A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How do you ever manage to make common moral cause with people whose ideology makes all morality nonsense?

The bounds of your delusional world are your limit to seeing the answers/reality beyond it. The nonsense you see is your own, Mr Can. You've received more than enough insightful feedback here to dispel your absurd fabrications -- but either your ignorance is too thick to grasp anything beyond your archaic boundaries, or you actually ENJOY distorting things despite all to the contrary so that you can continually feast on your nonsense questions and lash out at your ignorant concept of atheists. On either account, it appears that you must really be threatened, in order to continually act in such a desperately foolish way. Perhaps you secretly suspect/realize how insignificant your beliefs are to broader truths. That's a good start. It's all much bigger than you.

The ICs of the world are a good reminder of how dangerous kristianity still is. They only reason it seems harmless (compared to what it used to be anyway) is because it has lost much of its power base. The thought of a theocracy full of spiteful IC types is just as scary as a muslim theocracy.

[Immanuel Can]

The bounds of your delusional world are your limit to seeing the answers/reality beyond it...

This response is, of course, nonsense, completely spurious, and unrelated to anything to the point. For even if every word of it were entirely true (and it's not), it would represent no kind of sensible reply to the question in hand. It's just rhetoric. It's totally empty. No sensible person can be bothered with it. The others who can...well, draw the obvious conclusion.

So now if you can, do some actual philosophy: show me one moral precept that an Atheist must believe, and you'll have utterly defeated my whole argument.

There: I've made it so easy that you can't possibly fail.

And yet, somehow I remain quite certain you will...

[Lacewing]

The bounds of your delusional world are your limit to seeing the answers/reality beyond it...

...even if every word of it were entirely true

Oh it is. In every circumstance. And most specifically right now, it applies to you and your psychotic repetition of nonsense questions based on your delusions. Until you get that straightened out, you aren't talking philosophy... so don't kid yourself.

[Harbal]

So now if you can, do some actual philosophy: show me one moral precept that an Atheist must believe,

There isn't a moral precept that an Atheist must believe, in exactly the same way as there isn't a moral precept that a theist must believe. They are both the same in that respect.
Is that the right answer? It was a trick question, wasn't it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So now if you can, do some actual philosophy: show me one moral precept that an Atheist must believe,

There isn't a moral precept that an Atheist must believe, in exactly the same way as there isn't a moral precept that a theist must believe. They are both the same in that respect.
Is that the right answer? It was a trick question, wasn't it?

Good answer, but he's had lots of good answers, it's just too bad he's allergic to answering anything himself. An egotist like him would hate being ignored more than anything else.

[Immanuel Can]

There isn't a moral precept that an Atheist must believe, in exactly the same way as there isn't a moral precept that a theist must believe.

Not true.

If you were to understand the word "must" correctly and in the context of ethics, you would recognize it as a reference to moral duty, not to physical necessity.

A "physical necessity" means that a person would be forced to do something. In ethics, nobody is ever forced to do anything. But they are morally obligated, if a moral precept logically follows from their beliefs about the world. That is, if they choose not do it, then by the logic of their own belief system, they are morally bad.

You are correct to say that a moral precept does not impose a physical necessity on anyone; but wrong to overlook the fact that it does impose a moral duty.

Here, moral duties are what we are talking about: imposing physical necessities is coercion. I trust you're not expecting that.

The upshot of the difference is this: Atheists have no moral duties...at all. Theists do. In that way, they are quite different.

Vive la difference.

[Harbal]

The upshot of the difference is this: Atheists have no moral duties...at all. Theists do. In that way, they are quite different.

Thank you so much for correcting me, I'm most grateful. Just to reinforce the lesson, would you give an example of a moral duty an atheist is bound by?

[Immanuel Can]

Just to reinforce the lesson, would you give an example of a moral duty an atheist is bound by?

Just above, I wrote: "Atheists have no moral duties...at all. "

What part of that was where you got lost?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'No moral duties' yet they still manage to commit far less crime and behave better in general. Im Kunt doesn't seem to like islam very much either, yet the koran also contains a 'moral code' for muslims to abide by (if it suits them, just as kristians pick the 'morals' the suit them at any given time).
Gosh, it's enough make you think that these 'moral codes and 'duties' ' make people behave a lot WORSE than they would without them.

[Harbal]

Just above, I wrote: "Atheists have no moral duties...at all. "

What part of that was where you got lost?

And you were quite right, atheists do not have any moral duties at all, except any that they may impose on themselves, of course. It was just for that extra bit of clarification, regarding this particular shortcoming of atheists, that I thought it would be useful to have some kind of comparison. So, would you give an example of a moral duty a theist is bound by, please?

[Immanuel Can]

... would you give an example of a moral duty a theist is bound by, please?

Of course. First, any Theist is morally obligated when God commands something. Secondly, he/she is also morally obligated to the principle that underlies any particular commandment, so as to fulfill the spirit of that law, not merely the letter of the precept itself. Thirdly, a Theist is morally obligated to do anything that morally squares with the nature of the God he/she professes to believe in, whether specified by a commandment or not.

Meanwhile, an Atheist is not obligated to be a humanitarian. Nor is an Atheist obligated not to be a Stalin. He/she is neither better for being the one, nor worse for being the other, because Atheism entails that there are no moral values that are obligating.

[Lacewing]

... would you give an example of a moral duty a theist is bound by, please?

Of course. First, any Theist is morally obligated when God commands something. Secondly, he/she is also morally obligated to the principle that underlies any particular commandment, so as to fulfill the spirit of that law, not merely the letter of the precept itself. Thirdly, a Theist is morally obligated to do anything that morally squares with the nature of the God he/she professes to believe in, whether specified by a commandment or not.

Meanwhile, an Atheist is not obligated to be a humanitarian. Nor is an Atheist obligated not to be a Stalin. He/she is neither better for being the one, nor worse for being the other, because Atheism entails that there are no moral values that are obligating.

So, based on your very odd beliefs, which most people here don't appear to share, is there something you are proposing? Or are you just venting?

[Harbal]

First, any Theist is morally obligated when God commands something.

Okay, I see. That sounds something like when an atheist, or anyone else for that matter, is morally obligated when his or her conscience commands something. I'm sure it's completely different though. How, exactly, can you tell what God is commanding and why are you under any moral obligation to comply?

Secondly, he/she is also morally obligated to the principle that underlies any particular commandment, so as to fulfill the spirit of that law, not merely the letter of the precept itself.

This just sounds like a variation of what you've just said. I think the difference must be a little too subtle for me.

a Theist is morally obligated to do anything that morally squares with the nature of the God he/she professes to believe in, whether specified by a commandment or not.

I'm afraid this is all beyond the understanding of my pretty little head. I just don't see how you can know what the nature of God is and, even if you could know, you still haven't explained why you have any moral obligation to him/her/it.

Are you sure that your First, Secondly and Thirdly are not all just different ways of saying the same thing?

[Immanuel Can]

First, any Theist is morally obligated when God commands something.

Okay, I see.

That sounds something like when an atheist, or anyone else for that matter, is morally obligated when his or her conscience commands something. I'm sure it's completely different though.

Yes.

For an Atheist, the imperative "Thou must obey thy conscience" is arbitrary. There's no reason given by Atheism to think it's obligatory at all. If it suits you to behave like a chameleon and change the colour of your ethics for each new situation, then absent a God, there's no objective reason you shouldn't do that. You can be a Pol Pot one minute, and a Mother Teresa the next. There are no rules for that, under Atheism.

I think the difference must be a little too subtle for me.

It takes a bit. Not many people pick it up the first time, often because they are prone to assume that the type 1 commandment is all there is. But that's wrong.

I'm afraid this is all beyond the understanding of my pretty little head.

I wouldn't expect so. But it might be outside of your current range of assumptive categories. However, categories are expandable. In practice, it just means that Theist ethics are a lot more complex -- and demanding -- than most people know.

Are you sure that your First, Secondly and Thirdly are not all just different ways of saying the same thing?

Very. There's actually quite a philosophically sophisticated distinction that is much discussed by Theists. I'll give you a simple illustration.

Jewish Ethics:

"Thou shalt not murder." Level 1

Clear about just people you don't like, maybe; but is it okay to murder the unborn? Level 2

If murder is wrong, then even wishing it, and even wishing it upon an enemy, is not consonant with the expressed nature of God, and so is still immoral. Level 3

[Harbal]

For an Atheist, the imperative "Thou must obey thy conscience" is arbitrary.

Hey, maybe I'm not an atheist after all because I do actually think I should obey my conscience and I haven't got a choice about it, therefore, it's not arbitrary. Yet I don't believe in God.

Theist ethics are a lot more complex --

That probably explains why theists seem to have a problem practicing what they preach, the complexity has a tendency to confuse them. I always suspected there must be a reason why it wasn't their fault.

is not consonant with the expressed nature of God,

But how can anyone possibly know the nature of God? And even if you could know, what objective evidence is there that the morality of God's law is superior to that of my conscience?