A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

Well, here's the thing:

Atheism -- let's just call it "a position," rather than an ideology or system, so you don't get upset with me -- needs to commend itself to our reason on some grounds. And it will not be sufficient for Atheism to commend itself by condemning all its competitors, for two reasons: firstly, that saying, "Yeah, well, you're bad too" won't make Atheism good. And secondly, in comparison to any other belief system Atheism is at a decided handicap in regard to goodness, whatever we construe that to be.

You have already identified what that handicap is. It's vacuous. It says nothing. It just denies the existence of any Deity, and by so doing, denies with it any real-world or objective grounds for morality, social development or the meaning of life. It strips the world of all objective value, but adds nothing whatsoever by way of benefit.

In fact, Atheism is so utterly vacuous, that people find it impossible to live by Atheism alone. To survive existentially, they have to fuse their Atheism with some ideology that is irrational and gratuitous, like Communism, Nationalism, Progressivism, Consumerism, Humanism, or some other such faith creed -- gratuitous, because Atheism has already declared that there is neither teleological direction, purpose, goodness or truth in the objective world, and these require these values; and irrational, because none of them can rationalize with Atheism itself.

What happens then? History has shown us in abundance. Atheism, plus ideology, equals murder. Vastly more people have been killed by Atheist regimes than by all "religious" regimes in history combined. Even Islam, by far the most bloodthirsty religion, actually has an advantage over Atheism in two respects: firstly, that it has killed far fewer people, and secondly, that as miserable, cruel and nasty as it is, at least it offers some kind of moral code to put some sort of limit on a few of the worst behaviours, and at least can rationalize a few things for society. Atheism has none of this.

If it's good to be an Atheist, then Atheism ought to be able to stand on its own two feet. It ought to be able to show that it is true, at the very least, and that it offers some way forward for the human race. But this it cannot do, because standing on its own two feet, it's nothing but pure negation, pure denial of meaning, pure emptiness of value. It's Nihilism.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well, here's the thing:

Atheism -- let's just call it "a position," rather than an ideology or system, so you don't get upset with me -- needs to commend itself to our reason on some grounds. And it will not be sufficient for Atheism to commend itself by condemning all its competitors, for two reasons: firstly, that saying, "Yeah, well, you're bad too" won't make Atheism good. And secondly, in comparison to any other belief system Atheism is at a decided handicap in regard to goodness, whatever we construe that to be.

You have already identified what that handicap is. It's vacuous. It says nothing. It just denies the existence of any Deity, and by so doing, denies with it any real-world or objective grounds for morality, social development or the meaning of life. It strips the world of all objective value, but adds nothing whatsoever by way of benefit.

In fact, Atheism is so utterly vacuous, that people find it impossible to live by Atheism alone. To survive existentially, they have to fuse their Atheism with some ideology that is irrational and gratuitous, like Communism, Nationalism, Progressivism, Consumerism, Humanism, or some other such faith creed -- gratuitous, because Atheism has already declared that there is neither teleological direction, purpose, goodness or truth in the objective world, and these require these values; and irrational, because none of them can rationalize with Atheism itself.

What happens then? History has shown us in abundance. Atheism, plus ideology, equals murder. Vastly more people have been killed by Atheist regimes than by all "religious" regimes in history combined. Even Islam, by far the most bloodthirsty religion, actually has an advantage over Atheism in two respects: firstly, that it has killed far fewer people, and secondly, that as miserable, cruel and nasty as it is, at least it offers some kind of moral code to put some sort of limit on a few of the worst behaviours, and at least can rationalize a few things for society. Atheism has none of this.

If it's good to be an Atheist, then Atheism ought to be able to stand on its own two feet. It ought to be able to show that it is true, at the very least, and that it offers some way forward for the human race. But this it cannot do, because standing on its own two feet, it's nothing but pure negation, pure denial of meaning, pure emptiness of value. It's Nihilism.

Why do you even think about it? What's it to you? Now it's the tired old 'communism' non-sequitur. 'Communist' States are as a rule nothing more than totalitarian dictatorships. All it proves is that 'atheists' are just as susceptible as non-'atheists' to the corrupting influence of total power.

[Lacewing]

I would agree that a person should be able to choose what is used for the swearing in. /... We could have money with different logos printed on each

I don't think ANY theist beliefs are appropriate for any of these broad purposes. There is no need to swear on a god. It is meaningless -- because a person ends up doing whatever they want to anyway, and the public ritual is an imposing insult to all other perspectives! It means no more than swearing on one's honor... so why not just go with that? Currency doesn't need any reference to a god at all! Do you disagree?

I would suggest that your choice of words is inflammatory and divisive, and not at all accurate.

I do think we're speaking different languages, doc... because I can't figure out why you go down the paths you do in response to the questions I ask. It appears to me that your allegiance and defensiveness prevents you from accepting/understanding straight-forward questions outside of theism. You attach stuff that has nothing to do with the points I'm making... and that seems to make something simple (to me) convoluted in such a way that it can be distorted and/or not answered. It seems evasive and sneaky... yet I wonder how much might be unconscious. People can be very tricky in protecting their beliefs and identity, even without realizing it themselves. They can change "reality"!

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you even think about it? What's it to you?

Well, traditionally, Christians fare very poorly under Atheist regimes. But equally importantly, people in general don't flourish under Atheism. In fact, many die.

All it proves is that 'atheists' are just as susceptible as non-'atheists' to the corrupting influence of total power.

I don't entirely disagree: corruption is a real problem. Hence the necessity for us to have moral standards, ethics, morality, good laws, a trustworthy justice system, and so on. Human beings need them. Societies depend on them. And survival's impossible without them.

But contrary to the old saw, it's not "power" that corrupts. After all, when you think about it, "power" is just a description of how much ability one has to act on the desires within one: it can be good or bad. If we all desired nothing but good, then the addition of "power" would just make us have more scope for good.

Our desires themselves are the problem. The truth is that the corruption comes from within us, we human beings. After all, it is WE who have produced all the evils, murders, thefts, rapes, inequities, wars, oppressions, violations and other injustices in the world....and the ideologies and political systems that gave rise to every one of them.

[Harbal]

Even Islam, by far the most bloodthirsty religion, actually has an advantage over Atheism in two respects: firstly, that it has killed far fewer people, and secondly, that as miserable, cruel and nasty as it is, at least it offers some kind of moral code

So that's the atheists and muslims dealt with, I wonder who is going to be next. When you've eventually whittled away all the groups not fit to inhabit God's Earth, I suspect the only one left will be the one that you just happen to belong to.

[thedoc]

I would agree that a person should be able to choose what is used for the swearing in.

I don't think ANY theist beliefs are appropriate for any of these broad purposes. There is no need to swear on a god. It is meaningless -- because a person ends up doing whatever they want to anyway, and the public ritual is an imposing insult to all other perspectives! It means no more than swearing on one's honor... so why not just go with that?

You're doing it again, reading something into my post that isn't there. I did not specify that the swearing in had to be based on a religion, you brought that into the discussion, if you continue to read things into my posts that are not there, we have nothing to discuss. Just because I'm a theist, doesn't justify making everything I post a reference to religion. You appear to be a very thin skinned atheist.
- Your call.

Why don't you go gush over Harbal, that would be more your style.

[Lacewing]

I would agree that a person should be able to choose what is used for the swearing in.

I don't think ANY theist beliefs are appropriate for any of these broad purposes. There is no need to swear on a god. It is meaningless -- because a person ends up doing whatever they want to anyway, and the public ritual is an imposing insult to all other perspectives! It means no more than swearing on one's honor... so why not just go with that?

You're doing it again, reading something into my post that isn't there.

Again, your defensiveness is dismissing my entire point.

So, what are you suggesting, doc... that they can swear on a can of soda, or a pair of Mickey Mouse ears, or the Bible, or the Quran? What are the guidelines you envision? Does it have anything at all to do with allowing theism which does not represent all perspectives? If so, I said I don't think any theist beliefs are appropriate. Do you see that? Why are you being so pissy?

Why don't you go gush over Harbal, that would be more your style.

Yes, he is rather awesome!

[uwot]

You have repeatedly declared that there are no atheists but then you define the term as if it existed.

As I said, you are not paying attention. I have not seen anyone claim "that there are no atheists". Several of us have been at pains to point out that there is a big difference between what atheism actually means, and what some people insist Atheism entails. Was the fact that you didn't capitalise atheism a mistake?

You are attempting to tell everyone what you believe and implying that they must agree with you.

No one is implying that you have to agree with any definition. As I also said; if you want to invent a private language that is only comprehensible to people who agree with you, that is entirely your prerogative, but if you want to communicate in English, the trick is to stick with the commonly accepted usage.

[uwot]

Atheism -- let's just call it "a position," rather than an ideology or system, so you don't get upset with me --

Let's not. Let's call Atheism a figment of your imagination. Let's call atheism what it actually is; the lack of a belief in a god. There is a very good reason for doing this: that is what it actually is.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why do you even think about it? What's it to you?

Well, traditionally, Christians fare very poorly under Atheist regimes. But equally importantly, people in general don't flourish under Atheism. In fact, many die.

All it proves is that 'atheists' are just as susceptible as non-'atheists' to the corrupting influence of total power.

I don't entirely disagree: corruption is a real problem. Hence the necessity for us to have moral standards, ethics, morality, good laws, a trustworthy justice system, and so on. Human beings need them. Societies depend on them. And survival's impossible without them.

But contrary to the old saw, it's not "power" that corrupts. After all, when you think about it, "power" is just a description of how much ability one has to act on the desires within one: it can be good or bad. If we all desired nothing but good, then the addition of "power" would just make us have more scope for good.

Our desires themselves are the problem. The truth is that the corruption comes from within us, we human beings. After all, it is WE who have produced all the evils, murders, thefts, rapes, inequities, wars, oppressions, violations and other injustices in the world....and the ideologies and political systems that gave rise to every one of them.

People generally don't flourish under totalitarian regimes. Power-crazed dictators murder anyone who gets in their way. 'Atheism' isn't an ideology. It was only one aspect of communism. Stalin wasn't killing people because they weren't 'atheists'. Stalin murdered priests because he resented their power over people. Dictators kill people because that's what totalitarian dictators do. Kristians have murdered wholesale IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGION. They also murder each other for belonging to different sects. In fact, they murdered anyone you can think of. I don't know who came up with the idea that it was a 'peaceful, loving' belief system. They've been bloody and murderous for as long as it's been in existence.

[thedoc]

You're doing it again, reading something into my post that isn't there.

Again, your defensiveness is dismissing my entire point.

So, what are you suggesting, doc... that they can swear on a can of soda, or a pair of Mickey Mouse ears, or the Bible, or the Quran? What are the guidelines you envision? Does it have anything at all to do with allowing theism which does not represent all perspectives? If so, I said I don't think any theist beliefs are appropriate.

From a previous post,
"You're doing it again, reading something into my post that isn't there. I did not specify that the swearing in had to be based on a religion, you brought that into the discussion, if you continue to read things into my posts that are not there, we have nothing to discuss. Just because I'm a theist, doesn't justify making everything I post a reference to religion. You appear to be a very thin skinned atheist."

Why are you ignoring the other points I made in my post? I don't care what they swear on, or even if they swear at all. I think you should find someone else to fight with since that is all you seem to be interested in doing.

[Dubious]

The truth is that the corruption comes from within us, we human beings.

True! And by extension so does the urge toward morality; that also comes from within. The fixed morality you consistently preach is only one example of that. It wouldn't exist either if there weren't an inner urge toward morality to begin with. Atheism does not negate the impulse. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

One wonders what kind of person you would be if it weren’t for your externally contrived morality! The psyche is much more complicated than merely breeding corruption. It’s just as inherent for it to have an immune system against corruption called morality - for lack of a better term - whose function is similar to that of the body’s defense.

The psyche is a multi-lane highway which your theism allows to travel grooved in only ONE path going in the same direction as proven throughout your posts.

After all, it is WE who have produced all the evils, murders, thefts, rapes, inequities, wars, oppressions, violations and other injustices in the world....and the ideologies and political systems that gave rise to every one of them.

...including all the religious one’s in the name of God including most of the secular one’s “Gott mit uns, God with us”, universally affirmed in almost every Christian culture against the other. What a horror that was!

You argue your case for theism in a thoroughly dried-out scholastic manner which no-longer has any effect on people. To most it would seem absurd. I know there are theists who would argue the case differently and much more appropriately than the kind of medievalism you bring forth in your arguments.

That’s the reason I keep on saying you’re not the man for the job.

[surreptitious57]

Where exactly have I tried to cram my beliefs down your throat? You are free to accept or reject anything I say
I have no jurisdiction over that at all. But it is interesting how you think that that is what I am trying to do here

You have repeatedly declared that there are no atheists but then you define the term as if it existed
You are attempting to tell everyone what you believe and implying that they must agree with you

I have repeatedly declared that there are no Atheists [ not atheists] I am telling everyone
what I think [ are not we all ] though no one is obliged to accept it if they do not want to

[Lacewing]

Why are you ignoring the other points I made in my post?

I shortened the reference to your post for efficiency, but I thought I responded completely to your post. We seem to be talking past each other. Which is surprising to me, because I thought we were able to agree sometimes. I'm not into simply arguing -- I was seeking clarity and a broader perspective -- even if I'm being feisty about it. Apparently such questions and points are very slippery... like a lot of things on this forum lately. Oh well... perhaps on another day such a discussion will work smoothly and explore further.

[thedoc]

Where exactly have I tried to cram my beliefs down your throat? You are free to accept or reject anything I say
I have no jurisdiction over that at all. But it is interesting how you think that that is what I am trying to do here

You have repeatedly declared that there are no atheists but then you define the term as if it existed
You are attempting to tell everyone what you believe and implying that they must agree with you

I have repeatedly declared that there are no Atheists [ not atheists] I am telling everyone
what I think [ are not we all ] though no one is obliged to accept it if they do not want to

Well I think you are wrong and I don't accept what you are saying.