A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by chaz wyman » Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Aetixintro wrote: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! :D

Where is your challenge?



[Edit:] This discussion is also going on here, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thre ... 38784.html with greater speed and progress (more posting!). :)

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:17 pm

chaz wyman wrote: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.
chaz wyman wrote:Wrong. Not even Dawkins accepts Social Darwinism.
chaz wyman wrote:Where is your challenge?
I'll see if I answer these a little later... :wink:

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by chaz wyman » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:43 am

Aetixintro wrote:
chaz wyman wrote: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.
chaz wyman wrote:Wrong. Not even Dawkins accepts Social Darwinism.
chaz wyman wrote:Where is your challenge?
I'll see if I answer these a little later... :wink:

Take your time - I wont hold my breath.

Godfree
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:01 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Godfree » Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:22 am

The reason Atheists havn't taken over the world ,is because they are each individuals and don't queue up to be told what to do by any leader.You can't speak for all Atheists . We don't have a bible or single book of rules to follow . There are many flaws in your arguement , one is in order to be an Atheist , you usually get there by having a desire to keep it real .Morals are a philosophical point of view .Atheists are perfectly capable of accepting any particular point of view . We are not controlled by some book of ignorance we are free to philosophize and reject or accept any view we choose .Some Atheists are very moralistic , others are just very free and open to ideas that christian society would reject .I'm a nudist , does that make me immoral???Most Atheists aren't nudists,so you can't judge Atheism by my actions.But I'm an Atheist.
I would ask you ,is it sane to believe in things that aren't real???
I would say no ,it is not sane to believe in god or heaven or life after death . These are irrational beliefs , that is there is no unbroken line between you and the idea , it takes a leap of faith . Unlike Atheism that insists on proof, keeping it real is one point of view Atheists tend to agree on.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:22 pm

Both of you, chaz wyman and Godfree!

Checked!

BTW, Godfree, you can read this first, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thre ... 38784.html, I don't want to repeat myself...

Godfree
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:01 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Godfree » Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:53 am

Aetixintro, Terje , I did read your post to start with . Which is why I tried to explain to you that you can't speak for all Atheists , we are individuals .You obviously didn't get the message .If you want to attack logic , rational thinking sane observations , go right ahead , but don't assume all Atheists hold the same beliefs , morals , or values .You seem to be trying to take the higher moral ground , when religion stole most of it's morals to start with . Just because religion claims to have any one moral doesn't give it ownership or patent on that moral , morals are as old as philosophy religion or any other school of thought.An Atheist could be more moralistic than some christians . If we look at history , the christians were happy to use all sorts of immoral behaviour as long as it achieved their aim .The Crusades , colonization , these are not very moral moments , quite the opposite , some of the most ruthless insane killing orgies the planet has known. And you as a christian I presume think you are morally superior???

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:58 am

Just to make a quick answer, without acknowledging it and without having the alleged positivity and love of human kind, there's one devious black strand of Atheism that goes the absolutely wrong way and it is basically and only this that I want to address! As opposed to logical, rational thinking, sane observation-making religious people, this kind of atheists don't care and have no implicit commitment toward human kind and this is the problem. Atheism lacks an inherent obligation toward human kind as opposed to the much better and normative Humanism!

To make this short (and cut the hassle):
You say you want logical, rational thinking, sane observation-making religious people to which I (deeply) agree!
AND
I say I want Humanists to which you (probably?) (deeply) agree!

Thus, this is really done before it starts! Clear? Cheers! :)

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by chaz wyman » Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:25 pm

Aetixintro wrote:Just to make a quick answer, without acknowledging it and without having the alleged positivity and love of human kind, there's one devious black strand of Atheism that goes the absolutely wrong way and it is basically and only this that I want to address! As opposed to logical, rational thinking, sane observation-making religious people, this kind of atheists don't care and have no implicit commitment toward human kind and this is the problem. Atheism lacks an inherent obligation toward human kind as opposed to the much better and normative Humanism!

This sort of behaviour is not 'atheistic', you can find many religious people that are like this too.
You may well be tilting at windmills.




To make this short (and cut the hassle):
You say you want logical, rational thinking, sane observation-making religious people to which I (deeply) agree!
AND
I say I want Humanists to which you (probably?) (deeply) agree!

Thus, this is really done before it starts! Clear? Cheers! :)

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by chaz wyman » Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:38 pm

Aetixintro wrote:Both of you, chaz wyman and Godfree!

Checked!

BTW, Godfree, you can read this first, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thre ... 38784.html, I don't want to repeat myself...
Let's take a look...

It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real.

Problem number One. Depending on what you mean by 'real' I disagree. I can't really imagine what you are talking about unless it is that old chestnut that people are incapable of good deeds unless they are threatened by hell and damnation. I have only to ask you why is it that you don't condone stoning adulterous women as it does in the bible?



Atheists are undeniably going to write those sizes off as psychological compulsions!

No they are also learned responses and living strategies, as well. No less important for that! The godly certainly don't have the monopoly of morality and some of them have a sort of morality that is totally repugnant. 9/11 was perpetrated by godly moralists.

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!

You are misrepresenting Dawkins and other atheists here. Please cite! Dawkins is a very moral man.

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!

This is not really making any sense: " atheists are insincere about their message of Atheism"? What are you talking about?


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!


Why should the whole world go to hell? Do you see Dawkins running amok because he thinks there is no god? What about the Swedish who are 70% atheist - it is possibly the most civilised country on earth.


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!

I'm really having trouble picking out what you are trying to convey here. Atheism is not a moral system. It is a reaction to a repugnant religious system. Individual atheists can replace and recommend any and all moral codes regardless of what it says in the bible - after all Christians have been ignoring what it says in the bible for 2000 years!!



[Edit:] "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!"

The analogy is false. Truth is not a series of units to be collected.

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?

Dah!!! Not much.

You need to be more clear why you believe the things you do.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:10 pm

A small thing:
chaz wyman wrote:The analogy is false. Truth is not a series of units to be collected.
It may be! Just as much as you might discover (if not the GMO) a green raven on this planet or another, in the past or in the future! It may be just as useful to collect data-series as discovering laws of nature. Besides, a single law of nature may also be considered a Truth and thus a part of data-series of natural laws! Yes? :)

(I may come back to this. There are limitations to how much I bother to engage over religious issues!)

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Wootah » Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:04 pm

Aetixintro wrote:I have for a time been sympathic to the Atheist claim of believing in something close to science, but here's the limit!
In my view atheists take the Christian religion too literally. It's classic throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
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!
Currently I agree there is no concept of morality in atheism and do find this a draw back.
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!
Why would atheists go wild? If there is no Gd and no morality then we will all go wild. If there is a God then they have morality and are just denying God.
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!"
No comment atm. I never like religions being grouped.
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?
If there is a God then atheists have morality. If there isn't a God then we have no morality. So why worry :)
[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!
I don't know scientology well enough to know how you form the view your religion promotes or has morality (not intended as sarcasm).
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.
There is some very interesting history for you to learn if you did. Which Christian teaching motivated their beliefs? (Digress only if you want to, I can let it pass.)
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?

Alright, I'm looking forward to answers! I believe the Religious believers and I will win this! Cheers! :D

[Edit:] This discussion is also going on here, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thre ... 38784.html with greater speed and progress (more posting!). :)
Let's see how things go!

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:01 pm

Thanks, Wootah, it's a fine series of answers! :)

However,
Aetixintro wrote:...that Hitler and Stalin have not been primarily motivated by Christian beliefs!
I don't get your following sentence in the context of this. It says:
Wootah wrote:Which Christian teaching motivated their beliefs?
Let's speculate that Hitler has been most interested in Eugenics and a kind of Darwinism (and possibly Utopia, by the deluded Nazi mind, in the far end) and that Stalin has been most interested in Power and Control, being a control-freak. Excuse me if I pathologise these two people, but they are responsible for killing a large number, thus I draw the conclusion they must have been marked by insanity to a significant extent! Ahhh... I speculate... :)

[Edit, 14.02.2011:] I've added "...by the deluded Nazi mind...". I'm not particularly willing to delve on the speculation of Utopia can arise after the holocaust of people X, fx. Nazi persecution of the Jews, just in case they could have been successful in exterminating them. This is mainly because I don't think one can justify the "abjection" or that one can live with such a relatively high moral cost, i.e., the moral cost cascades through time in such a fashion that utopia can never arise, even though this is (repulsively) debateable! [End of edit.]
Last edited by Aetixintro on Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by John » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:34 pm

Wootah wrote:If there is a God then atheists have morality. If there isn't a God then we have no morality. So why worry :)
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you support the divine command view of morality?

I.e, what God does is good rather than God does what is good?

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:07 pm

Let me add, please:
Wootah wrote:If there is a God then atheists have morality. If there isn't a God then we have no morality. So why worry
There is, of course, no guarantee that Atheists thereby follow or exercise any morality! Christians and other people are alert to the morality aspect of life in this regard, hence Christians! :)

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12312
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:34 pm

Aetixintro wrote:...Let's speculate that Hitler has been most interested in Eugenics and a kind of Darwinism (and possibly Utopia in the far end) and that Stalin has been most interested in Power and Control, being a control-freak. Excuse me if I pathologise these two people, but they are responsible for killing a large number, thus I draw the conclusion they must have been marked by insanity to a significant extent! Ahhh... I speculate... :)
Whats happened to Historical Materialism? Why not speculate that both were the products of their times and were just the emobidiment of what was wanted by their repective peoples? That is, whilst it takes a 'special' person to take the political moment, the moment is a product of all and whilst in hindsight it was that one that made it, in retrospect there would have been someone who would have done the job, i.e. not a 'great man' view of history but not ignoring the greatness of those who grab the mantle when the time occurs. Hence, not insane but a reflection of the times. That is, the sanest of the insane. Or some such.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests