A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[uwot]

Religios are always saying they KNOW their god exists. Why on earth shouldn't atheists say they know he doesn't?

It's a fair question, and one you answer as well as I could:

Of course, there is no possible physical proof to disprove the existence of ANYTHING.

I agree that there is no difference between saying god doesn't exist, and Santa Claus doesn't exist, but Lacewing makes the point that religious nuts are talking a different language. When religios say they KNOW their god exists, they are not using 'know' in any sense that I understand it.

[surreptitious57]

For if as Atheism implies all facts are simply morally neutral

Once again [ beginning to lose count now ] atheism has nothing to say about morality

However you are absolutely right to say that facts are simply morally neutral

A fact is a statement whose truth value has been proven and nothing else

So they cannot convey morality as morality is not objective and they are

[surreptitious57]

When religios say they KNOW their god exists they are not using know in any sense that I understand

Me neither but yet they seem to think that arguments from emotion actually constitute knowledge

[thedoc]

For if as Atheism implies all facts are simply morally neutral

Once again [ beginning to lose count now ] atheism has nothing to say about morality

Then you are listening to a particular group of Atheists, I have heard Atheists who have claimed that they are moral and have a moral code, thus morality.

[thedoc]

When religios say they KNOW their god exists they are not using know in any sense that I understand

Me neither but yet they seem to think that arguments from emotion actually constitute knowledge

This would depend on how you define evidence, if it is something that I can show someone else, then no I don't have any, but if you allow that I have had an experience that proves to me that there is a God, then yes I can say that I know that God exists. BTW, I did have a tape recording of the experience, but I no longer have it, so at one time I had physical evidence for the existence of God.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

BTW, I did have a tape recording of the experience, but I no longer have it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

but Lacewing makes the point that religious nuts are talking a different language.

Yes they are. The 'language' of insanity.

[thedoc]

BTW, I did have a tape recording of the experience, but I no longer have it.

You're laughing at a house fire, you have a strange sense of humor.

But then with your attitude towards Americans, it's understandable.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

BTW, I did have a tape recording of the experience, but I no longer have it.

You're laughing at a house fire, you have a strange sense of humor.

But then with your attitude towards Americans, it's understandable.

No, I'm laughing at you. How can I be laughing at something you refuse to say? It is pretty funny if you claim to have recorded the first video image of your god, but you 'just happened' to misplace it.

[uwot]

...I have heard Atheists who have claimed that they are moral and have a moral code, thus morality.

There is nothing unusual about atheists claiming to have a moral code, the most famous example is the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, both of whom were atheists.
As has been explained, there are people who believe that morality is based on following a set of rules, and there are others who believe that moral agents consider the consequence of their behaviour. Without a god to provide a list of rules, atheists generally are consequentialists.
If you define morality by a set of rules, it is very easy to judge the morality of an action; you can 'know' right or wrong, simply by checking the list. Consequentialist ethics are more complicated, because it isn't simply the consequences that decide the morality, but the intent of the actor; which can be very difficult to know.

[Immanuel Can]

For if as Atheism implies all facts are simply morally neutral

Once again [ beginning to lose count now ] atheism has nothing to say about morality

Exactly what I said.

And if so, Atheism cannot offer anything to the world in that regard: as you say, it "has nothing to say about morality."

But here's what it can and inevitably does do: by denying the existence of any basis for morality, it induces people to ignore morality or practice morality only in a convenient or strategic way, since it deprives the world of any ultimate grounds for it. Being good or evil become simply arbitrary matters of taste, or strategic options, not values to which anyone owes any ultimate duty. Then whatever ideology a person may have can be unimpeded by conscience or moral qualm, and can go forward ruthlessly and with reference to power not morality.

That is Atheism's gift to the world: amorality.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

For if as Atheism implies all facts are simply morally neutral

Once again [ beginning to lose count now ] atheism has nothing to say about morality

Exactly what I said.

And if so, Atheism cannot offer anything to the world in that regard: as you say, it "has nothing to say about morality."

But here's what it can and inevitably does do: by denying the existence of any basis for morality, it induces people to ignore morality or practice morality only in a convenient or strategic way, since it deprives the world of any ultimate grounds for it. Being good or evil become simply arbitrary matters of taste, or strategic options, not values to which anyone owes any ultimate duty. Then whatever ideology a person may have can be unimpeded by conscience or moral qualm, and can go forward ruthlessly and with reference to power not morality.

That is Atheism's gift to the world: amorality.

Do you even bother to read people's responses?

[Immanuel Can]

Then you are listening to a particular group of Atheists, I have heard Atheists who have claimed that they are moral and have a moral code, thus morality.

Not at all. I also know Atheists who both claim to be "moral" and act in very moral ways. Some of my friends are Atheists.

But if I ask them why they choose to be good rather than the opposite, they can't really tell me. They say that "Well, that's the way I was raised," or "that's what I like to be." And ironically, many of them are quite militant against acts they consider bad, but can't rationally justify that either. They believe very strongly in both "rights" and "justice," but can't really explain how they know what either really is. For in Atheism itself, there's no clue. Atheism makes all such values simply arbitrary.

So there is no actual basis for morality if one's an Atheist. If it happens to be their taste at the moment, then we're all lucky; but if amorality or immorality becomes more attractive to them, then it's hard cheese for all of us. Either way, Atheism isn't going to give any help or direction -- it won't reward the good or punish the guilty.

But that doesn't mean it stands on the sidelines with its hands in its pockets, either. Instead, it adamantly assures us that all moral standards are really illusions. It tells us that at most, morality is a contingent, temporary, culturally-bound, power-driven social phenomenon, one that can change with the breeze if it wills. And of course, no one really owes any ultimate loyalty to such mere transient phenomena.

[thedoc]

You're laughing at a house fire, you have a strange sense of humor.

But then with your attitude towards Americans, it's understandable.

No, I'm laughing at you. How can I be laughing at something you refuse to say? It is pretty funny if you claim to have recorded the first video image of your god, but you 'just happened' to misplace it.

No, I had a tape recording, that is an audio recording and I didn't misplace it, you are really stupid aren't you along with being vicious and mean.

[thedoc]

Do you even bother to read people's responses?

Do you?