A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[surreptitious57]

Instead Mr Can is fighting an imaginary beast he has called Atheism. Apparently he has persuaded you that atheism is a proper noun: it is not. It has consistently been pointed out that there are a number of differences between atheism as professed by actual people and the hallucinatory Atheism Mr Can is raving against. The main one being that Mr Cans Atheism is an insistence that no god exists and Atheists are required to prove it. Because there is no proof that god does not exist Mr Can maintains that Atheists are irrational. Well yes if there were such a thing as an Atheist they would be. How ever no sane atheist would claim to have proof that god does not exist and not many would even go so far as to say they believe that god does not exist. As has been pointed out repeatedly atheism is not a belief in the lack of a god it is the lack of belief in a god

Mr Can please read this and more importantly try to understand it as well as it demonstrates the weakness of your position

[Londoner]

Who worries about whether their values are transcendental .. whatever that may be? We absorb moral values through childrearing and the wider culture.

If you know that, if you know that what you took to be moral values are merely passively absorbed, while would you assert them as true?

It would be saying 'I believe in things that I know I have no reason to believe in'.

What's more, in the case of moral assertions it is saying 'I believe in things that I know I have no reason to believe in - and you should believe in them too'.

And if we are going to say that our beliefs are merely absorbed, then we ought to be consistent. You have to apply it to all your ideas. For example, your idea is that we absorb moral values through childrearing and the wider culture. But you can't claim to know that either, since that belief was also just absorbed.

So if this represents atheism, then atheism isn't just a disbelief in God, it is a disbelief that we can know anything.

[Immanuel Can]

Regardless of someone being Atheist or Theist, yes, people must be good or deal with the consequence of man's justice <-- there is your reason why - consequence, whether it be man's or God's justice is irrelevant to some degree.

Not so. For how shall we know what "justice" truly is, when so many different conceptions of it exist? Is it the Western democratic "reform" prison, the Aboriginal "restoration circle," the Soviet gulag or the Middle Eastern sword to the back of the neck? For the same offence, human beings will prescribe all three: and in some cases, for offences we would consider not to be offended at all.

If there is no objectivity to "justice," then there is no justice. If there is no higher standard than the human standard, then there is no means by which you can rightly appeal against the raw, unjust power of the whip, the noose and the guillotine.

[Immanuel Can]

Mr Can please read this and more importantly try to understand it as well as it demonstrates the weakness of your position

I'm out of communication with said person, due to his penchant for insulting God and thus harming himself immeasurably. However, if you have a particular objection you'd like to state yourself, I'm happy to hear it from you.

Fire away.

[Londoner]

....How ever no sane atheist would claim to have proof that god does not exist and not many would even go so far as to say they believe that god does not exist. As has been pointed out repeatedly atheism is not a belief in the lack of a god it is the lack of belief in a god

So they wouldn't claim to have any reason for that belief or disbelief? It is just a random fact about their mental state, a state they do not claim to be able to control?

[thedoc]

Instead, Mr Can is fighting an imaginary beast he has called Atheism. Apparently he has persuaded you that atheism is a proper noun; it isn't. It has consistently been pointed out that there are a number of differences between atheism as professed by actual people, and the hallucinatory Atheism Mr Can is raving against. The main one being that Mr Can's Atheism is an insistence that no god exists and Atheists are required to prove it. Because there is no proof that god does not exist, Mr Can maintains that Atheists are irrational. Well yes, if there were such a thing as an Atheist, they would be. However, no sane atheist would claim to have proof that god does not exist, and not many would even go so far as to say they believe that god does not exist. As has been pointed out repeatedly, atheism is not a belief in the lack of a god, it is the lack of belief in a god.

FYI, I have watched this program,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ncHpFaP9c

they have a weekly broadcast that is videoed and posted on youtube. I accept whatever they claim is the atheists position, since I am not one, but I listen to what they say.

[thedoc]

What would that be, since science or maths cannot create transcendental values? Where have they 'moved on' to?

It is my understanding that Atheists base their morality on potential harm to others, which is similar to, if not the same as, the Christian basis of morality.

[surreptitious57]

Mr Can please read this and more importantly try to understand it as well as it demonstrates the weakness of your position

I am out of communication with said person due to his penchant for insulting God and thus harming himself immeasurably
However if you have a particular objection you would like to state yourself I am happy to hear it from you

One should always be careful about taking offence on behalf of others in case they are less offended than you are or possibly not at all
I think that an omnipotent God would not let insults bother him. And I think that an omnibenevolent one would forgive his blasphemers

You claim that interpretations of justice vary making objective justice impossible to determine. But the same can be said with regard to
religious interpretations of justice. But it has to exist in one form or other as the alternative is no justice at all and this leads to anarchy

You tried to equate atheism with Communism but that is a false equivalence because atheism is not an ideology
I favour a secular society over an atheist one any way since it is more free. Rather like the one in which you live

You claim that atheism is an obstinate gratuitous opposition to theism. But it is just an alternative to
it and no more. Only human beings have those characteristics. Ideas are emotionally neutral concepts

You claim that atheists do not like the idea of God. However it does not bother me whether
or not he exists. As I am an apatheist and so my position is one of neutrality or indifference

[Immanuel Can]

I think that an omnipotent God would not let insults bother him. And I think that an omnibenevolent one would forgive his blasphemers

Well, then what do you make of this:

(Jesus said:) "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm going to stand with his word on the subject, rather than with anyone's wish to the contrary.

You claim that interpretations of justice vary making objective justice impossible to determine. But the same can be said with regard to religious interpretations of justice. But it has to exist in one form or other as the alternative is no justice at all and this leads to anarchy.

I don't hear anything here with which I would disagree. I think we both realize that there is no substitute for *real* justice, whatever that concept might be. The difficulty only comes when one asks, "But which conception is right?"

Fortunately for us, the situation is not nearly so difficult as is sometimes imagined. God has spoken concerning that.

You tried to equate atheism with Communism but that is a false equivalence because atheism is not an ideology

This is an example of a half-truth. In point of fact, there are two ways Atheists talk, both modelled earlier in this strand. And they represent two distinct ways of promoting Atheism. They are as follows:

Type 1 -- "Thin" Atheism. This is the kind of which you speak. Its proponents all insist that Atheism is not an ideology, because all it stands for is skepticism about God(s). But this begs an important question: is "thin" Atheism based on facts and evidence, or on nothing at all? If it's the latter, then Atheism is truly "thin," meaning it cannot be criticized for not having the evidence or facts that it does not claim to have. However, it is also trivial in the extreme, being by their own account, merely an expression of the taste preference of people who confess their actual ignorance on the subject. How then can it be an intellectual option?

But if Atheism is in any way a rational belief, then it is not "thin": it must have some evidentiary basis. This would then make it Type 2, "Thick Atheism." This type claims to be founded on reasons and evidences, at the very least, and sometimes even to warrant epistemological positions (like Naturalism or Scientism) and even moral ones (like, say, the universal "good" of being an Atheist).

Now,"thick" Atheism proposes to make its case on facts, evidence and logic. But if it does so, then it can be expected to produce the relevant facts, evidence and logic to justify itself, no? However, "thick" Atheism has a heck of a job to do that, for by any account, the evidence is at least equivocal, if not (as I would maintain) rather heavily against Atheism. By no means is the "thick" Atheist able to make his case rational: and indeed, that was the very reason that "thin" Atheism was attractive in the first place -- that it appeared to free the Atheist from having to make any rational case. Now it seems he'll have to, or risk being rightly regarded as holding his (dis-)belief on merely trivial grounds like preference and taste.

What Atheists need to do, if they admire rationality and consistency, is to pick one of these horses and ride it. Jumping madly back and forth whenever it suits them inevitably puts them in conflict with reason, and lands them in the drink.

Thick or thin? Which is it?

I favour a secular society over an atheist one any way since it is more free. Rather like the one in which you live

I favour a secular society to, but for different reasons. Like Locke, I believe in the Theistic primacy of free conscience, and would not (to parrot Locke) "have men forced to Heaven." So that means I must grant all men and women the option to choose the creed by which they will live and die -- including Atheism.

But what warrant is their for such tolerance in Atheism? It's simply not there. The "thin" Atheists will tell you that Atheism has no content relative to such subjects, and "thick" Atheists will find they cannot rationally connect mere "disbelief in God" with any values at all. Either way, Atheism isn't any contributor to the free society: in fact, you'll find that the most-free societies are Western, Post-Christian ones...like the one you live in.

Atheist societies...there have been some: which one of them would you now hold up as a paragon of freedom, equality and civic virtue?

...Ideas are emotionally neutral concepts...

Only philosophers could ever think so. I'm going to side with Richard Weaver, the author on this one, whose famous book is titled, "Ideas Have Consequences," and with this thought, offered by one well-qualified to know:

"The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment or, as the Nazi liked to say, of 'Blood and Soil.' I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared, not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."

-Viktor Frankl, Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor

As I am an apatheist and so my position is one of neutrality or indifference

Since when does "apathy" require a defense? Surely truly "apathetic" people have no opinions on the relevant subject -- they ignore it. Yet here you are, apparently finding you're not quite as "apathetic" on the subject of God as you profess; for you wish at least to discuss your position, if not argue fairly passionately for it.

[Arising_uk]

...
You'll have to forgive me, but I'm going to stand with his word on the subject, rather than with anyone's wish to the contrary. ...

Except it's not his word is it, it's someone else's.

[Interjectivist]

Who worries about whether their values are transcendental .. whatever that may be? We absorb moral values through childrearing and the wider culture.

If you know that, if you know that what you took to be moral values are merely passively absorbed, while would you assert them as true?

It would be saying 'I believe in things that I know I have no reason to believe in'.

What's more, in the case of moral assertions it is saying 'I believe in things that I know I have no reason to believe in - and you should believe in them too'.

And if we are going to say that our beliefs are merely absorbed, then we ought to be consistent. You have to apply it to all your ideas. For example, your idea is that we absorb moral values through childrearing and the wider culture. But you can't claim to know that either, since that belief was also just absorbed.

So if this represents atheism, then atheism isn't just a disbelief in God, it is a disbelief that we can know anything.

So I take it you believe you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values? I'm sure you have acquired all manner of stories to support the credentials of their alleged transcendence. Of course you do, that's how confirmation bias works. I see you are also wed to the idea that everything in human affairs is a rational matter to be decided upon by application of the intellect. Cute.

[Arising_uk]

...

If there is no objectivity to "justice," then there is no justice. If there is no higher standard than the human standard, then there is no means by which you can rightly appeal against the raw, unjust power of the whip, the noose and the guillotine.

If there is your 'objective justice' or standard then there is no change, as such we'd still be stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals, as they are in places where they believe as you do. Since it is the human standard that is the measure then we can change things we think and feel are wrong with respect to living together under a rule of law.

So which 'objective' 'God's' morals should we choose? Your's, the Muslim's, the Hindu's, the Buddhist's, the Jew's, the Satanist's, the Pagan's, the Zoroastrian's, etc, etc.

[attofishpi]

Regardless of someone being Atheist or Theist, yes, people must be good or deal with the consequence of man's justice <-- there is your reason why - consequence, whether it be man's or God's justice is irrelevant to some degree.

Not so. For how shall we know what "justice" truly is, when so many different conceptions of it exist? Is it the Western democratic "reform" prison, the Aboriginal "restoration circle," the Soviet gulag or the Middle Eastern sword to the back of the neck? For the same offence, human beings will prescribe all three: and in some cases, for offences we would consider not to be offended at all.

Whats your point - this negates God's "justice" just as effectively.

If there is no objectivity to "justice," then there is no justice. If there is no higher standard than the human standard, then there is no means by which you can rightly appeal against the raw, unjust power of the whip, the noose and the guillotine.

Again what's your point? Are suggesting only God's justice is objective justice? You have lost the argument and are now being irrational.

[Londoner]

So I take it you believe you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values? I'm sure you have acquired all manner of stories to support the credentials of their alleged transcendence. Of course you do, that's how confirmation bias works. I see you are also wed to the idea that everything in human affairs is a rational matter to be decided upon by application of the intellect. Cute.

I think you are displaying the confirmation bias by assuming that if somebody finds some problems with atheism it can only be because they are a theist.

And no, I'm fine with the notion that not everything in human affairs can be decided through the intellect or science. Are you? OK, then if we take that view, then we can't criticise theists because their beliefs cannot be justified through intellect or science.

As to 'alleged transcendence', the same thing applies. We cannot object to theists' claims for transcendent moral values as being groundless, while making similar claims ourselves.

When you ask 'So I take it you believe you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values? my point is that to make moral judgements is to claim 'you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values'. If that's not right, what do we mean when we say 'Child abuse is wrong'? It certainly looks like a factual assertion. If you would never say such a thing, then fine, but I do not think all atheists would agree with you, so I was curious how they come to believe they are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values.

[Immanuel Can]

Whats your point - this negates God's "justice" just as effectively.

Not at all. There's no rule saying God cannot allow the free will of man to prevail for a time. In fact, that's what the Bible claims God does...He's "longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," as it says. That seems both merciful and just.

That some injustice is allowed now is simply an evidence of divine mercy and forbearance -- providing that, ultimately, He makes sure justice is served.

But you're right to think that that last condition MUST be met.

Temporary injustice is not a terminal problem for Theism; permanent injustice would be. But then, it would be a problem of a different sort for Atheism too.