A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[uwot]

Give me an example then of what would denote evidence for the non-existence of a god (or anything else for that matter).

Well, as I have tried to explain to Mr Can, as an atheist, I am not committed to believing that god does not exist. I just don't believe it does. I've said this many times before, it's the difference between l don't believe that god exists and I believe that god doesn't exist.

Do you really care what a retard like IC thinks?

Not particularly. I suspect Mr Can is harmless enough, but as I was just saying to Greta, some people use the same basic premise as a reason to commit murder.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Not particularly. I suspect Mr Can is harmless enough, but as I was just saying to Greta, some people use the same basic premise as a reason to commit murder.

Good point. But I don't find the ICs of the world particularly harmless. I do say there's no such thing as 'supernatural' and there's nothing that prik can do about it. Belief in magical invisible beings is just beyond ridiculous to me and always has been.

[thedoc]

Alfie, thanks for the timely warning on my behalf.

It sort of refers back to something earlier on when thedoc was saying inappropriate stuff about women. Don't worry though, I soon put him straight.

I don't seem to remember saying anything about women that was inappropriate, at least on this forum, could you refresh my memory?

[Harbal]

I don't seem to remember saying anything about women that was inappropriate, at least on this forum, could you refresh my memory?

Let's just let sleeping dogs lie, doc. If nobody's complaining there's no point pushing them into it.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Nice summary of the situation.

I agree. It's quite right.

But something has been missed here. It's that if what is said above is true, then what you mean by "atheism" is entirely trivial.

Why?

Because it amounts to no more than this: the statement, "I lack belief in God."

Now, that may be very interesting for the person who utters it, but what is supposed to be the import for the person hearing? Are the recipients of that information supposed to say, "Yes, I believe you when you say you know nothing about God: poor you. We do." Or do you mean that the recipients should understand the atheist (small "a" here) to be saying, "I lack belief in God, and so should all of you." If it's that latter, then the recipients should immediately ask, "Why?" And when they do, then all the need for evidence that you claim the atheist does not have comes right back into relevance.

Absent any evidence, then, the claim "I lack belief in God" is merely personal and private, and has absolutely no implications for anyone but the speaker himself. And if that's the case, then Atheism is not a belief that can be recommended to anyone. It's just a confession of personal failure to know on the part of the speaker, and nothing more ambitious than that. It surely cannot extend to anyone else, because it's non-evidentiary: and how can we tell another person what he or she can or cannot know, unless we have evidence to show that the thing in which he or she is believing is impossible?

Non-evidentiary Atheism (or private "atheism") is the ultimate toothless tiger. You're right: it's not an ideology. All one can regard it as is a personal confession of failure to know God. As regrettable as that may be for the private individual, it's irrelevant to others.

But here's the point: uwot may be that kind of small-a "atheist," but Dawkins is not. He's a proselytizing Atheist -- an ideologue who writes books and holds lectures to tell people that not only is God a "delusion," but that no rational person ought to believe otherwise. He's on his own holy mission to free the world from the knowledge of God (or to sell as many polemical books as he can, one or the other), and is in no way content to leave the question where uwot thinks most "atheists" would.

As for "apatheists," they don't write blog posts about God, if they're telling the truth about what they are: they're too apathetic. So we have no reason to expect to see any of them here.

In truth, both atheism and theism have numerous members who do not lead examined lives - via dogma or apathy, respectively.

Agreed. But we are not they, I may hope.

[thedoc]

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.

Nice summary of the situation.

I agree. It's quite right.

But something has been missed here. It's that if what is said above is true, then what you mean by "atheism" is entirely trivial.

Why?

Because it amounts to no more than this: the statement, "I lack belief in God."

Now, that may be very interesting for the person who utters it, but what is supposed to be the import for the person hearing? Are the recipients of that information supposed to say, "Yes, I believe you when you say you know nothing about God: poor you. We do." Or do you mean that the recipients should understand the atheist (small "a" here) to be saying, "I lack belief in God, and so should all of you." If it's that latter, then the recipients should immediately ask, "Why?" And when they do, then all the need for evidence that you claim the atheist does not have comes right back into relevance.

Absent any evidence, then, the claim "I lack belief in God" is merely personal and private, and has absolutely no implications for anyone but the speaker himself. And if that's the case, then Atheism is not a belief that can be recommended to anyone. It's just a confession of personal failure to know on the part of the speaker, and nothing more ambitious than that. It surely cannot extend to anyone else, because it's non-evidentiary: and how can we tell another person what he or she can or cannot know, unless we have evidence to show that the thing in which he or she is believing is impossible?

Non-evidentiary Atheism (or private "atheism") is the ultimate toothless tiger. You're right: it's not an ideology. All one can regard it as is a personal confession of failure to know God. As regrettable as that may be for the private individual, it's irrelevant to others.

But here's the point: uwot may be that kind of small-a "atheist," but Dawkins is not. He's a proselytizing Atheist -- an ideologue who writes books and holds lectures to tell people that not only is God a "delusion," but that no rational person ought to believe otherwise. He's on his own holy mission to free the world from the knowledge of God (or to sell as many polemical books as he can, one or the other), and is in no way content to leave the question where uwot thinks most "atheists" would.

As for "apatheists," they don't write blog posts about God, if they're telling the truth about what they are: they're too apathetic. So we have no reason to expect to see any of them here.

In truth, both atheism and theism have numerous members who do not lead examined lives - via dogma or apathy, respectively.

Agreed. But we are not they, I may hope.

Good points, if you really don't care, then why are you here? If you do care, then put up or shut up.

I would speculate that Dawkins is motivated more by profit than as a prophet.

[thedoc]

In truth, both atheism and theism have numerous members who do not lead examined lives - via dogma or apathy, respectively.

Exactly what is meant by "an examined life" or "an unexamined life", it is a term that is used on the assumption that everyone knows what it means, but I have found that definitions do not always match from one person to the next.

[Immanuel Can]

Good points, if you really don't care, then why are you here? If you do care, then put up or shut up.

I would speculate that Dawkins is motivated more by profit than as a prophet.

And anger.

I read a lot of anger in Mr. Dawkins demeanour. For some reason, it's not good enough if he's allowed to be an Atheist and other people are Theists. He thinks he's doing us all a favour by winning us over to Atheism. And he's angry that it's not happening.

But I can't see what the good of it is. Essentially, he's evangelizing for Nihilism. Why does he care so much?

I think maybe he's one of those 1960's-style Atheists, who thought that what the sociological world calls "The Secularization Hypothesis" was going to turn out to be true: i.e. that along with modernization the world would inevitably secularize as well. All we had to do is to wait for modernity to take over, and all vestiges of religion would disappear as well -- or so it was believed.

For a decade or two, that hypothesis was current. Nowadays, it seems naive. But when it didn't work out that way, he became very angry, and began campaigning to make it happen anyway.

That's as near as I can figure. Because otherwise, I'm at a loss to explain his visceral anger at something he claims is just a comfortable "delusion" anyway.

[Harbal]

Why does he care so much?

Presumably, for the same reason you seem to care so much about him. Seems to me you were made for each other.

[Immanuel Can]

Why does he care so much?

Presumably, for the same reason you seem to care so much about him. Seems to me you were made for each other.

I know why I care: I care because, as a Christian I know that every person is an eternal being of incalculable value to God, one whose greatest good consists in coming to know Him. So I speak because it's what I know of the truth, because I am commissioned by God to do so, and because it's of incalculable benefit to people to hear it. You may not agree: but the motives are mine, not yours, of course, so you'll have to take my word for it.

However, I doubt that's your thought about Mr. Dawkins' motives. Why does this Atheist care on what terms "souls" (since he does not believe in any) are precipitated into the inevitable eternal abyss of heat death that Dawkins believes awaits us all anyway? If he was doing it out of some sort of "compassion," what led him to believe that "compassion" was a good quality, since as an Atheist he actually doesn't have any grounds for believing in "good" at all? He has no incentive to say anything but que sera sera: as he puts it, we're all just "dancing to our DNA," and dancing toward the pit.

So for him, compassion really doesn't make any more sense than indifference. From my perspective, yes it does. But you'll have to explain to me how an Atheist can be morally inclined or compelled by his Atheism to care about anyone. Have not all the objectors here insisted Atheism supports no moral values?

[thedoc]

Why does he care so much?

Presumably, for the same reason you seem to care so much about him. Seems to me you were made for each other.

No, there is a difference, IC is resisting someone else telling him how to think, and he is just asking others to explain why they believe as they do, and the reasons stated above. There is a subtle difference, sometimes not so subtle.

[uwot]

...[atheism] amounts to no more than this: the statement, "I lack belief in God."

Indeed, Mr Can; that's exactly what some of us have been trying to tell you.

Are the recipients of that information supposed to say, "Yes, I believe you when you say you know nothing about God: poor you. We do."

Well, you have eliminated from the recipients anyone who doesn't claim to know "God" as you do. The range of individual responses is much wider than you give individuals credit for.

Or do you mean that the recipients should understand the atheist (small "a" here) to be saying, "I lack belief in God, and so should all of you."

No. What you believe is entirely your own business, so long as you keep it to yourself.

If it's that latter, then the recipients should immediately ask, "Why?" And when they do, then all the need for evidence that you claim the atheist does not have comes right back into relevance.

Absent any evidence, then, the claim "I lack belief in God" is merely personal and private, and has absolutely no implications for anyone but the speaker himself. And if that's the case, then Atheism is not a belief that can be recommended to anyone. It's just a confession of personal failure to know on the part of the speaker, and nothing more ambitious than that.

Granted it's not very ambitious, but it is not a failure to know; you are being presumptuous, it is a failure to believe, remember?

Non-evidentiary Atheism (or private "atheism") is the ultimate toothless tiger.

What private atheism can do is show all evidence for Theism is toothless. Logical arguments are unsound, and empirical evidence only supports the belief in god, if you happen to believe in god. Private "atheists", such as yours truly, readily accept that we cannot provide evidence that any particular brand of Theism is false.

You're right: it's not an ideology. All one can regard it as is a personal confession of failure to know God. As regrettable as that may be for the private individual, it's irrelevant to others.

Again: atheism is not about knowledge, it is about belief. As it is you that is making a claim about knowledge, the burden of proof is on you as much as it is on any Atheist who claims to know that god doesn't exist.

But here's the point: uwot may be that kind of small-a "atheist," but Dawkins is not. He's a proselytizing Atheist...

That's not what you said here:

...[Richard Dawkins] won't call himself an "Atheist." He opts for "Firm Agnostic" instead.

As I said, when Professor Dawkins made that statement, he either forgot, or didn't know what agnostic means.

[Lacewing]

I am not committed to believing that god does not exist. I just don't believe it does.

This is how it is for me too. In the same way that I don't feel committed to believe, or compelled to prove, that anything else does not exist. Put another way, if something does not appear real to me, I don't spend time wondering if it could be -- rather, I wonder about the people who make claims that it is.

If I were to find out at some point that there was some sort of separate god-like being, I would have a lot of questions and a lot of suspicion. What kind of god would create and/or allow what we all go through? So it's not like I would drop to my knees and say "Oh praise god, forgive me!" I would say "WTF"... and expect some answers... and be wary. In that way, it wouldn't change much for me. It would just be one more factor to incorporate into the grand picture.

[uwot]

I care because, as a Christian I know that every person is an eternal being of incalculable value to God, one whose greatest good consists in coming to know Him.

I have every respect for your motives, Mr Can. If I believed as you do, I too would take the responsibility of sharing my beliefs with others very seriously. What I would not do is try to bludgeon non believers into step by telling them that not believing in a divine creator that, at best, reveals itself only occasionally and enigmatically is irrational. You might have more success concentrating on what you perceive as the positive aspects of your particular beliefs, rather than implying that people who disagree with you are stupid. That is preaching to the converted, don't you think, thedoc? And for your god's sake, and if what you say about 'him' is true, your own, learn some humility.

[Lacewing]

I don't find the ICs of the world particularly harmless.

I don't either. Rigid thinking driven by a bloated ego keeps the "collective mind" (that we all share) in ignorant bondage.