A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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.

Those in glass houses...You deserve all you get. Most of the time it's you jumping on me unsolicited with your snide and sneery comments. Well you have a few religio allies on here so you can just keep reminding us what cunts religious nuts are.

[thedoc]

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.

Those in glass houses...You deserve all you get. Most of the time it's you jumping on me unsolicited with your snide and sneery comments. Well you have a few religio allies on here so you can just keep reminding us what cunts religious nuts are.

I'm glad I really don't care what you say, so have at it.

[surreptitious57]

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 Atheisms gift to the world : amorality

The mistake that you are making here is assuming that because atheism is amoral then atheists must be amoral. This is a false
equivalence because any non religious moral system is compatible with atheism. Even if atheists did not have any such system
they would still be moral beings if they were capable of making moral choices. Their atheism would not impact upon this at all

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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.

Those in glass houses...You deserve all you get. Most of the time it's you jumping on me unsolicited with your snide and sneery comments. Well you have a few religio allies on here so you can just keep reminding us what cunts religious nuts are.

I'm glad I really don't care what you say, so have at it.

You have a very funny way of showing that you 'don't care what I say'.

[thedoc]

Those in glass houses...You deserve all you get. Most of the time it's you jumping on me unsolicited with your snide and sneery comments. Well you have a few religio allies on here so you can just keep reminding us what cunts religious nuts are.

I'm glad I really don't care what you say, so have at it.

You have a very funny way of showing that you 'don't care what I say'.

Thankyou, I'm glad that you appreciate my efforts.

[Harbal]

You have a very funny way of showing that you 'don't care what I say'.

That's just what I was thinking.

[uwot]

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."

Once again: there is no such thing as Atheism, it is not equivalent to any religion. There is no Church of Atheism: no doctrine, no creed, no ritual, no festivals, no dress code, no dietary restrictions, no bodily mutilation, no obsession with sexual practises, no punishment of heretics and apostates and, most pertinently, there is no moral orthodoxy preached from some unholy pulpit by a professional celibate in a frock.
So no; Atheism cannot offer the world anything, because it doesn't exist.

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.

And again: "it", the Church of Atheism, does not exist; atheism on the other hand, demonstrably doesn't inevitably do that, because there are plenty of books by atheists on morality.
The point has been made before that if, like Mr Can, you insist that obeying god's will is the "basis for morality", then denying that god exists necessarily denies that it exists as the basis for morality. The result of which is that attempts by atheists to establish the validity of moral codes have mostly focussed on the consequences of behaviour and the intent of the actor.

Being good or evil become simply arbitrary matters of taste, or strategic options, not values to which anyone owes any ultimate duty.

This nonsense about "ultimate duty" is just the No True Scotsman fallacy with epaulettes. In order to qualify as a True Christian, as defined by Mr Can, one has to obey the will of god, as defined by Mr Can. All the other theists on the planet, many of whom interpret the bible and other religious books in apparently arbitrary aesthetic or strategic ways, simply don't qualify as true theists, as defined by Mr Can.

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.

The basis for Mr Can's conscience and moral qualms is not any concern for other people, it is his fear of upsetting his god. He thinks everyone else should agree with his interpretation and start cowering with him.

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

Mr Can; there is no such thing as Atheism.

[Dubious]

So what's your question! Be precise!

Of course I'll be ignoring all the off topic and ad hominem stuff in your previous message: all the silly attempts to provoke, the personal insults, the posturing, the bluster and the nonsense... Really, who needs all of that?

Deja Vu! That's how I feel when I read one of yours...not to mention your nauseating superiority in knowing the mind of God...and most importantly that there actually is one whose name is Jesus, Son of God!

But I'll honour you, and take what I can from your message seriously; so I'll honour the question at the end.

Very obliging but I have no illusions that you're going to grant even the slightest probablity nod to anything I say. However, this is my view pertaining specificially to the quote given.

The OP wrote:

There's nothing in the Atheistic system that commits the Atheist to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real. A Religious believer, of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, various others, is always committed to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real because they are integral in the Religious systems! This is simply not the case in Atheism!

My question is this: Does any Atheist have anything by way of a moral value that is grounded by Atheism, and thus refutes his claim?

The answer so far seems to be, "Not a hope." But if you can do better, then please, carry on. I await most eagerly.

There is no such thing as an "atheistic system". Where are the rules and laws that would bind it into a system? "System" does not combine with "Atheistic" which annuls the entire given argument as a contradiction and your question along with it. Atheism denotes a non-belief in god and only that. Moral values are NOT excluded simply because there is no notice of god in the universe. That is a leap beyond logic but mostly human psychology regardless of what one chooses to believe or not. Without god, morality proceeds creatively on a secular mandate more prone to improvise than fundamentalize.

...but not wishing to avoid your question: Does any Atheist have anything by way of a moral value that is grounded by Atheism

For the non-theist the moral law, its value and prime directive is to create a "common law" morality which is both creative and current for the times...an ongoing process refined by perception, education and history for at least the last 200 years. The morality of the non-theist doesn't oblige anyone to bend the knee to the statutes of ancient beliefs or what was considered moral then.

Atheism, to repeat, is not a "system" the way Judaism and it's derivatives are systems where politics, religion, morality converge into one entity without separation. It is instead an "in process" morality which has no need for any fixed, "grounded" moral value for that would again inflect some ultimate religious or moral truth within a process which has no need for it. Philosophy doesn't have one either which lasted and as far as I know, never did.

No point continuing as I expect your response to be, "still waiting"!

[thedoc]

]
Mr Can; there is no such thing as Atheism.

Odd, but there are a lot of people, who call themselves Atheists, who would disagree with you. But this is according to your own narrow definition of Atheism, or the "No True Scotsman" argument.

[uwot]

]
Mr Can; there is no such thing as Atheism.

Odd, but there are a lot of people, who call themselves Atheists, who would disagree with you. But this is according to your own narrow definition of Atheism, or the "No True Scotsman" argument.

On the contrary, my definition of atheism is as broad as it is accurate. Along with several other contributors I have made it clear that what defines an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. It is the definition you apparently share with Mr Can, of an Atheist as someone who has a specific set of values, that is predicated on their atheism, which is narrow. And false.

[thedoc]

]
Mr Can; there is no such thing as Atheism.

Odd, but there are a lot of people, who call themselves Atheists, who would disagree with you. But this is according to your own narrow definition of Atheism, or the "No True Scotsman" argument.

On the contrary, my definition of atheism is as broad as it is accurate. Along with several other contributors I have made it clear that what defines an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. It is the definition you apparently share with Mr Can, of an Atheist as someone who has a specific set of values, that is predicated on their atheism, which is narrow. And false.

First you claim that there is no such thing as Atheism and therefore no Atheists, and then you claim to define Atheism. It seems that you are just making statements to start a fight, and you don't care what you fight about, nor do you have any basis for your claims. I don't speak for IC, but from his posts it seems that he is saying that Atheists have no values, based on Atheism, that result in a set of morals, and I agree with that position. Your argument that IC and I claim that Atheists have values based on their Atheism, is a straw-man argument.

[Lacewing]

My guess is that Mr. Can will not be able to acknowledge the validity of any perspective that doesn’t fit within the limits of his belief system. EVEN IF he were privately/secretly to catch a glimpse of logic and truth broader than himself. There is too much at stake. Too much has been invested in maintaining and promoting the vision and identity he is glorified and justified with. Many people would rather die than see or admit beyond that.

Which is why it’s very likely pointless for others to repeat or clarify points. And, in fact, doing so could be interpreted as a sign that such a willful, proud theist platform is even capable of being debated truthfully.

There is very limited truth (if any) in such a closed, static system. It just continually feeds on itself, never expanding beyond its limits – which is unnatural and contrived. Only ego and fear do such things. A truly inquisitive philosopher continually seeks broader truth rather than claiming to possess it!

And only a rabid theist mindset claims to UNIQUELY possess ULTIMATE truth that applies to all.

[Immanuel Can]

The mistake that you are making here is assuming that because atheism is amoral then atheists must be amoral.

Incorrect. Look back, and you'll see how many times I have denied this.

This is a false equivalence because any non religious moral system is compatible with atheism.

This is true. But nothing makes such systems specifically "moral." If Atheism is true, "morality" is merely contingent, and not obligatory in any way.

Even if atheists did not have any such system
they would still be moral beings if they were capable of making moral choices. Their atheism would not impact upon this at all

This isn't true. As I said, they MIGHT choose to be good, but being Atheists, they would not have a real reason why they would believe they MUST be good.

Atheism has no warrant for ethics, and in fact denies that the Ultimate Grounds for morality exists. All morals must simply be arbitrary matters of local, cultural or national taste. And there's theoretically no reason any of them cannot legitimately be broken, or why -- apart from getting caught -- anyone should not ignore them altogether.

[uwot]

First you claim that there is no such thing as Atheism and therefore no Atheists, and then you claim to define Atheism.

You're not paying attention. What I have defined is atheism, not Atheism.

It seems that you are just making statements to start a fight, and you don't care what you fight about, nor do you have any basis for your claims.

The basis for my claim is that atheism implies nothing more than a lack of belief in god. If you were to look it up, you would discover that is what it means.

I don't speak for IC, but from his posts it seems that he is saying that Atheists have no values, based on Atheism, that result in a set of morals, and I agree with that position. Your argument that IC and I claim that Atheists have values based on their Atheism, is a straw-man argument.

Mr Can has repeatedly argued that Atheism implies a belief that god does not exist. No it doesn't. It implies only that anyone who identifies themselves as an atheist does not believe that god exists; not that god does not exist. He is either too stubborn, or too stupid, to appreciate the difference. What's your excuse?

[uwot]

If Atheism is true, "morality" is merely contingent, and not obligatory in any way.

If you believe in free will, it isn't obligatory to theists.