I have for a time been sympathic to the Atheist claim of believing in something close to science, but here's the limit!
It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real. Atheists are undeniably going to write those sizes off as psychological compulsions! What can happen in light of this? When Dawkins point out that Atheists can
have just a positive attitude as the Religious believer, he fails
to give the other story that Atheists may also at the same time and of some proportion of their group, not
believe in any
Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and this can happen without
breaking any duties inherent in the Atheistic system! Thus, I can soundly say that Dawkins and the Atheists are insincere about their message of Atheism and in Dawkins case, I think he fails an ideal of being a good scientist specifically for these two reasons of Ethics/Morals and Meaning!
Let's say the whole world turns Atheistic. This should be conceivable! The whole world goes to Hell, ends in catastrophe because riots have broke out and human kind has failed to make the exodus to other planets! Human life and consciousness end just there, it's all over! The "soul" of the Atheist says "so what? We would have been f**ked anyway, it has just been a matter of time and, ta-da, that time is now
". My point is that the lack of dedication in Atheism of Ethics/Morals and Meaning may lead the human kind terribly awry! Still, the Atheists, spearheaded by Dawkins, fail to give recognition to this aspect! To the Atheists, there are no inherent
duties to anything, social Darwinism including war and famine are just as rightful as promoting the good values!
From Existence Is Pointless, Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:40 am: "I give you this picture. Imagine that you have a good deal of pebbles strewn out on the floor. All these pebbles represent truths. Atheism has this tendency to be the act of laying one's arms around most of these pebbles, but not all. Religiousness has this tendency to lay the arms around a much greater area than just the pebbles so you get a lot of empty room within those arms as well. What I'm trying to say is that Atheism is likely to cut the future too limited while Religiousness gets the future too wide and includes too much. Therefore, being religious can represent a better critical thought than Atheism! I think it's too easy to suggest Atheism represents critical thought!"
Atheism may really f**k this over while Religious people just believe in some surplus in the worst case scenario!
What do you think about this?
[Edit:] 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!
No, atheism give me the freedom of thought to commit to a moral and ethical code of my own choice.
I am free to reject the stoning of women for adultery.
I am free of God, Queen and Country.
I am free to make the choice in my life of who I want to sleep with.
I am free of worshiping a jealous and unforgiving god.
Atheism does not inform my ethics - it enables them.
Let's just remember that Hitler and Stalin have not been primarily motivated by Christian beliefs! Even though, lately, Muslim Radicalists are guilty of terrorism resulting in 4000(?) deaths in USA, you forget to mention to hundreds of thousands who have died in the wake of the war against terrorism! There are good historical reasons for showing why the non-Atheist societies are not as successful as the post-Christian ones! Besides, Religious believers come across as more predictable in human relations than Atheists.
While the end of human kind to the Atheist is just the end, the end to the Religious believer is a catastrophe! I still fail to see why Atheists necessarily are committed to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and I mean real. Clearly, there's an ontological void with the Atheist in regard to Ethics/Morals and Meaning! Even so, why don't you address my point of Atheistic Social Darwinism? I believe this is widespread with Atheism, yes? Being idealistic about Atheism isn't typical with Atheists, isn't this so?
Wrong. Not even Dawkins accepts Social Darwinism.
Alright, I'm looking forward to answers! I believe the Religious believers and I will win this! Cheers!
Where is your challenge?
[Edit:] This discussion is also going on here, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/a-challenge-to-richard-dawkins-and-the-atheists-38784.html
with greater speed and progress (more posting!).