A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Arising_uk]

What's the penalty for bigamy?

Two wives.

(sry couldn't resist an old one)

[surreptitious57]

there are a lot of people who call themselves Atheists

There are atheists but there are no Atheists. Atheism is not a proper noun. There may be atheists who call themselves Atheists
but they are still only atheist like all atheists. This may be because of so called New Atheism but it is still atheism not Atheism
All atheists are atheists. That and nothing else. So terms such as Atheism and New Atheism are both misplaced and superfluous

[thedoc]

What's the penalty for bigamy?

Two wives.

(sry couldn't resist an old one)

It depends on which country you live in.

[thedoc]

There are atheists but there are no Atheists.

Could you define what exactly you mean by atheist vs Atheists? I'm not sure I see the difference.

[Dubious]

If there were a God, I'm certain that would not be ITS intention. God - even a conceptual one - is way too BIG for that. It's the other way around; it's the likes of you who have forced god into an evil little clown on the human stage which reminds me of a Stephen King novel. It's not the evil atheist who has sinned against god but hypocritical theists who have deformed Him through caricature.

That which flows through all... informing all... empowering all... naturally and without agenda... must surely be so FREE of our Earthbound dramas and fantasies. A state that we would probably identify as love. And it seems so bizarre that many sects of theism don't consider such a perspective because they're so busy making up what the "rules" are.

Well put! This defines my conception of God or the godlike also. The most "complimentary" way to acknowledge an All-Powerful Being without "getting personal", that is, presuming to understand things which cannot be understood, are through His creations for which atheists are at least as qualified as any theist living or dead...something the indoctrinated god-believer will never understand.

If I were such a Being, I'd send most of them an email commanding them not to do me any favors.

[Dubious]

Have you given this statement ANY consideration before you made it?

Of course. It's a definitional truism. One who believes in the possibility of a God, and admits he does not know is, analytically, an "agnostic." He's not an "Atheist." One is only an Atheist if one claims that there IS no God.

Richard Dawkins, the subject of this thread, holds this very view. He claims he is "Not an Atheist," but rather a "Firm Agnostic." And he's wise to do so, in a sense, because he knows very well that Atheism is not a rational position one can hold or defend on logical or evidentiary grounds. But hey, don't believe me: here's the man doing it himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4

Now, no one said anything about it being impossible to convert away from that position. I would argue that it's not only possible but quite necessary. But once one does, one is not an "Atheist" anymore, by definition. One has slid over into "agnosticism" or to "Theism" of some kind.

Don't get so excited. No insult was implied. I was just using the correct language for the correct definitions.

Dubious wrote:
There is no such thing as an "atheistic system". Where are the rules and laws that would bind it into a system?

Immanuel Can wrote:
It would have but one rule: under no circumstances can you believe in a God (or in "gods," if you prefer).

Your words are unambiguous, clarity defined, clear as clear can be.

Through long practice and improvisations you certainly have perfected through "lubricated logic" the methodology of escaping your own more obvious errors. It reminds me of snakes shedding their skin...which is very useful for the snake. God, as far as I know, didn't intend humans to emulate it.

[Harbal]

I notice that you don't deny having a wife, and the recent proposal to Lacewing would have been bigamy.

That is most amusing.

I was proposing a virtual marriage, with a honeymoon in cyberspace. It wasn't meant to be amusing, it was meant to be something beautiful.

[surreptitious57]

Could you define exactly what you mean by atheists v Atheists

There are atheists but there are no Atheists. Atheism is not a proper noun. There may be atheists who call themselves Atheists
but they are still only atheist like all atheists. This may be because of so called New Atheism but it is still atheism not Atheism
All atheists are atheists. That and nothing else. So terms such as Atheism and New Atheism are both misplaced and superfluous

[uwot]

One who believes in the possibility of a God, and admits he does not know is, analytically, an "agnostic." He's not an "Atheist." One is only an Atheist if one claims that there IS no God.

Richard Dawkins, the subject of this thread, holds this very view. He claims he is "Not an Atheist," but rather a "Firm Agnostic." And he's wise to do so, in a sense, because he knows very well that Atheism is not a rational position one can hold or defend on logical or evidentiary grounds.

So now Richard Dawkins is an authority. What a finely honed sense of irony Mr Can has. For the benefit of everyone else, some of whom might actually read this, here is what Thomas Henry Huxley, who invented the term, said about agnosticism:
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
Here are Mr Can's Proper Nouns contrasted with what the words actually mean:
Theist. This is Mr Can's 'true' theist; one who believes and behaves as Mr Can does. In other words: Mr Can.
theist. Anyone else who believes in some god.
Agnostic. Someone who doesn't know if God exists.
agnostic. Someone who believes is not possible to know whether God exists.
Atheist. Someone who believes that God does not exist.
atheist. Someone who does not believe that God exists.

Personally, I believe in the possibility of a god, I admit that I don't know, but I am not therefore an agnostic, because if there were such a thing as God, it is conceivable that it might reveal itself to us. For all that any of the crackpot stories about supernatural beings might be true, I don't believe any of them. Therefore, I am an atheist.

I was just using the correct language for the correct definitions.

Could someone let Mr Can know that he wasn't?

[attofishpi]

One is only an Atheist if one claims that there IS no God.

This is a good point. Atheists that are scrupulous philosophers would understand that the contrary point must be argued.

[uwot]

One is only an Atheist if one claims that there IS no God.

This is a good point.

No it isn't. One is an atheist if one doesn't believe in god. There is no requirement that "one claims that there IS no God."

[Immanuel Can]

Your words are unambiguous, clarity defined, clear as clear can be.j

That's what telling the truth will do for ya.

But again, don't take my word for it. Parse the etymology of "Atheist." It's "a-" particle of negation, meaning "no", plus " "theos," the Greek word for "god."

Analytically, that makes an "Atheist" one who denies the existence of any kind of God(s).

In contrast, "agnostic" is "a-" again, plus "gnosis," the Greek word for "know". An "agnostic" is one of those who admits he does not know whether or not a God or gods exist.

It's terribly straightforward, really. Check it out.

[Immanuel Can]

One is only an Atheist if one claims that there IS no God.

This is a good point. Atheists that are scrupulous philosophers would understand that the contrary point must be argued.

Indeed. But they don't want to have to do this, so they slide around, excusing themselves on the basis that they aren't actually affirming anything. But of course, they are: they're affirming certain knowledge about something definitely not existing...in this case, God. And it's perfectly reasonable to ask them how they came to such confidence.

At that point, they do one of two things:

1. Reassert petulantly that they never have to prove anything, or

2. Like Dawkins, retreat into what he calls "firm agnosticism," i.e. the statement, "Well, of course I can't prove it, but I'm just expressing a deep doubt that there is any evidence of God."

#1 is obviously an evasion of their rational obligation, and #2 isn't Atheism at all...in fact, it's just a trivial expression of personal lack of information, and obliges no one to agree. So they'll wait until you quit asking them to ante up, then return from the agnostic foxhole to declare their confidence in Atheism again. That's how they keep themselves from thinking about the absurdity and illogic of their position.

If they actually thought for five minutes, they would realize they can't be rational Atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism is not a proper noun.

Sure it is. If it weren't, it would be a generic term, like the word "belief" itself: non-capitalized because it's non-specific, applying equally to contrary things like Theism, Deism, Atheism, etc.

P.S. -- Everybody brace yourselves for evasion #1, as listed above in the last message.

[thedoc]

there are a lot of people who call themselves Atheists

There are atheists but there are no Atheists. Atheism is not a proper noun. There may be atheists who call themselves Atheists
but they are still only atheist like all atheists. This may be because of so called New Atheism but it is still atheism not Atheism
All atheists are atheists. That and nothing else. So terms such as Atheism and New Atheism are both misplaced and superfluous

So you are complaining about capitalizing the word because you don't believe that it's a proper noun. If that is what you choose to believe, it's OK with me, just don't try to cram your beliefs down my throat, isn't that what you accuse Christians of trying to do.