A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[uwot]

This is beyond ironic...

No, it's just beyond Mr Can.

Yes, bark, bark, bark...

QED.

Where is your defence of Atheism? I'm not seeing it yet. And without that, Atheism is just an assumed conclusion.

Once again, Mr Can, Atheism is your invention; it is not for anyone else to defend it. The atheism that accurately describes the position of most atheists, is a lack of belief in any god. With regard to the innumerable gods that mankind has and/or continues to believe in (there are 320 million in Hinduism alone), you are in total agreement with atheists, in that you do not believe in them. It is unlikely that you have a considered defence of your atheism pertaining to all the other gods individually, so your atheism is "just an assumed conclusion".
What distinguishes you from your fellow atheists is that thanks to an accident of birth, a combination of geography, history and cerebral mechanics has produced in you a powerful belief in a particular god and his son, who is the same 'person'. The OT is the ancestral creation myth and tribal saga of the Israelites. The NT is a personality cult about one of the many individuals who claimed to be a prophet, who may or may not have actually existed, the legend of whom was coopted by Rome, embellished with mythology plagiarised from Plato and presented to the Empire as a unifying creed. That, in a nutshell, is the defence of atheism about the one god you do believe in. If you need to go through it again, I am happy to oblige.

[Lacewing]

Once again, Mr Can, Atheism is your invention; it is not for anyone else to defend it. The atheism that accurately describes the position of most atheists, is a lack of belief in any god. With regard to the innumerable gods that mankind has and/or continues to believe in (there are 320 million in Hinduism alone), you are in total agreement with atheists, in that you do not believe in them. It is unlikely that you have a considered defence of your atheism pertaining to all the other gods individually, so your atheism is "just an assumed conclusion".

Simple, isn't it? And expressed very clearly, uwot! I imagine that this can only be ignored and denied and ridiculed by a person who is so hopelessly dependent on their own tightly-controlled and narrowly-fabricated viewpoint, that they must desperately twist everything to support only that.

Then there's the absurdity of a theist telling atheists what atheism means and encompasses, and demanding that they prove otherwise. The height of such arrogance (or insanity) reflects nothing more than utter ignorance, dishonesty, and dishonor.

On a positive note, Mr. Can's impenetrable positioning enables atheists to enjoy fine-tuning their communication, in the apparently never-ending quest of transferring broader concepts to those who will refuse them at all costs. Unfortunately, this passionate and generous effort by atheists could be wrongly perceived as somehow acknowledging that such impenetrable positions based on ignorance, dishonesty, and dishonor are even valid to argue with. When in truth, it's just a natural drive for humans to strive toward broadening and evolving thinking forward collectively. There will always be those who resist all outside of "themselves", as they want to control reality for the universe. So it appears that some people/positions are only there to spring off of, not to transform.

[thedoc]

And wrong is wrong.

Yes, you are,

[thedoc]

Then there's the absurdity of a theist telling atheists what atheism means and encompasses, and demanding that they prove otherwise. The height of such arrogance (or insanity) reflects nothing more than utter ignorance, dishonesty, and dishonor.

On this point I must agree with you, I am always distrustful of a person who does not profess a particular religious stance, commenting on that stance. Recently I was discussing Buddhism with a Lutheran pastor, and she pulled the authority card, by claiming that because she had studied Theology, she knew better what Buddhists believe. I didn't have the opportunity to ask her what the religious persuasion was of the person who taught the class, if they were Christian, I would be very suspicious of their teachings. My information came from writings of Buddhists about Buddhism, just as I rely on Atheists to say what they believe or don't believe.

[Necromancer]

Typically,

"Religion does what? I'm an Atheist/atheist! I don't believe in any god!

What? Ethics does what? Ethics what?!!! I don't believe in truth! I believe in subjective ethics! In Nietzschean ethics! Ethics that allows for all! In me, at least!

Get me straight! Atheism doesn't inhibit anything, prohibit anything, is for all! What is your point?!!! I'm only an Atheist/atheist! What's wrong with that?!!!"

Cheers!

[thedoc]

The atheism that accurately describes the position of most atheists, is a lack of belief in any god. With regard to the innumerable gods that mankind has and/or continues to believe in (there are 320 million in Hinduism alone), you are in total agreement with atheists, in that you do not believe in them. It is unlikely that you have a considered defence of your atheism pertaining to all the other gods individually, so your atheism is "just an assumed conclusion".
What distinguishes you from your fellow atheists is that thanks to an accident of birth, a combination of geography, history and cerebral mechanics has produced in you a powerful belief in a particular god and his son, who is the same 'person'.

I can't speak for IC, but I can say that I do not discount the possibility that there are other names for God, than the Christian ones. That means that I don't know that the other Gods are not simply different names for the same God I believe in, and that God has revealed different, even contradictory aspects of God's nature to others.

[Harbal]

Typically,

"Religion does what? I'm an Atheist/atheist! I don't believe in any god!

What? Ethics does what? Ethics what?!!! I don't believe in truth! I believe in subjective ethics! In Nietzschean ethics! Ethics that allows for all! In me, at least!

Get me straight! Atheism doesn't inhibit anything, prohibit anything, is for all! What is your point?!!! I'm only an Atheist/atheist! What's wrong with that?!!!"

Cheers!

Yes, Yes, yes.

[thedoc]

What? Ethics does what? Ethics what?!!! I don't believe in truth! I believe in subjective ethics! In Nietzschean ethics! Ethics that allows for all! In me, at least!

I got into a discussion once (more like an argument) with a very strict Lutheran minister by saying that Killing isn't always bad, and by that I meant that every living thing has to kill something to live or consume what was once alive. The Lutheran Minister immediately (thinking of murder) asserted that killing was always bad, I never got the chance to ask him what he had eaten for supper that evening. Then I compounded the argument by commenting that all ethics were situational, and he came back by citing that an emergency crew has a set standard protocol that they follow when entering a home for a call. Again I didn't have the opportunity to point out that the situation was determined when they got a call to enter the home in the first place, they knew there was some kind of emergency situation before they entered, the situation was set, they wouldn't enter a house and follow that protocol on a social visit.

[Immanuel Can]

...who says I or anyone has to defend it?

The OP...and you joined the party.

But more than that, if what you believe is actually indefensible, you may continue to believe it...

But you cannot do so and be rational. You'll have to take your choice.

[Immanuel Can]

Get me straight! Atheism doesn't inhibit anything, prohibit anything, is for all!

Hey, I got you from the start! Atheism is amoral. I've been saying that, and all the Atheists have just been saying exactly the same thing. You're just the latest to notice it.

What is your point?!!! I'm only an Atheist/atheist! What's wrong with that?!!!"[/size]

See above.

[Harbal]

But more than that, if what you believe is actually indefensible, you may continue to believe it...

But you cannot do so and be rational. You'll have to take your choice.

You don't get a choice.

[Harbal]

See above.

Okay, I'm looking but I don't see God.

.....

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Then there's the absurdity of a theist telling atheists what atheism means and encompasses, and demanding that they prove otherwise. The height of such arrogance (or insanity) reflects nothing more than utter ignorance, dishonesty, and dishonor.

On this point I must agree with you, I am always distrustful of a person who does not profess a particular religious stance, commenting on that stance. Recently I was discussing Buddhism with a Lutheran pastor, and she pulled the authority card, by claiming that because she had studied Theology, she knew better what Buddhists believe. I didn't have the opportunity to ask her what the religious persuasion was of the person who taught the class, if they were Christian, I would be very suspicious of their teachings. My information came from writings of Buddhists about Buddhism, just as I rely on Atheists to say what they believe or don't believe.

What a bigot. And by definition buddhists are 'atheists'.

[Dubious]

...who says I or anyone has to defend it?

The OP...and you joined the party.

I've been in this stupid party for so long, I forgot who invited me. I'm usually long gone before the party's over.

But more than that, if what you believe is actually indefensible, you may continue to believe it...

...only indefensible by your terms which in your autocratic arrogance you expect atheists to be challenged by. Why so insanely obsessive on what you regard as a mere "assumed conclusion"? Why not just accept this pronouncement for your own piece of mind and forget about atheists?

But you cannot do so and be rational. You'll have to take your choice.

I cannot do otherwise and remain rational. I have made my choice.

[Harbal]

What a bigot.

I think thedoc's behaviour has definitely got worse since he's become pals with Immanuel Can. I'm not saying he never used to talk any nonsense before but it's stepped up a gear since he's been under the influence of Mr. snotty Can. If this were a school class I think the teacher would have separated them by now and moved them to opposite sides of the classroom.