blight to the eye...a damned shame...(largely) good folks sinkin' in a memetic swamp.


I won't mention any names

No its 74 pages.

[Harbal]

Hi, my name's Harbal and I'm an atheist. But, with the help of a greater power, I mean to break free from the shackles of atheism. I've asked for God's forgiveness, for not believing in him, and, also, for the strength to endure the trial ahead. He hasn't got back to me yet, I think he's still mad at me. It's 24 hours since I last denied the existence of God and I'm taking it one step at a time. I just want to express my heartfelt thanks to everyone at my AA (Atheists Anonymous) group for welcoming me in and showing me that there is a way through this. Go...Go...Go..Goddd bless you all.

http://atheistanon.proboards.com/

[vegetariantaxidermy]

...I've had second thoughts, I don't want to jeopardise a valued friendship.

Aaaaand...there it is. A simply lovely collection of shiny objects.

But no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.

That was entirely expected.

Actually your 'question' is meaningless because you refuse to define the word you claim to desperately want to know the value of. If 'atheist' means 'without superstition' then yes, it has enormous value. It shows a decent level of critical thinking, intelligence, and healthy scepticism. But until you define the word I suggest you stop being a fascist troll.

[Immanuel Can]

until you define the word

Did this already, more than once.

Most recently, I went over the distinction between "thin" and "thick" Atheisms, and pointed out why each, for different reasons, was simply not credible. Backtrack if you want, or not, if you don't care; but it's been done.

If you can't be bothered, then I won't either.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

until you define the word

Did this already, more than once.

Most recently, I went over the distinction between "thin" and "thick" Atheisms, and pointed out why each, for different reasons, was simply not credible. Backtrack if you want, or not, if you don't care; but it's been done.

If you can't be bothered, then I won't either.

You are truly pathetic.

[uwot]

I notice that the Atheist set on this strand is absolutely DESPERATE to make the main question change to something personal. They don't want to discuss Atheism (or "atheism") at any cost.

Mr Can, there really isn't much to discuss about atheism. It has been pointed out to you by several atheists that all that atheism entails is a lack of belief in any god. The Atheism you describe is different, in that you define it as a positive belief that god does not exist. The atheists on this forum have agreed that any such belief should be supported by evidence, and if any Atheist can provide that evidence, then we atheists would be as eager to see it as you. We have also pointed out that atheists would just as quickly debunk such a ridiculous claim as you. In that regard, Mr Can, you and atheists agree.

They'd rather haggle about how to spell things, or who can come up with the more petty epithets, or slander their opposition, or even wish the poor to starve in the streets...

ANYTHING except have to address the key question: has Atheism even got one thing to commend itself as a position?

Frankly, no, Mr Can. The Atheism you believe in has nothing to commend it; which is why nobody here subscribes to it. On the other hand, atheism has a colossal advantage over the Theism you espouse, in that it isn't compelled to selectively read and interpret an ancient creation myth and tribal saga, and/or a slightly more recent personality cult, for moral direction. Rather than making some capricious sky pilot happy, atheist moralists put mortal beings first. If there is a god, which however unlikely they think it, most atheists accept there might be, then we are not afraid to be judged on our behaviour towards others, rather than our ability to kiss arse.
Anytime you decide to have a civilised debate about the relative merits of theism and atheism, I'll be happy to entertain you.

(I took out the gratuitous bit. I really should know better.)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I notice that the Atheist set on this strand is absolutely DESPERATE to make the main question change to something personal. They don't want to discuss Atheism (or "atheism") at any cost.

Mr Can, there really isn't much to discuss about atheism. It has been pointed out to you by several atheists that all that atheism entails is a lack of belief in any god. The Atheism you describe is different, in that you define it as a positive belief that god does not exist. The atheists on this forum have agreed that any such belief should be supported by evidence, and if any Atheist can provide that evidence, then we atheists would be as eager to see it as you. We have also pointed out that atheists would just as quickly debunk such a ridiculous claim as you. In that regard, Mr Can, you and atheists agree.

They'd rather haggle about how to spell things, or who can come up with the more petty epithets, or slander their opposition, or even wish the poor to starve in the streets...

ANYTHING except have to address the key question: has Atheism even got one thing to commend itself as a position?

Frankly, no, Mr Can. The Atheism you believe in has nothing to commend it; which is why nobody here subscribes to it. On the other hand, atheism has a colossal advantage over the Theism you espouse, in that it isn't compelled to selectively read and interpret an ancient creation myth and tribal saga, and/or a slightly more recent personality cult, for moral direction. Rather than making some capricious sky pilot happy, atheist moralists put mortal beings first. If there is a god, which however unlikely they think it, most atheists accept there might be, then we are not afraid to be judged on our behaviour towards others, rather than our ability to kiss arse. If, as you believe, your 'saviour' demands that we put his feelings before those of our fellow human beings, then he can go fuck himself with the same cheese grater that his father has already pleasured himself with.
Anytime you decide to have a civilised debate about the relative merits of theism and atheism, I'll be happy to entertain you.

You know full well that there's no 'evidence' possible. Some things don't require evidence and aren't worth even bothering with. Which is why this is such a stupid and pointless thread. People are perfectly free to say 'there is no god', just as others are free to say there is. Neither side is ever going to be able to provide any evidence and they both know it, but it's only ONE side trying to shove their particular belief down everyone else's throat, with the other side having no belief to prove, so therefore there is only ONE side that is obliged to FIND some evidence.
Most so-called 'atheists' (I refuse to accept such a stupid and out-dated label) don't even think about it until some turdy little troll like IC comes along and contaminates a philosophy forum with his lies and moronic assertions.
And what do people say when they want to know where you sit on the superstition scale? 'Do you believe in god?' And what do people say when they want to mention it? 'I don't believe in god'. That's obviously too simple for a simpleton like IC.

[Arising_uk]

...

But no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.

That was entirely expected.

What's that *chirp* *chirp* I hear to my response?

[Arising_uk]

...

Now, why don't you buncha doofi leave each other be for a while...you're all givin' theists/atheists a bad rep.

I disagree HQ.

You can't let such as IC play his nasty little games upon a philosophy forum with impunity.

thedoc I accept talks in good faith, IC is a piece of philosophical work.

[thedoc]

there would have to be a valued friendship there to begin with,

I thought there was, have you heard something that I haven't?

It seems that the moderators have deleted the posts I was looking for, you had proposed marriage to Lacewing and she threatened to punch another tooth out of your avatar's mouth. There didn't seem to be much of a valued friendship there.

[Dubious]

Nice dodge, Again what do I believe according to you?

That the Bible is the word of god and that Jesus is the Son of the OT god. So on and so forth…..

I was asking what you think that I am supposed to believe.

What you’re supposed to believe is a different question entirely the answer to which is not to be presumed by me. That’s what you’re own intelligence is for. Why try to bait someone else with a question that can’t be answered, since I’m not you?

You have been implying what my beliefs are, and I was just trying to find out what you thought I believed. So far you have it right, but the question is how do you interpret what is written? Which so far you have dodged that question. I'll give you a hint, I'm not a Creationist.

I don't know what you mean by "interpret what is written"! What writing are you referring to? The Bible?? I can hardly dodge a question when I'm not certain what it's asking. If the Bible is what your referring to, I would have thought that my views on that are clear. If, as it appears, it refers to what you've written then my interpretation would be though you believe implicitly in the Bible as the word God you're not ready to accept every statement in it as literal.

That's the best I can do where YOU are concerned.

My views on your views:

Whether accepted literally or selectively, the Bible remains a purely Jewish document and it's OT overlord only a "tribal god" in charge of it's "chosen people". If you believe that to be an actual god instead of a created one, so be it. No one cares. But when theists start crusading against atheists as evil without morals, judging ONLY in terms of their own theism instead of acknowledging non-theists as having a secular morality begun by Enlightenment philosophers, you'll only succeed in advancing atheism by destroying theism. Much of its art rituals and customs will survive but its center will be an empty throne.

[thedoc]

...

Now, why don't you buncha doofi leave each other be for a while...you're all givin' theists/atheists a bad rep.

I disagree HQ.

You can't let such as IC play his nasty little games upon a philosophy forum with impunity.

thedoc I accept talks in good faith, IC is a piece of philosophical work.

Thankyou, I try to state my beliefs as accurately as possible, but I admit that I'm still sharpening some of my points.

I would like to know exactly what you mean when you say that IC is "a piece of philosophical work", I've heard the phrase "a piece of work" used in a derogatory sense, but I wanted to be sure of how you were using it.