A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

You don't even make any sense. What were the other 93 percent of deaths? Horses?

Human beings, killed for a variety of reasons: nationalism, resources, territory, trade wars, and so on. But a lot of them killed by Atheist ideologues, in China, Russia, Eastern Europe, Cambodia...

[Immanuel Can]

Are you suggesting that the reason all those jews were murdered had nothing to do with religion?

Wow.

What a case of "blame the victim." Are you suggesting that because many Jews were religious they "brought it on themselves"?

That's obscene.

[Dubious]

There are plenty...

Name it. One word is all it will take. What is one of the moral values Atheism necessitates?

Atheism as a secular morality, a common-law morality, necessitates most of the basic moral values of theism and then some.

One of the most important in the "then some" category (which, in your mind causes separation) is that it's not immoral nor does it negate morality on any level if one chooses not to believe in God.

The root of secular morality is contained in Kant's Categorical Imperative stated in two ways...

...rationally: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
... Note: "Universal Law" not exclusively theistic ones.

...and morally: So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never only as a means.


You must have read this before obviously to no effect. Your question is answered and has been many times but in your case it never really can be since you don't seem capable of rationally defining morality yourself. I expect you would have had you been able to. Your methodology consists strictly in refuting others as a surrogate for your own lack of value-added content.

Clearly, this is one Immanuel who really could compared to the duplicitous one writing on these forums whose brains have been long sabotaged by theism into zombie status.

Sorry if I couldn't put it all into ONE word as requested. Regarding my posts, consider yourself "the winner" since that's the word you used. It feels degrading communicating so long with someone who confuses an accumulation of snot with brain power which keeps on saying the same shit over and over and intentionally misreads every sentence.

You won! I'm off this merry-go-round.

[Harbal]

There is nothing in Atheism that supports morality.

I can't help not being able to believe in God, but guess what: I've still got a fucking conscience, and it's just as demanding as your, or that twat faced fucker Immanuel's God. The only thing you bastard God people are interested in doing is trying to convince yourselves you are superior to anybody that doesn't see what you think you see. Is that a moral way to behave? You bunch of fucking wankers.

I know I sound angry but I'm not, really.

[Immanuel Can]

The root of secular morality is contained in Kant's Categorical Imperative stated in two ways...

...rationally: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
... Note: "Universal Law" not exclusively theistic ones.

...and morally: So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never only as a means.

Two problems with this answer:

1. Nothing in Atheism means you must be a Kantian. If you choose to be, Atheism allows it. But you don't have to be. So it's not NECESSARY or OBLIGATORY, so it's not a moral precept inherent to Atheism. It's an optional add-on, at most: and not one anyone has to choose.

2. Kant was a Protestant Pietist...a Christian.

Sorry, chum. You rolled the dice and lost.

[uwot]

...Nothing in Atheism means you must be a Kantian. If you choose to be, Atheism allows it. But you don't have to be. So it's not NECESSARY or OBLIGATORY, so it's not a moral precept inherent to Atheism. It's an optional add-on, at most: and not one anyone has to choose.

If you believe that your god gave you free will, then nothing is necessary or obligatory in theism. Theists like you, Mr Can, choose to be good because it is in your interest to do so, but you do not have to. You are equating morality with selfishness: what is good for Mr Can is moral. That is your prerogative, but most people are not so insanely narcissistic to exclude the effect on other people in their definition of morality.

[Dubious]

The root of secular morality is contained in Kant's Categorical Imperative stated in two ways...

...rationally: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
... Note: "Universal Law" not exclusively theistic ones.

...and morally: So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never only as a means.

Two problems with this answer:

1. Nothing in Atheism means you must be a Kantian. If you choose to be, Atheism allows it. But you don't have to be. So it's not NECESSARY or OBLIGATORY, so it's not a moral precept inherent to Atheism. It's an optional add-on, at most: and not one anyone has to choose.

2. Kant was a Protestant Pietist...a Christian.

Sorry, chum. You rolled the dice and lost.

Chum, in case it escaped you, it's not what Kant WAS, since everyone in those days was affiliated or identified by some version of Christianity. It's what he said and how he said it which is super clear and a complete negation of every belief you hold on morality.

If we judge god by the people who defend him, then YOUR god is HUGELY behind the curve...even among theists.

Oh!...if it gives you that much pleasure to think I lost, I would not withhold it from you. Enjoy

Now please go and bury your bogus nuts in someone else's back yard. You're much more dangerous to theism than you can ever hope to be against atheism. Every post of your keeps on proving...YOU'RE NOT THE MAN FOR THE JOB.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is nothing in Atheism that supports morality.

I can't help not being able to believe in God, but guess what: I've still got a fucking conscience, and it's just as demanding as your, or that twat faced fucker Immanuel's God. The only thing you bastard God people are interested in doing is trying to convince yourselves you are superior to anybody that doesn't see what you think you see. Is that a moral way to behave? You bunch of fucking wankers.

I know I sound angry but I'm not, really.

For once you have written something I wholly agree with. I'd have typed almost exactly the same thing to Immanuel Kunt, except that I'd have got myself banned for doing so.

[Hobbes' Choice]

1. Nothing in Atheism means you must be a Kantian. If you choose to be, Atheism allows it. But you don't have to be. So it's not NECESSARY or OBLIGATORY, so it's not a moral precept inherent to Atheism. It's an optional add-on, at most: and not one anyone has to choose..

You are saying nothing here.
Atheism mandates nothing. It is not a moral position; it is an epistemological one.

Atheism frees us to choose our morality without the stupid chains of religion; the trapping of an ancient system of hate.
No longer need we stone women to death for adultery. No longer do we need to refuse to communicate or touch menstruating women, nor fear the touch of the leper, not drink the blood and eat the flesh of Christ.
All that bollocks does not impinge on our moral systems.

[thedoc]

There is nothing in Atheism that supports morality.

I can't help not being able to believe in God, but guess what: I've still got a fucking conscience, and it's just as demanding as your, or that twat faced fucker Immanuel's God. The only thing you bastard God people are interested in doing is trying to convince yourselves you are superior to anybody that doesn't see what you think you see. Is that a moral way to behave? You bunch of fucking wankers.

I know I sound angry but I'm not, really.

Well you could a fooled me. But there is nothing in atheism to keep you from being a good person just as there is nothing to compel you to be a good person. In religion there are recommendations of good things to do and good ways to act, I don't see any such recommendations in atheism. Being good or not is the choice of the individual, not set down by the principle non-belief itself.

[Harbal]

For once you have written something I wholly agree with.

You don't know how much this means to me, Hobbes. This is the greatest achievement of my life. It just goes to show that persistence pays off in the end.
This doesn't mean we're going to be swapping spit in the shower though (Clint Eastwood in some film or another)

[Hobbes' Choice]

For once you have written something I wholly agree with.

You don't know how much this means to me, Hobbes. This is the greatest achievement of my life. It just goes to show that persistence pays off in the end.
This doesn't mean we're going to be swapping spit in the shower though (Clint Eastwood in some film or another)

You've already blown it!

[Harbal]

You've already blown it!

Don't say that, Hobbes. If you knew how many times in my life I've "blown it" you wouldn't be so harsh.

[Immanuel Can]

Chum, in case it escaped you, it's not what Kant WAS, since everyone in those days was affiliated or identified by some version of Christianity.

Ah. So if what they did is something you consider "good," it was never because they were Christians. But if you consider what they did "bad," then anybody who lived in a nominally "Christian" society or said the word "God" occasionally, WAS a Christian.

Got it.

Prejudice is such a clear way of thinking, isn't it? It's so unencumbered by things like sweet reason, fairness and facts.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism mandates nothing.

Well, surely at the minimum, it must "mandate" some position on God, no?

It is not a moral position; it is an epistemological one.

Ha. It's not even remotely epistemological. It's entirely free from reason or evidence. It's pure prejudice.

But you're right: it's not ever a moral position. Just what I have been saying. It eradicates morality.

Atheism frees us to choose our morality

...but tells you it's all a delusion anyway, so there's no reason to "choose" anything in particular.

What a bankrupt, vacuous, amoral thing it is. The longer we talk about it, the more clear its emptiness becomes.