Richard Dawkins is but a speaker, just like Hitler.

[spidergoat]

Moreover, his popularity is nothing like Hitler's. It's not a cult of personality, he is well known and liked among many atheists because of his intellect. Only the most deluded religious idiot would try to pass it off as a hatefest and that's because those people are basically too stupid to understand his arguments.

 

[scifes]

hasn't it occurred to any of you that he didn't actually answer the question?

dawkins sure knows the herrings his atheists love.

 

[answers]

more like a new record for replying without reading.
meh, and we're still in page one.






your post is blatently saying "this is a stupid post from one who takes a glance at the title and is too thrilled to act smug he couldn't read the one page thread"


if you two were sitting there you would've clapped even before dawkins replied.

.

No I actually read the whole page and still thought that it was stupid... amazing how reading stupidity doesn't change your opinion that it's stupidity.

 

[answers]

hasn't it occurred to any of you that he didn't actually answer the question?

dawkins sure knows the herrings his atheists love.

Can you please outline the specific points that Dawkins had to cover in order to answer the question in the way you would require him to.

 

[Pinwheel]

Can you please outline the specific points that Dawkins had to cover in order to answer the question in the way you would require him to.

Dawkins: "My..you're right! Atheists cannot have any Morality! Fuck me, does anyone have a copy of my book I need to burn it right now!"

I think thats the answer (s)he was hoping for.

 

[Spud Emperor]

hasn't it occurred to any of you that he didn't actually answer the question?

That he didn't reject the "question" (assumption that atheists have no morality) out of hand is testament to the fact that he has high moral code and he did answer the question (assumption) by exploring it, expanding it, giving examples and he subtly (not subtly at all really) threw the question back at the poser of the question to question his own "absolute morality".

I've had the very question posed to me on may occasions. It's completely galling to me to suggest that because I don't have someone elses moral doctrine to follow that I don't have a very healthy sense of spirituality and morality (which I've made based on my own experience).

Do stop to consider next time you want to suggest that an atheist has no moral or ethical or spiritual compass that you are about to make a massive assumption and that it might just be a very rude assumption.

Now before you think about responding to this. Don't bother. I'm not assuming you're a dickhead, you've proved it quite emphatically.

Go on, bugger off.

 

[krazedkat]

um, i meant dawkins:facepalm:

I was wondering why bring good ol' steve into this :shrug:

 

[Sock puppet path]

He points out that religious absolute morality is anything but. Is it that exposure to the truth that eats at your addled little mind?

"nothing"?:bugeye:

i say: GO FOR IT:yay:
don't just issue fatwas..carry them out

with freedom of speech there should be freedom of stabbing..i mean honestly, why isn't stabbing on the list of freedoms?...ohhh because you just know we'll best you at it huh?

You're a walking example of what he was talking about.

 

[SnakeLord]

there isn't that much essence to his arguments, other than his charisma and how he maintains his composure when he debates. which is why atheists like him so much.

here. check this out, and look at the fools clapping their hands off

The first thing worth noting here is that the very manner with which you have made this post, and indeed the thread title itself, shows that this is not an intellectual issue for you but an emotional one.

It is clear that you perceive atheists, (and Dawkins as a public atheist figure), as a threat to your entire worldview. This unfortunate reality is further evidenced by the fact that you didn't offer any explanation for your concerns, you simply made the blanket statement and hoped you'd either A) annoy people or B) get some much needed emotional support from fellow theists.

I suggest that you go away and take a breather. Collect your thoughts, regain your rationality and then, once that has been done sufficiently, we sit down and examine your statement. You can help with this of course. If you could perhaps explain precisely what in the linked video you thought was fallacious or was of "no essence", (whatever that might mean here). If you could point out how Dawkins is "just like Hitler" using whatever evidence is at your disposal and that atheists like him because he "maintains his composure" - something you have clearly yet to master.

If this is a consistent problem, I've heard yoga helps. Good luck with it.

 

[wynn]

As if human existence would consist of "rationality" only ...

 

[synthesizer-patel]

if you two were sitting there you would've clapped even before dawkins replied.

Nah! It's hardly a work of genius to suggest that moral issues should be discussed and debated instead of based on Bronze age superstitions now is it?

More of a "well duuuurrrrr!" moment really

 

[scifes]

i never said athists can't be moral, and i've been around here long enough to know that.
that wasn't my claim, lol, nor was it implied in the question to dawkins, but a strawman to beat here.
how the real argument excaped you all[among the idiots in the video], is beyond me.
but the emotional responses i'm getting here sheds some light on that.

"are religious moral?" isn't the question either.
"is religious morality perfect?" wasn't the querstion either.
"is religious morality the best out there? is it better than athiests' moral code?" wasn't as well.

however, those are the matters discussed hotly here and in the video. to iterate this simply[and you should've noticed this yourself];

the smart well prepared asker asks his well phrased and well thought question, which simply says that;
-athiests' morality is not absolute and hence is a leap of faith.

-dawkins was taken off guard, ponders the question, remembers the horse that died yesterday, and goes on beating it.. pointing out how theists morality is flawed, the audience of seals enjoys the red herring, and claps.
many atheists at a certain online forum hotly agree.

and atheist morality being a leap of faith? where did that go? the essence of the question?*
see what i'm talking about here?


now if i were you i'd be very ashamed of myself, cuz i caught myself in such happenings as well, like string -whose post is by far the best here- pointed out.

*notice that isn't the matter under focus here, rather how dawkins avoided it, while his atheists were looking the other way. although i'm ready to discuss it with whoever wants to.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

..........the smart well prepared asker asks his well phrased and well thought question, which simply says that;
-athiests' morality is not absolute and hence is a leap of faith.
.

Non-sequitur

It does not follow that morality is a leap of faith if it is not an absolute.

Furthermore your point is in complete opposition to what dawkins said. His point is that morality should NOT be a leap of faith based on the 4000 year old dribblings of some middle eastern goat header, but instead should be discussed and debated to a rational consensus - quite the opposite of a leap of faith.

 

[spidergoat]

-athiests' morality is not absolute and hence is a leap of faith.

Yes, this is the question. I think Dawkins was trying to point out that faith is no guide to morality, since it leads one to such strange decisions as killing people for not believing in a certain thing. Rationality is the only truly ethical guide to deciding what actions are more moral. It is only subject to the facts of the situation and an understanding of the feelings and outcomes of the sentient beings involved. Death is nothing to a theist, since it isn't really death, it's just a phase. Death to an atheist is terrifyingly final.

Dawkins often tries to "re-frame" the argument, which I think is what scifes objects to. It's only because the premises of theist arguments are often misguided to such an extent, the arguments against them must address their delusions, not indulge them.

 

[Sock puppet path]

i never said athists can't be moral, and i've been around here long enough to know that.
that wasn't my claim, lol, nor was it implied in the question to dawkins, but a strawman to beat here.
how the real argument excaped you all[among the idiots in the video], is beyond me.
but the emotional responses i'm getting here sheds some light on that.

"are religious moral?" isn't the question either.
"is religious morality perfect?" wasn't the querstion either.
"is religious morality the best out there? is it better than athiests' moral code?" wasn't as well.

however, those are the matters discussed hotly here and in the video. to iterate this simply[and you should've noticed this yourself];

the smart well prepared asker asks his well phrased and well thought question, which simply says that;
-athiests' morality is not absolute and hence is a leap of faith.

-dawkins was taken off guard, ponders the question, remembers the horse that died yesterday, and goes on beating it.. pointing out how theists morality is flawed, the audience of seals enjoys the red herring, and claps.
many atheists at a certain online forum hotly agree.

and atheist morality being a leap of faith? where did that go? the essence of the question?*
see what i'm talking about here?


now if i were you i'd be very ashamed of myself, cuz i caught myself in such happenings as well, like string -whose post is by far the best here- pointed out.

*notice that isn't the matter under focus here, rather how dawkins avoided it, while his atheists were looking the other way. although i'm ready to discuss it with whoever wants to.

So you just dodge the issue and throw red herrings? Now I understand your user tag.
Is your standpoint in accordance with islam which calls on you to murder dissenters absolute morality??
Edit: it just boggles my mind that you even consider yourself moral when I as an atheist could never even contemplate murder.

 

[spidergoat]

How does one come to the conclusion that the morality as outlined in Islam or any other religion is superior than that arrived at independently? If the Muslims on Sciforums are any indication, they tend to appeal to reason. So, aren't they doing the same thing that atheists do? Why is it OK to appeal to reason so that you believe the Quran or Bible and follow it's morality, but it's not OK to appeal to reason about a particular case of morality?

 

[scifes]

o~k..
it seemed the asker didn't make his point, or it's somehow a question only theists can catch on the fly.

the asker was referring to atheist morals having no real incentive but a personal subjective one, and so simply, they are arbitrary and up to the individual, if he chooses to be moral, he becomes so just for the heck of it, he also defines his moral code to his leisure and however he wants, BUT, he has no logical reason or compulsion that requires him to be moral. at the very least, such compulsion varies from individual to individual, and so, atheist morality is not absolute, but a choice, a flavor one decides to add to his life.

if you sat in a debate ring with a serial killer, dear atheist, you wouldn't be able to prove to the audience that what he does is morally wrong.
and i volunteer for such an events' simulation here if anyone thinks he's up to it.

religious morality, on the other hand, introduces god, who is inescapable, and whose rewards and punishments are irresistible, with those two values fixed to infinity, you have sealed your moral code, and you'd have any logical person unable to say he can logically ignore your moral code or not go by it.

human law is escapable for some, and resistible for others, where would those get their morals from, if they didn't care for society hating them, or wouldn't even be detected by society to begin with?

when an atheist spouts the words "good" or "evil" he is making a leap of faith that such things actually exist, and that others should be bound by or even just recognize them.

universal "good" or "evil" is to atheists like pixies or santa clause or invisible unicorns or like.... god
they can have their own personal "good"s and "evil"s, they can even agree for the most part on their definitions of them, but they can't really prove anything about their "good" or "evil".
ironically similar to how atheists regard theists' god.

sigh, now, while this wasn't really my point, i hope it makes THE point of this thread clear now, the asker wanted dawkins to comment on something like the above, instead dawkins went on telling us how brutal and immoral theist morals are.
... he ignored the question..
... answered one of his own[one he could answer actually]...
... and the audience gobbled down the red herring and clapped...
it goes to say that dawkins has many dumb followers around, some proudly proclaimed themselves in this thread, but as string concluded in the first reply ever, what else is new?

 

[SnakeLord]

if you sat in a debate ring with a serial killer, dear atheist, you wouldn't be able to prove to the audience that what he does is morally wrong

Of course not, you couldn't even 'prove' you don't live in the matrix. Outside of mathematics, 'proof' is beyond scope.

What we can do is debate and discuss with the audience over the existence of detrimental and benefical actions, (in a social species setting), and which would be preferable to that social species. We don't need to invoke magic in order to do so.

What we do find however is that conclusions do indeed differ from culture to culture, person to person and era to era. The idea is to come to a workable agreement.

Theists have a problem with this because to them it isn't about discussion and agreement but unquestionable biblical mandate - hence why history has shown religion holding us back as far as moral improvement has been concerned.

religious morality, on the other hand, introduces god, who is inescapable, and whose rewards and punishments are irresistible, with those two values fixed to infinity, you have sealed your moral code, and you'd have any logical person unable to say he can logically ignore your moral code or not go by it

A theistic version of morality causes too many problems.

Firstly we must examine Euthyphro dilemma:

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

If what is morally good is morally good because it is commanded by god then it is purely arbitrary. You'll hopefully see the problem if you pick the other option.

Furthermore, if we accept this objective morality we find ourselves in a further dilemma:

One day you are walking up a hill where you come across and old man attempting to slaughter a young boy with a knife. You know that such action is immoral and so you stop him. It turns out however that this man is Abraham and god has ordered him to attempt to slaughter his own child. Unlike you, Abraham knows that his action is entirely moral. Who is correct?

You can only say he is because any command given by god must be moral simply by the fact that he said it - even if you know the action is in fact immoral.

If god told you to rape your mother, raping your mother must be absolutely moral given the fact that he's told you to do it. If you make the false statement that he can't because it's immoral, then you fall victim once more of Euthyphro. If god's commands are moral simply because he says them, then morality is completely arbitrary.

The theist has nowhere to go.

 

[phlogistician]

the asker was referring to atheist morals having no real incentive but a personal subjective one, and so simply, they are arbitrary and up to the individual,

Up to the individual? As opposed to be up to some other who wrote down commandments you mean? So you either decide for yourself, as an individual, or let a 3rd party do it for you. Why is letting somebody else decide preferable?

It's incorrect to think that morals are an individual choice anyway. Morals depend of societies, so are not about individuals at all. It's about what a society will tolerate.

You also have to understand that supposed dictated from God, aren't anything to do with God, or morals. They were created by people, to control other people. Do you think God is going to send people to Hell, for eating shellfish or bacon? But here's your problem, if you don't accept that you should not eat these things, YOU are deciding what moral codes to accept or reject. Your morality becomes a personal choice, and you just got PWNED.

 

[phlogistician]

if you sat in a debate ring with a serial killer, dear atheist, you wouldn't be able to prove to the audience that what he does is morally wrong.[/I]

But a theist could?