Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Hates religion because it's intolerant it makes its followers intolerant of other people.

Fixed it for you.

[Whateverist]

Well, I can't think of a single point he makes that is substantive with regards to religion.

But you can pick the best. Or most easily defended. Or most plausible. Or whichever you want.

I don't pay attention to any of his points.  His books were not on the syllabus when I was in atheist school.  Oh wait, I never even went to atheist school.  Hope they don't rescind my license.  Oh that's right, there is no licensing of any kind required to disbelieve other people's silly stuff.

How could there be a spokesperson for atheism?  Is there a spokesperson for people who don't collect stamps?  Another for people who aren't a fan of Julia Roberts?  

Of course when the dominant religion keeps trying to foist its identity into the laws of the land one would expect those who object -those of other faiths or of no faith- to be drawn together in protest.  I guess that is what you are on about you twit.

[Delicate]

What about the point he makes about taking responsibility for your own actions, and not relying on a belief in a sacrifice to get you into heaven?
A fair point and a better way to live your life.

Here he's wrong because he's ignorant of WHY "belief in a sacrifice" is said to be necessary by Christianity.

Taking responsibility for one's own actions entails almost-guaranteed ethical failure, because nobody, including atheists, can take full ethical responsibility for their actions such that they either make no ethical missteps, or correct every ethical misstep appropriately.

And the proof of this is in your own life. Think of how many times you've done wrong and haven't rectified it. How you've gone easy on yourself. Allowed yourself to do things that you know, on another level, you shouldn't do.

Do you think any atheist is capable of living a life free of unrectified moral failings?

Reality says it's impossible. Thus reality says Dawkins' point is impossible.

[downbeatplumb]

What about the point he makes about taking responsibility for your own actions, and not relying on a belief in a sacrifice to get you into heaven?
A fair point and a better way to live your life.

Here he's wrong because he's ignorant of WHY "belief in a sacrifice" is said to be necessary by Christianity.

Taking responsibility for one's own actions entails almost-guaranteed ethical failure, because nobody, including atheists, can take full ethical responsibility for their actions such that they either make no ethical missteps, or correct every ethical misstep appropriately.

And the proof of this is in your own life. Think of how many times you've done wrong and haven't rectified it. How you've gone easy on yourself. Allowed yourself to do things that you know, on another level, you shouldn't do.

Do you think any atheist is capable of living a life free of unrectified moral failings?

Reality says it's impossible. Thus reality says Dawkins' point is impossible.

What are you talking about?

[Cato]

Do you think any atheist is capable of living a life free of unrectified moral failings?

Where is the requirement to do so?

[Delicate]

Do you think any atheist is capable of living a life free of unrectified moral failings?

Where is the requirement to do so?

It's in Dawkins' quote. He's working under the assumption that people have to take responsibility for their actions. Actions which, in the context of "belief in a sacrifice", clearly refer to moral actions.

Now if you reject this requirement, you reject Dawkins' point. Which I do too. Just for slightly different reasons.

[Cato]

Where is the requirement to do so?

It's in Dawkins' quote. He's working under the assumption that people have to take responsibility for their actions. Actions which, in the context of "belief in a sacrifice", clearly refer to moral actions.

Now if you reject this requirement, you reject Dawkins' point. Which I do too. Just for slightly different reasons.

Another fine demonstration of you either not getting the point or being intentionally obtuse. Dawkins suggests that people take responsibility for their actions, hardly much to argue with there. But, this doesn't stop you from swooping in with this moral edict that all moral transgressions be rectified 100%, something Dawkins never claims.

Since I'm forced to address your inanity again, you fail to provide meaning for what you mean by 'rectify'. Any normal meaning of the words can't possibly apply to the Christian moral system since the victim is left out of the exchange. There's no rectification for wrongs in Christian morality, only vicarious atonement; they're entirely different.

[Edwardo Piet]

Another strawmanning theist? What's new, Cato.

[Nontheist]

What about the point he makes about taking responsibility for your own actions, and not relying on a belief in a sacrifice to get you into heaven?
A fair point and a better way to live your life.

Here he's wrong because he's ignorant of WHY "belief in a sacrifice" is said to be necessary by Christianity.

Taking responsibility for one's own actions entails almost-guaranteed ethical failure, because nobody, including atheists, can take full ethical responsibility for their actions such that they either make no ethical missteps, or correct every ethical misstep appropriately.

And the proof of this is in your own life. Think of how many times you've done wrong and haven't rectified it. How you've gone easy on yourself. Allowed yourself to do things that you know, on another level, you shouldn't do.

Do you think any atheist is capable of living a life free of unrectified moral failings?

Reality says it's impossible. Thus reality says Dawkins' point is impossible.

Cba with you

[Esquilax]

Here he's wrong because he's ignorant of WHY "belief in a sacrifice" is said to be necessary by Christianity.

Taking responsibility for one's own actions entails almost-guaranteed ethical failure, because nobody, including atheists, can take full ethical responsibility for their actions such that they either make no ethical missteps, or correct every ethical misstep appropriately.

And the proof of this is in your own life. Think of how many times you've done wrong and haven't rectified it. How you've gone easy on yourself. Allowed yourself to do things that you know, on another level, you shouldn't do.

Do you think any atheist is capable of living a life free of unrectified moral failings?

Reality says it's impossible. Thus reality says Dawkins' point is impossible.

What we have here is an informal fallacy called the "99%= 0% fallacy." What you're essentially arguing is that, since I can't rectify my wrongdoings or live without them one hundred percent of the time, the idea that I should strive to do so, even if it ends up being imperfectly, is wrong. This is, quite clearly, absurd.

Leaving aside that Dawkins' point wasn't demanding perfection, we must also acknowledge that, in purely human terms, there's no requirement that we get it absolutely perfect, because there's no externally imposed points system by which we are to be judged. There's no metric, and no reward to strive for; there's no demand that we keep our moral books totally balanced to get into heaven, and thus no need for a magic sacrifice to cover the gap. You just do the best you can because it makes a better world, all the while acknowledging that you are human, you are fallible, and occasionally you'll slip up. When you reach the end, there won't be some cosmically imposed adjudicator sneering down at the discrepancy between the rectification you were able to provide and the immorality you caused, tutting that "it's not perfect, so I guess that whole 'making up for your own failings' thing you were going for is pointless and impossible, eh?"

It's not impossible. It's just unlikely to be pulled off flawlessly. Lots of things are like that. The entire framing of your argument is wrong.