The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Atheism: the default ethical position of humanity > Comments

Atheism: the default ethical position of humanity : Comments

By David Nicholls, published 8/7/2008

Popular rumour has it that atheists have cranial horns and sacrifice babies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
"We are all born atheists..."

What amuses me about this line is that if God(s) do not, in fact, exist, then not only are all people born athiests, they live their lives actually as athiests (albeit with the notion that they actually have religion) and then die as athiests.

It's a funny bit of logic that, and I like it :)
Posted by BN, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 8:56:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Evolution has supplied us with the ability to make ethical decisions but religions can interfere with this natural process and produce mayhem.'
What blind faith! Any thinking person can see that evolution is a myth at best and belief in it produces rotten fruit (abortion, violence, depression)
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:39:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion is a myth, evolution is a theory, subject to scientific examination. Any theory that fails the test is rejected or modified, unlike religion. As to morality, the god of the Old Testament ordered his followers to commit many atrocities, didn't he? In the enlightened West, at least, the Bible has been subject to continual reinterpretation because of our civilization's changing ethical standards.
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 10:25:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Any thinking person can see that evolution is a myth at best and belief in it produces rotten fruit (abortion, violence, depression)"

This is a strange assertion. It's hard to see how belief in evolution would produce these "rotten fruit"; and even harder to see how evolution would produce them. For anything to arise by evolution it must increase the fitness of individuals. Parents who abort their children are directly DECREASING their fitness. People who indulge in violence might thereby accumulate resources or mates and could thus increase their fitness, but they also take a major risk of being injured or killed, which would decrease their fitness, and if they end in jail they could very seriously lower their fitness through lost opoportunities to mate. I'd suspect that depressed people might mate less often, and might make less attentive parents, both of which would lower their fitness; I certainly can't see a way for depression to increase fitness.
I know a lot of atheists, and none advocates abortion, violence, or depression. Atheism isn't a creed, and doesn't have associated moral codes; we simply don't believe in the existence of gods.
Posted by Xenithrys, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 10:33:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did a unit at Deakin Uni Vic that was run by one prof from each of Deakin and Melbourne Unis. It was called "Evolution: Religion, Science and the Crisis in Modern Consciousness". The conclusion that these two lecturers came to was literally "no one has committed suicide at the end of our courses to date, but we have to conclude that there is no basis for ethics." For them, atheistic evolution = no meaning and no value and no ethics. Which is completely opposite to what they live every day. It's not people with faith in God who are unwitting atheists, but the other way around: atheists who live every day as if there is meaning and value and right and wrong and ...
Posted by Newhouse, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 10:46:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evolution is no more a myth than the theory of gravity. Moreover, plenty of Christians have no problem with the evolution. It doesn't conflict with their faith. Archbishop Hollingsworth did the foreword to Ian Plimer's book Telling Lies for God, a pro-evolution, anti-creationist work. The same book quotes John Paul II who says there is no contradiction between being a good Christian and regarding evolution as the truth. I think you'll find most Christians consider creationism in same vein as the flat earth theory.

Atheists like myself basically regard Christianity or Islam as useful in explaining the universe as witchcraft, astrology or ufology. We certainly wouldn't sacrifice babies because you'd have to ask "who to?" No point in sacrificing infants unless there's a god out there.
Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 11:18:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear, hear.
Posted by Shadyoasis, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 11:18:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, Great piece it is appropriate that this view should be aired. Sadly as one can see already the old adage is true there are none so blind as those who WILL not see (think!). Your piece was about atheism and already the Dogmas of extremism are attempting to hijack the conversation from the point.
I wonder why it is that most Atheists will respect the choices of the Religious as a personal choice yet the reverse is rarely true.

The mistake most people particularly religious people make is that humans are binary i.e. They either subscribe to their version of religious doctrine and are (morally) good or they’re heathens and therefore (morally) bad. This despite history like your piece discredits this comprehensively. I would add that People (regardless of religious persuasion) as an entity are neither but fall in distributive curve from the worst (?) at one end to the best (?) at the other. More accurately this distribution applies to every subject imaginable separately. The key point is that the correlation between one subject’s rating to the next is moot at best.

As a Secular Humanist I am also an atheist and less inclined to indulge in a seeming campaign of religion busting than Richard Dawkins appears to. Further to that I doubt that he intends to force conversion to his perspective only that rationality prevail a desirable requirement (if not mandatory) of ALL successful human contact (regardless of religious stance or acceptable philosophy).
More prosaically put every one is a combination of varying shades of good and bad.

Generalizations are grossly superficial and tend to lead towards simplistic and inaccurate judgements about individuals. Society is comprised of individuals not absolutes even groups contain a diversity of values and opinion. Even when applied to marketing it is of dubious human value.

Therefore I reject any system of thinkiing that relies on absolutes that require generalizations therefore terms like secular Humanist, Christian, Muslim, atheist are vaguely descriptive (almost ajectival) rather than absolute (definitional).
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 11:26:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this article nicely shows how atheism leads to a loss of rationality.

Atheism can be considered a functional religion (it is a system of belief), but not a supernatural religion (Belief in something greater). This is clearly evidence by the fact that the first 2 secular humanist manifestos identified it as a religion.

Atheists may donate to charities, but they donate less that the conservative religious.
http://magicstatistics.com/2006/11/17/religious-conservatives-donate-far-more-than-secular-liberals/

Atheists do not have horns (nor do many people think they do), but they do tend to devalue things like honesty, kindness, concern for others etc compared with religious conservatives.
http://magicstatistics.com/2007/10/13/atheists-less-likely-to-think-interpersonal-virtues-important/

Indeed, religious freedom, which the author seems to value, is strongly correlated with the Christian tradition, as opposed to atheistic or islamic nations.
http://magicstatistics.com/2007/07/14/most-religiously-free-countries-have-christian-backgrounds/

It seems reasoned argument is not the bullwark of Atheism. Not only has reason been thrown out the door for propaganda, so has honesty. Citing Gregory S Paul is an even more egregious example of this particular atheists lack of reason or honesty.

Gregory S Paul's article is so thoroughly pathetic that only the atheists magazines dared reprint them.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3094
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-061-r

Responses by George Gallup Jr provide a clear understanding of just how specious Paul's article really is.

But even appearing in the same journal as Paul's article, this thorough refutation shows the intellectual bankruptcy of Paul's article.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html
"Paul does not provide the reader with a meaningful opportunity to evaluate his findings, for he provides no correlation coefficients. He also fails to determine or report the significance of these correlations, so the reader is left to trust Paul’s judgment that a negative correlation between theism and indicators of societal health has been established. Statistics exist so that we are not required to trust the subjective judgment alone, particularly in regard to matters as weighty as theism, democracy, and the social good."

I think that says it all. And anyone who positively quotes Paul is so biased as to lack the proper intellectual discernment for rational discussion.
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:00:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we are all born atheists and there is in fact no God, I would question how the idea of religion ever entered our head.
The fact is that humankind has a need to seek a higher power and that is why we have all the different religions.
I don't have a problem with people who follow religions that differ from my own, or for that matter people who have no religion at all. All I ask is that you respect my right to follow my own religious views.
I do have a problem with people who are intollerant towards other people's beliefs and that group mostly includes athiests, Muslims and some born again Christians.
Posted by Steel Mann, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:25:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel Mann, I am not a human being that "seeks a higher power." I'm not religious, but don't consider myself an atheist. I believe a lot of the blame for religious bigotry lies in the fact that for some unknown reason, mankind need to pigeon-hole others into various boxes. You're gay, you're straight, you're black or you're white, you're male or female, Liberal or Labor, rich or poor.........the list is endless.

My desire is to see tolerance from all sides. Humans like myself are just 'clever' animals. We're born, we live our lives and we die. No mystery in that. I believe that just like any other animal, when you shut your eyes for the last time and the "lights" got out, that all there is. Game over! Anyone out there care to try to pigeon-hole me?
Posted by Aime, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:59:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aimee

'Anyone out there care to try to pigeon-hole me?' Confused!
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 1:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea that there can be no ethics without belief in gods is preposterous. Sam Harris "The end of faith" writes very well about this. The ideas of many philosophers and religious figures, including words attributed to Jesus by the authors of the bible, include the "golden rule": do no harm to others, or treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Harris and others also question religion-based ethics when it leads to burning witches, denying condoms to AIDS patients, or starting holy wars. It also seems from several studies that countries with low levels of religiosity have the best records for looking after their citizens and for decent compassionate behavior.
Posted by Xenithrys, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 1:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Anyone out there care to try to pigeon-hole me?' Confused!
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 1:28:17 PM

Hmmm Runner. Don't know exactly how to reply to that. I thought it was fairly self explanatory. I guess what I'm asking/saying is that mankind always seems to find a special little hole that some one will fit into. A "pigeon hole" and I suppose I was trying to preempt someone who will suggest something like....... "If you're not religious, then you must therefore be an atheist," or something of the kind.

Back to you Runner. Do you have a "pigeon-hole" for me to fit into?
Posted by Aime, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 1:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religions have their own versions of ethics.

Consider the following topics –

Abortion, capital punishment ,contraception ,euthanasia, circumcision (male and female), forced marriage, honour crimes, slavery, torture and war - and how their interpretation varies between cultures and belief systems, and even over time.

Ethics does not actually exist in religion and religion is NOT the cause of morality.

Doing good for it’s own sake is different from doing good only because of the threat of punishment or the promise of reward.

Religion depends on the illusion of forced morality based on the carrot-and-stick approach. Do/don't do, or suffer the consequences.

If murder is the most mortal of sins, then how does a religious person reconcile the idea that they are prepared kill other members of the same religion on behalf of their sectarian nation over political matters?

What ethics are at work there I wonder? Personal gain? Immediate reward?

There have been countless wars fought because of religion but I can’t name a single war that was stopped by it. If that's the case, what's the point of it?

Personal belief is fine but when it gets hijacked and organised, it becomes something else entirely. The 11th commandment should be "thy shalt keep thy religion to thyself".

If you really want to market a religion on the basis that it creates a more ethical or moral society, you may as well include the claim that it helps you lose weight as well.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 1:45:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, David.
Those readers who may wish to thoughtfully pursue some of the points made would do well to read 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris. The abandonment of nonsensical ancient superstitions is the first and essential step to establishing a fundamental naturalistic ethic which, in my view, is the way forward for the forthcoming millenium if there is any hope at all for the human race and all the many species that depend upon us, to survive and to live in happiness and peace. Religion based conflict is a far greater threat to us all than global warming can ever be.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 2:16:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My concern with this piece relates to the fact that it appeared in the "religion" section of OLO in the first place.

The term "atheism" has a formal definition which justifies its use - but it has become more of a label than a definition. By using this label, we are defining ourselves within the religious paradigm - which only gives religion more oxygen.

I guess this is understandable where many atheists feel that they must fight against dogma and superstition built up over thousands of years - instead of just treating it with the disdain it deserves. Unfortunately, we can't just ignore religions which have such a great impact on society. But for those of us who like to live by the old doctrine of "I don't care what type of fairy tales you belive in, as long as you keep it to yourself", it would be nice if we could just ignore religon instead of having to engage with it.

Let's face it, if your neighbour told you he had just witnessed a person rising from the dead (or pick your favourite alternative religious story), you just wouldn't take him seriously. And if he was in a position of power in society, he certainly wouldn't be able to rely on such a story to justify making decisions which impacted on how the rest of us live. But religion has thousands of years' worth of story telling and social pressure to nourish it, so I guess I can understand why many athiests become so vocal in their opposition.

That said, the fact remains that engaging religion people in these forums often only encourages all this "my religion is better than yours" nonsense. It becomes a case of "I will defend my system of superstitious beliefs that I call a religion by saying that you simply follow a different religion (witness the derisive reference by one poster to "the first 2 secular humanist manifestos").

When of course the reality is that athiesm is not a religion just as baldness is not a hair colour.
Posted by BC2, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 4:00:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i'm an atheist, but this article leaves me queasy. the author is just a little too pleased with himself. i agree with the rational superiority of atheism, but i'm far from convinced that this leads in practice to any ethical superiority. i don't have time to check the articles cited, or grey's citations in response. i definitely don't take the citations either way on face value.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 4:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a good thing I believe in tollerance and making allowances for the intelectual/ emotional capacities of people or else I might start wondering how some posters manage to send their crayons on the wall scribbles to a digital site.. Ahhhh That feels better.
Now to the more sensible posts.
Grey and Xenithrys The first law of serious debate is be able to back your claims with PROVEABLE facts. Merely stating it or refering to a web site isn't a argument it is merely assertion.
It can be demonstrated that more more people have died in conflict based in religion than any other single cause. Many territorial disputes are aided and abetted by ideas of religious superiority. Atheism isn't a religion in that it fails the organization, common goals, ceremonial, mythology, central entity focus tests. In fact atheism like all gereralizations is vague and inprecise. Much like me saying all religions are the same. Or even All Chritian variations are the same. They're smimply not.
Morals are defined by the individual and there extensive cross over between religious and non religious. Cultures are also a defining factor as are circustances.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 4:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great post, Grey (12.55). I can't imagine a more reliable source of comparitive atheist/Christian statistics than magicstatistics.com, a website run by a born-again Christian, which lists "British churches and Christian sites" and "Prayers of the Saints" on the page banner.

Completely unbiased and reliable. Take that, nonbelievers!
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 4:35:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David – atheism simply means believing that there is no God. Nothing more, nothing less.

So when you say things like, “atheism does not endorse acts of violence, encourage others to do so, or attempt to subvert those in disagreement, and, “atheism promotes all persons as being equal before the law”, you are making completely unwarranted and unsustainable assertions.

By what right do you set yourself up to speak for all atheists? The most you or any other atheist can say is “I, David Nicholls (or whoever else), who happens to be an atheist, believes the above things.” Or are you saying that if an atheist should endorse violence and say that some people are inferior to others that they therefore cannot call themselves an atheist? How so?

As the President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia do you see yourself as some sort of secular pope who infallibly speaks on behalf of all atheists? Surely atheists can believe whatever they want. No David, in an atheistic universe it is every man/woman for himself and your ethical pronouncements, humbly propounded on behalf of all atheists, are just hot air.
Posted by GP, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Newhouse.....

having arrived at that 'remarkable grasp of the obvious' conclusion :) (i.e..the conclusion of the lecturers)

we might well consider what the next logical step is....

1/ No basis for ethics.
2/ Nothing is essentially 'ethical'..
3/ Thus.. we can do what we like.. restrained only by the law...
4/ and we can change that too if we get enough support.

thus comes true the nihilism that Neitzche predicted....

Humanity.. game over.

Of course there were those like my namesake who took another view :)
Posted by Polycarp, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:47:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to the author, David Nicholls, for bringing the facts to the table!

Many religious have been told things about atheism that are not true, yet they uncritically believe what they are told to believe. This is their way, it seems, and we should be kind but firm in our defence of atheism.

I wonder what society would be like if we moved away from superstitions altogether, and poured more energy into reason, science, and discussions of ethical decision-making. We might have a rocky start, but so does the alcoholic who rids himself of the crutch of alcohol. We'd be better off in the long run...

Think about it, modern advances in human rights, quality of life, medicine, and food production did not come about because of religion. If anything, religion was a hinderance (as in the south who used the bible to support it's position on slavery).

Ethics also do not come from religion, it's the other way around! We can have a fully ethical society where values and laws are discussed, reasoned, and decided upon democratically. We're already part way there - we just need to recognize there is no invisible hand guiding us.

The stark and beautiful fact about atheism that believers fail to appreciate is that WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OURSELVES. It is OUR responsibility to make ethical decisions to improve the world we share - because who (but the dogmatic believer) does NOT want to live in a peaceful world?

I say, instead of being "born again", why not just grow up? I for one want to live in a society of moral adults!

SWEJ
Posted by SWEJ, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 3:15:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My kudos to David Nicholls for this article. Straightforward, clear, and unapologetic.

What I find disturbing is the need for other atheists (i.e. commentators here at OLO) to be apologetic for being atheist. The main reason religious folk are so upset with atheism today is the fact that we are speaking out more than ever before. The arguments are the same (and always will be), it's the simple public expression of why we are and what we are that is upsetting everyone.

The simple fact is that we were "accepted" as long as we kept our mouths shut and didn't make our argument in public. And for that public expression we're now ridiculed, even by our fellow atheists including the likes of P. McGuinness (now passed on).

Enough already. We will continue to speak, write and make our arguments in public; and I for one am happy with the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens for playing such are large role in this new found freedom to express ourselves.
Posted by RenegadeScience, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 7:38:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is atheism 'believing there is no God' or 'not believing there is a God'? I think there is a difference, and I fall into the latter category, of non-belief rather than belief, because despite a Christian upbringing and education with all the trimmings I just cannot believe in the existence of God/s. I think I am what the late Pamela Bone called a 'cultural Christian' - brought up in and appreciative of the traditions and ceremonies of the church but entirely without any belief in its supernatural underpinnings.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:13:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher...appreciated your honest comment.

Great post Sancho. You obviously rate an atheist source much higher than a Christian source. Good to see your true colors. Forget that magic stats linked to other sources, obviously those lying Christians have tainted any true source by just commenting on the research.

Ah examinator, perhaps you should follow your own advice. The links I provided link to research and hence, back up my comments with evidence. Your comments however, stop at mere assertion (and false assertion at that). Good to see your consistent standards.

Here is a hint. Stop reading Sam Harris and Dawkins. Go read some history instead of their purile rants. If you want to start looking at the causes of killing, I recommend RJ Rummell, who has 20 years of research into the topic.

Of course, I doubt you will bother trying to find out truth for yourself. It is much more comfortable and easy reading 14th hand rants that agree with your own bias.

And finally, for those that have read a bit of Dawkins, in Chapter 6 of 'The God Delusion' he essentially agrees with Graham Preston.
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:23:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SWEJ

you said:

"I wonder what society would be like if we moved
away from superstitions altogether, and poured
more energy into reason, science, and discussions
of ethical decision-making."

I have 3 friends I'd like to introduce you to :)

JOHN LENNON

"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE (I sense a well qualified mild disagreement with Lennon here)

For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure
in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the
façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers
that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent.
"Every belief, every considering something-true,"
Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because
there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation
of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not
only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one
actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).

JESUS OF NAZARETH....THE CHRIST.

"I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly"
"You will know the the truth, and The truth will set you free"
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:26:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, nice article but I must agree with GP and bushbred.

I think there is a difference between being an atheist and having atheist values.

Being an atheist is not believing in God or having a religion.

"Atheist Values" are not so easily defined. Just like there as many definitions of Christian Values as there are Christians, I think there as many definitions of Atheist values as there are Atheists. Sure many of the values will overlap with what you have described, but there will be differences and you can't generalise for everyone.
Posted by gusi, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 1:51:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
gusi,

Values in society developed from common ideas held about cooperation. Religion(s) can and do interfere with these values to support their own ends. Examples are, promoting a lesser role for women, obstruction to lesbian and gay rights, objection to a legal system of voluntary euthanasia, interfering with children’s minds when they are most susceptible, forever attempting to prohibit abortion etc.

My entire article is stating that without religious interference a consensus arises that is based on rational conclusions and not faith ones. The higher the religious content of any given country, the more interference there is. You are correct in stating that atheists may not have the same opinion on all matters. However, it is this consensus, which is the safeguard. Would you rather be governed by a consensus of religious thought (Pick your own religion here) or a consensus of persons not under religious influence?

An interesting point by Grey was the mention of RJ Rummell: Even though there is considerable criticism surrounding his works, a point he made very clear is that democracy is the system, which is least likely to kill its citizens. One can extrapolate form that, but that is not the point here.

Religions are not democracies nor have they been at the forefront of promoting such a system of governance. For 1700 years, with quite some time of that in near complete power, they did not suggest its introduction. It was the enlightenment, which successfully introduced the ideal of democracy. This was the moment in history where the Church and its dogma came under intense investigation.

Atheism protects democracies by keeping or attempting to keep religion and state as separate identities. Religion and atheism benefits by this.

I did not intend to become a part of this thread but thought I had better clarify the before points.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 2:31:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's more than a little wandering-off happening here.

>>David, nice article but I must agree with GP and bushbred... "Atheist Values" are not so easily defined.<<

gusi, nowhere in David's article will you see a statement on "atheist values".

GP tries to attribute some, but is unconvincing:

>>when you say things like, “atheism does not endorse acts of violence, encourage others to do so, or attempt to subvert those in disagreement, and, “atheism promotes all persons as being equal before the law”, you are making completely unwarranted and unsustainable assertions<<

The first is not an assertion, but totally consistent with the absence of all other forms of moral endorsement. It is used to contrast this absence, with the ever-present dictates, rules, proscriptions and ritual that characterise religion. You can as truthfully say that atheists are against drowning kittens, but you won't find any Atheist Commandment that says "Thou shalt not put thy pussycat in a sack".

In a similar vein, you take the assertion of equality out of its context, which is again to place it in contrast with the law's attitude towards religion.

These are not "tenets" or "beliefs, GP, but observations on the stark differences between the theist and atheist perspectives.

And Grey, your posts are as subtly deceitful as ever.

>>Forget that magic stats linked to other sources, obviously those lying Christians have tainted any true source by just commenting on the research<<

These "other sources" that magicstats relies upon for its balance?

The entire article on interpersonal virtue was written by a Bachelor of Divinity.

No possible bias there, then.

The piece on religious freedom? A professor from Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto.

Well, that's about as neutrally authoritative as you could wish for, eh?

You are still the past master of bluster, Grey. You stand as an example of Christian apologia at its devious best.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 3:04:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Pericles...my deceitfulness pales in comparison to your self serving post's.

You may want to discount the work of doctors of sociology by only mentioning the bachelor of divinity (out of his many qualifications), but really that shows just how low you are willing to stoop. Note that Dr R Bibby has also received the Order of Canada. Hardly equates to a little known born again Christian blogger whose integrity is disparaged simple because he has Christian banners on his site.

And the second academic you have the hubris to insult? A professor from the Institute of Christian Studies? For a whilst yes, but also a professor at the university of Toronto and the VU University Amsterdam. He also has 3 masters degrees and a PhD. But obviously, your vast intellect and knowledge would prefer to dismiss him.

The point remains Pericles. Rather than looking at the quality of the work, Sancho, and now yourself, seem content to simply dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your comfortable undemanding worldview. Compared with Gregory Paul's unverifiable research (did you bother to check Paul's credentials pericles or is this just one more area where you lack integrity), which seems to be peddled by supposedly 'rational' atheists, the articles linked to are a bastion of academic work.
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 6:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great post Candide. I don't know how many times I have tried to make that point on these boards but the message does not seem to have percolated through. You are right it is a very important distinction (between belief something does not exist and the absence of belief one way or the other) but far too subtle for most, it would seem. When viewed through the prism of a religious worldview, the absence of belief in a deity must constitute a belief in itself.

Atheism is no more a belief than not believing in astrology. Or as someone on this thread has already said, baldness a hair colour. I can imagine a future when the word "atheism" becomes as relevant as "suffragette" (which is irrelevant in this country at least) because the need for a word to describe someone who stands counter to the dominant paradigm will no longer exist.

And well said to you too renegade science.. after all when will all these uppity damn atheist authors stop writing such ridiculously popular tomes that are clearly striking a chord with millions across the world and generating heated dissent in print media, blogs and fora across the world?

Grey said "Here is a hint. Stop reading Sam Harris and Dawkins. Go read some history instead of their purile [sic] rants."

No. We won't actually. Maybe it's possible to read history too? But thanks anyway for the suggestion. And could you actually refer to me a sentence by Harris which you would describe as a puerile rant?
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 10 July 2008 7:57:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All my life, since I jettisoned childish belief in Jesus at the same time as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, I have been subjected to rude, nasty accusations by religious types who presume to know about my ethics and morality. At the same time, throughout my life I have witnessed the immorality of child sex abusers, theocratic dictators, mad or hate-filled religious leaders or just plain hypocrites whose ethics I certainly don't share. Their behaviour does not seem to make a single dent in believers' certitude in the moral primacy of whichever supernatural fantasy they subscribe to. At last atheists are starting to be heard, and this article is another that raises the standard of the debate and calmly puts a rational view on this issue.
It is very simple: there is no correlation between capacity to believe in the supernatural and ethics. I cannot possibly believe in something for which there is no evidence. No amount of forcing can make me think that fairytales are real. What am I do to, according to the believers - kill myself before I really hurt someone?
Posted by Liz T, Thursday, 10 July 2008 1:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My my, Grey, did I touch a chord?

>>You may want to discount the work of doctors of sociology by only mentioning the bachelor of divinity... etc.etc<<

You are the topic here, Grey, not the good doctors and their PhDs. I am certain that they are truly wonderful people, highly intellectual and immensely qualified human beings.

You would have us believe that their background is irrelevant to their output, which is bizarre. You cannot, even by sustained application of your trademark sneer, dismiss the underlying point, that they are hardly unbiased in their approach to the subjects at hand.

You broadside aimed at examinator went as follows:

>>The links I provided link to research and hence, back up my comments with evidence. Your comments however, stop at mere assertion (and false assertion at that). Good to see your consistent standards.<<

Your links were singularly self-serving, and came to us from sources that clearly have the same pro-theist bias that you yourself proudly display. That hardly qualifies you to wag your finger at examinator for his "mere assertions", still less at me for pointing out the clear taint of partiality in your choice of reference..
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 10 July 2008 2:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My post should have read:

"popular rumour has it that atheists have cranial horns and sacrifice babies, this is untrue. Their essential distinction is that atheists have no invisible means of support."

Thank you for telling me about this rumour. I will look for horns on my husband's head and sacrificial babies in his desk. Actually, I don't think about atheists much. What they choose to believe is what they choose to believe, and I hope they grant me this liberty. And my means of support are not invisable. I see them at church every week.
Posted by annina, Thursday, 10 July 2008 2:53:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those unaware that Grey is not an impartial observer and commentator on this thread, look here. http://alangrey.blogpot.com/ This site is ‘interesting’ and well worth visiting. The information leading to this location is freely available on the On Line Opinion Users page.

Here are some extracts from a page at the following URL:http://alangrey.blogpot.com/Documents/Church_Desk/Cults.htm.”

“Can a person believe in evolution and be a true born-again Christian? The answer is clearly NO.”

Whilst not intending to turn this debate into evolution V’s creationism, it is best people reading posts know the take on ‘reality’ of a poster. Maybe some do already, but my guess is that not all do.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 10 July 2008 3:00:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Great post Sancho. You obviously rate an atheist source much higher than a Christian source. Good to see your true colors."

I don't care if the source is atheist, theist or agnostic, just as long as it doesn't cherry-pick information in pursuit of an explicit ideological agenda.

And please, what are the "true colours" I'm displaying?
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 10 July 2008 3:35:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah David, thanks for pointing out the typo in the website setup against the account. my real website is http://alangrey.blogspot.com

The dodgey person who set up blogpot.com has a wildcard in the domain sending any prefix to the website, It's a lame traffic generating technique. Check http://davidnicholls.blogpot.com or any other prefix.

I find it interesting David that you claim Democracy came from the atheistic enlightenment (another dubious claim), yet use a study deriding America, a democracy, as being bad for your health. trying to have it both ways I guess David. I suspect you also discount all the 'enlightenment' thinkers who were Christian as well (and those Christian thinkers who suggested the introduction of democracy)

Your history is once again in error, as the UK had moves towards democracy as early as the 13th century.

And whilst you strive to give atheism credit for democracy, you try and avoid giving atheism credit for communism and the associated 200 million in one century death toll. (heck, you even seem to try and link atheism with the reformation....)

Is there anything Atheism can't do? It's like the miracle cure! Why...if there was only Atheism, the streets would be paved with gold, Global warming wouldn't be a problem and puppies would shower everyone with love every moment of every day.

Pericles-Not at all, just little time for your useless red herrings. You continue to miss the point.

That you can equate bald assertions with links leading to academic research truly shows how strongly you seek truth and balance. Perhaps you should reread my post. Nowhere do I claim the academics where not theists. I do credit them with more academic authority than the authors of magic statistics. Dismissing their work as biased without investigation is simply hubris.

The point still remains though, that rather than deal with evidence, yourself and others seem content to irrationally dismiss anything that disagrees with their comfortable preconceptions. You would rather accuse of bias than deal with inconvenient facts, and trying to make your case appear stronger than it by failing to fully disclose qualifications is just lame.
Posted by Grey, Thursday, 10 July 2008 5:40:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

My pleasure entirely. Such a web site helps the rational cause. I would very much appreciate if you did not place words in my mouth. “…you claim Democracy came from the atheistic enlightenment.” I did not state that, although many of the thinkers were deists and liberal Christians. As you would know, to proclaim an atheist stance in those days was not a beneficial action, as it is still not in the USA today. Deist then, the rational ones, that is, would be atheist today.

Why do you continually use obfuscation? Is your case that weak? The Magna Carta is presumably that to which you refer. This was a royal charter in 1215 where King John gave political rights to rebellious English barons. The move towards democracy did not happen in England and it was some hundreds of years later in the USA on. 4th July 1776, to be precise, that a fledgling democracy took hold.

The communism etc argument is nonsense. Most of the bad things of the 20th Century resulted from harsh rule of despots oppressing the masses and other despots took advantage. These fascist ideologies have nothing in common with freely chosen atheism in democracy, at least to those who can think.

The rosy picture you paint of atheism is not of my doing. I just say it is better than the rest as I have conclusively demonstrated. Not just with Singer – Houser and Paul, but by using the understandable logic preceding their input, with both supporting each other. Anthropological studies are hardly ever precise. They can also be manipulated to suit desperate ideologies. However, when observable facts also support them, these criticisms must be seen for what they are – rubbish.

I hope your reply contains the proof of your particular god’s existence, as that is the premise of your arguments. Without it, you have nothing. It is not good enough to push a point of view because the Bible says a god exists and you know it is true because they are a god’s words. This is an irrational circular argument.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 10 July 2008 7:03:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, great article and spot on.

The implication by some that atheism is in itself some sort of 'religion' beggars belief.

If someone tells me there are fairies living in my garden am I required to devise and construct a belief system and set of values just to be able to refute the claim? In the absence of empirical evidence, does a simple and valid "no there are not" suffice?
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 10 July 2008 7:49:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

I just love it when Theists reveal how dishonest and/or simple-minded they can be...

<<And whilst you strive to give atheism credit for democracy, you try and avoid giving atheism credit for communism and the associated 200 million in one century death toll.>>

The Communist dictators of the 20th century did not do what they did in the name of Atheism. Their evil deeds were done in a psychopathic attempt to create their perceived ideal society - they were done in the name of their twisted world-view.

Banning religion was a simply one of the many measures used by Communists to suppress the freedoms of the people, and rid their societies of the elitism attached to the church in order to achieve a supposed “equality”.

Many wars throughout recorded history have been launched in the name of religion, but I challenge you to find one that has been launched in the name of Atheism. Even if you could find one, it would paled in the face of the blood spilled in the name of religion.

For someone who prides themselves on their knowledge of history, this is a pretty big mistake to make.

<<Is there anything Atheism can't do? It's like the miracle cure!>>

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Although, as a former devout Christian, one thing I can say that Atheism is a “miracle cure” for, is the immunity to rational thought one suffers when clinging to a belief in an evidently non-existent magical being - an immunity we all witness everyday here on OLO.

<<The point still remains though, that rather than deal with evidence, yourself and others seem content to irrationally dismiss anything that disagrees with their comfortable preconceptions.>>

Wow! This is rich coming from someone whose blog makes frivolous attempts at denying science with irrefutable evidence... http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aalangrey.blogspot.com+evolution&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Tell me Grey... If you're knowledge of history is so good, then how to you explain your unshakable belief in Biblical events that evidently never happened, such as The Flood; The Exodus; The entire book of Genesis..? Or Biblical characters the evidently never existed, such as Moses, Jesus..?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 10 July 2008 10:11:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David
Apologies. Apparently you didn't want to put forth the idea that atheistic thinkers lead to democracy. I withdraw my charge, and happily accept that atheistic thinkers had little to do with the creation of democracy, which, as you previously said, is less likely to kill it's and others citizens.

As you agree, the thinkers of the time were Christians and deists. Although I hardly think you can use wishful thinking to claim that they would have been atheists if they lived today. We can never know. What we do know is that they did admit that God existed and that they used the Christian worldview as a basis for many parts of the government system. As John Adams (who essentially wrote large chunks of the American constitution said
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This hardly seems like the statement of a nominal atheist.

Regarding democracy. The idea of democracy was kept alive by Christian scholars from the fall of Rome to the first nation founded on democratic principles (strongly supported by the Christian ideals of fallen man, and equality). It also occurred sporadically throughout the time in places like Scandinavia and Switzerland, and advanced slowly in England as well.

The Judeo-Christian culture was where democracy fermented and eventually bloomed.

Finally, I don't seem to see where I used God's existence as the premise of any of my arguments. Perhaps you merely wish to sidetrack the discussion with a rhetorical trick?

I would be interested to know what sort of proof you would accept? That is...what do you think warrants belief in something?
Posted by Grey, Friday, 11 July 2008 5:40:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

Apparently, Grey’s anatomy is very selective. I did not state that atheist thinkers had little to do with democracy. I said many were deists and liberal Christians.

Please desist from this continual misrepresentation of my words. It is not my fault you a frightened of dying or wish for eternal bliss. Take it out on those responsible for your condition.

Accepting for the moment that Jefferson penned the draft copy of the American Declaration of Independence, in a letter to Adams he wrote:

“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise.”

And, a later letter by Jefferson stated: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter”

Moreover, let’s not forget the words of Reverend Bird Wilson of that time, who stated:

“…the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.”

I said: “…a fledgling democracy took hold.” I did not say it was the only attempt but it was the one setting the stage for other democracies to follow.

It was people escaping from European Judeo/Christian cultures of many flavours, which created America and democracy.

The imagined existence of a god premises your worldview, or does your website falsely represent you.

What proof would I need demonstrating the existence of a god, you ask? I suppose, as with everything else, evidence where the highest probability showed that to be an accurate interpretation. However, since it is claim beyond natural occurrence, the evidence would have to be extraordinary. Not non-existent.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 11 July 2008 6:41:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, my most sincere apologies at misunderstanding you once again. It is not my intention to misrepresent, merely to understand and respond. I'm a little confused by what you are trying to say when you said
"Religions are not democracies nor have they been at the forefront of promoting such a system of governance. For 1700 years, with quite some time of that in near complete power, they did not suggest its introduction. It was the enlightenment, which successfully introduced the ideal of democracy. This was the moment in history where the Church and its dogma came under intense investigation."
and then
"“…you claim Democracy came from the atheistic enlightenment.” I did not state that, although many of the thinkers were deists and liberal Christians. As you would know, to proclaim an atheist stance in those days was not a beneficial action, as it is still not in the USA today. Deist then, the rational ones, that is, would be atheist today."

Clearly, if the thinkers of the day were not atheists, then atheistic thought did not influence the creation of democracy and clearly religious thought did indeed suggest the introduction of democracy throughout the 1400 hundred years (not 1700) of time (as you later admitted when the cases of England, scandanavia and switzerland were raised).

Perhaps you can disavow me of my misunderstandings and highlight which atheistic thinkers had anything to do with the framing and writing of the declaration of independence and constitutions of the united states or perhaps clarify what you really meant in the first paragraph quoted above.

cont next post...
Posted by Grey, Monday, 14 July 2008 12:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...
Now as to your Jefferson quotes. I am a little concerned that you are not using the full context of the letters, which are available at the following links
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jadms.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/53/Letter_from_Thomas_Jefferson_to_John_Adams_1.html
Any reading of the full letter makes it clear that Jefferson believed in the Christian God, but considered many theologies (e.g. immaculate conception, calvinism etc) as false. As the 1923 letter has Jefferson saying "The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world;"

So perhaps you should be more careful in accurately representing quotes from Jefferson with their proper context. I would suggest not simply accepting quotes from atheistic 'cliff notes' and instead doing the research yourself would be helpful in this regard.

As for Washington, in his personal correpsondence to Brig General Thomas Nelson 1778 he wrote "The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations." or perhaps the testimony of someone a little closer to Washington, his adopted daughter,Nelly Custis-Lewis, who lived with him for 20 years who said "I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity."

P.s. I am a little confused as to your answer to my question about what makes a warranted belief. I wasn't just referring to belief in God, but belief in general, as I would assume that you had a level playing field and weighed all evidence fairly, as that would be the rational thing to do.
Posted by Grey, Monday, 14 July 2008 12:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is quite amusing, Grey, how you strive to present yourself as some kind of intellectual, complete with fancy words and long sentences, but fail at the really simple things.

Like using words correctly. And thinking straight.

>>Perhaps you can disavow me of my misunderstandings and highlight which atheistic thinkers had anything to do with the framing and writing of the declaration of independence and constitutions of the united states<<

The word you were scrabbling for, Grey, was disabuse, not disavow.

disavow v. trans. to deny responsibility for, to refuse to acknowledge or accept

disabuse v. trans To set free from mistakes; to undeceive; to disengage from fallacy or deception

The answer of course is to only use words whose meaning you understand.

But these somewhat captious carpings aside, you make the assumption that it is axiomatic that an atheist would allow their atheism to somehow manifest itself in their input to the constitution.

It is not at all necessary to assume this.

My atheism, for example, quite happily allows me to i) recognize that some people need religion to make their life decisions for them, ii) accept that religious people are entitled to their view, and to the activities that they choose in order to indulge their belief and iii) understand that when framing laws, ordinances or constitutions, it is perfectly consistent with that atheism, to accommodate the particular requirements of religious people.

I see no harm, for example, in the fact that some folk choose in court to swear an oath on their chosen Book. Further, I see absolutely no necessity to deny them this right.

That's the fundamental difference between the religious and the atheist. The fact that we don't believe in a supreme being does not in any way require us to insist that the trappings of religion should disappear overnight.

Most of us understand that it will take a few more generations of enlightenment (no capital 'E') for folk to realize they are staring into an empty space, and to wean themselves off their dependency.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 14 July 2008 1:40:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

The arguments surrounding the ‘founding fathers’ and their supernatural beliefs are not as simple as your seem to think. To quote and counter quote can be endless. However, it is reasonably sure that Jefferson was a deist as were others and that is the reason for Reverend Bird Wilson saying so.

That which muddies the waters is the various brands of Christianity then (And now) all claiming to be the true Christians, as do you. This self-pronunciation makes all others non-True Christian and your website contains an extensive list of those folk.

Claiming atheism as a worldview did not help careers back then, as it does not in some places now.

Even Thomas Paine, who penned, ‘The Age of Reason’ was opposed to atheism. However, because he was deist, a common accusation was that he was an atheist. Most people rejecting Christianity then were deists. Remember also, this was a time in history before the discovery of Natural Selection.

Deism is one of the antecedents of the atheism many of us enjoy today. The proof of this is that deism has lost popularity. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that many deists of yesteryear would be atheists today.

Deism hides behind the fact that the universe must have a supernatural first cause. Because of religious influences down through history, they reject Christianity, as it is unproven, but retain the spooky part. Atheists reject the spooky part.

David
Posted by David Nicholls, Monday, 14 July 2008 2:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, sorry for the delay...work has a way of taking up a lot of time.

I find it unusual that you say that the beliefs of the 'founding fathers' are not simple, but then affirm with surety that Jefferson was a deist. To be honest, I have no idea who the Reverend Bird Wilson was and whether his pronouncements are trustworthy. For all I know he could have been that days equivalent of Pat Robertson. What we do have are the letters and writings of Jefferson, which are much better guides to his thoughts.

One thing that is important to remember is that a persons beliefs are not constant all of their lives. So a later writing may be a shift in ideas of the person from the former and should not necessarily be read back into the entire life of the writer. Other than that, it is pretty straight forward when you interpret writings, where straight forward statements are used to restrict the possible explanations for less clear statements.

That you quoted Jefferson out of the context of the full letter is an example of bad interpretation of his writing. Jefferson's earlier writings (and indeed his funding and efforts of evangelism) clearly show his non-deistic beliefs. I think you also seem to have a very simplistic notion of Christian theology. (I'd also appreciate you not misrepresent my statements. I have nowhere on my website where I extensively list non-True Christian variants)

Arguing that the founding fathers, the men who were willing to die for their beliefs, were somehow cowed into not being atheists seems somewhat self-serving. Even so for other 'enlightenment' thinkers whose essential goal was to put forward controversial beliefs to make a name for themselves (Hume comes to mind) Your 'proof' is a somewhat soft and simplistic view of the history of belief. Note also that noted atheist moved from his Atheistic belief to Deism.

It is also somewhat strange that you try to place the discovery of natural selection after this period (as writings clearly show it to at least have been around from 1794)
Posted by Grey, Friday, 18 July 2008 12:45:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey

I said: “This self-pronunciation makes all others non-True Christian and your website contains an extensive list of those folk.”

Your response was: “I have nowhere on my website where I extensively list non-True Christian variants)”

You class them as occult.

http://alangrey.blogpot.com/Documents/Church_Desk/Cults.htm
Or here:

http://alangrey.blogpot.com/Documents/Church_Desk/Cults.htm#2

Is this list of your making?

Do you class cultist groups as true-Christians?

Very busy because of a cartoon we have placed in various newspapers. Maybe you should look it up!

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 18 July 2008 1:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
As I said very clearly before, alangrey.blogpot.com is not my website. It has nothing to do with me. Strange, I would have thought you would have been more tech savvy than that....

Already saw your cartoon. It shows your objectivity nicely and is sure to bring along like minded "rational" people.
Posted by Grey, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:28:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

Your attitudes to global warming, abortion, evolution etc predisposed me to accept the site was yours as it has your ‘signature’. I would suggest you contact the host and complain if it has been hijacked.

Walks and quacks like a duck is a duck until proven not to be a duck.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:41:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey's correct, if disingenuously so. The correct URL for his blog is

http://alangrey.blogspot.com/

It's not much better than the other one, though.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:45:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

Apparently, you wish to continue. OK, that’s your call.

You have a fixed and unreasonable mind exemplified by your website. In addition, an important part of a website is an internal search mechanism. One of the reasons for this missing component can be a lack of technical expertise or an attempt to keep separate the information therein. I also treat sites offering opinions, with no precise information about the author's worldview, highly suspect.

Even so, a random search of http://alangrey.blogspot.com/ shows how you do not differ from many other fundamentalist Christians in supporting a creationist “ID” stance. By using quotes of others out of context, false conclusion follow.

Let me lead you to one example: It concerns the principal science writer (Biology) for Nature, Henry Gee.

The Christian fundamentalist propagandist organisation, Discovery Institute (What a misnomer) uses Gee, by selective quotation from his book, ‘In Search of Deep Time’, written intentionally supporting the science behind evolution.

Your blog contains the out-of-context quote even though you would be aware that is has to be misleading given what the book is about. Your page perpetuates the error. Are you so blinded by your faith, such a reprehensible and grievous ‘mistake’, went unnoticed? http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html

Gee is understandably none too happy with this kind of misrepresentation either, pointing it out here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=795&m=61

Gee ends his letter with these words; “I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally.…the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.”

Continual falsification and obfuscation of evidence, some from unreliable sources, is your hallmark. Do you understand why I, and others on this forum do not take you seriously? Your posts do not allow the reader to have a better understanding from where you are coming; that is, fantasyland. Lying for Jesus is rampant in fundamentalist circles.

Thank you for supporting the proposition of - atheism: the default ethical position of humanity, so conclusively.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 19 July 2008 1:42:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay David....lets recap....
Amongst much derision and non-rational rhetoric, you claimed that 'The argument that without religious belief, people would have no morals is specious'.

To support this you quote a study by an atheistic philosopher who has written that infanticide is a ethical logical position and a study by Gregory S Paul which is the academic equivalent of a 2 year-old's crayon scrawl.

I provided several links to peer reviewed research showing that Christian belief is indeed a positive force, nationally and personally.

You then tried to claim (after clarifying my misunderstanding of your position) the enlightenment was the cause of the national positive force of democracy, but agreed that the founding fathers were not atheists. You then claimed the men who were prepared to die for democracy in America would have been atheists except they didn't have enough courage to do so. Such hubris.

You also went to alangrey.blogpot.com (which was incorrectly linked to my account because of a typo). I corrected you and clearly identified my website, even showing you why a seemingly highly specified name had nothing to do with me (by showing you it was the same for davdnicholls.blogpot.com), but for some reason for such a learned man, you didn't understand this somewhat simple technical point.

My favorite part was when you said
"I just say it [atheism] is better than the rest as I have conclusively demonstrated. Not just with Singer – Houser and Paul, but by using the understandable logic preceding their input, with both supporting each other. Anthropological studies are hardly ever precise. They can also be manipulated to suit desperate ideologies. However, when observable facts also support them, these criticisms must be seen for what they are – rubbish."

This shows your close-mindedness and real lack of rational thought. Clearly you have decided a priori that religion is bad and atheism is good and any criticism of this position is automatically 'rubbish'.

After this little gem, you decide to try and start attacking my belief (as if that somehow makes any comments I make or evidence I point to irrelevant).
...
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:04:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..
You then proceed to take Jefferson out of context (as the links I provided to the letters those quotes came from clearly show) and claimed that even though discerning the supernatural beliefs of the founding fathers 'are not as simple as your [sic] seem to think', you were still correct about Jefferson.

You then misquote me regarding lists of 'true Christians' and link to the website I have already said was not mine.

But then...then comes the really really amusing attack....
you point to this post http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/04/missing-fish-link-new-icon.html and claim that my quoting of Wells quote of Henry Gee is 'reprehensible' and a 'grievous' mistake.

Why is it so funny? Because Gee himself, in his response admits again the point being made. You can view his response here
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp
Where point 3 says again
"That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident...."

He has merely spat the dummy because others use his statements to support a non-evolutionary position. That's why he would be considered a 'hostile witness', but the point remains that his quote is not taken out of context. It is not made to mean anything other than what it says and even Gee himself says so again.

Really David. This article and exchange is one big example of you projecting your own way of operating onto others.

Lets review
Misquoting. - Jefferson - Check.
Unreliable sources. - Gregory Paul - Check.
Close-minded. - Evidence against you belief must be 'rubbish' - Check
Irrational. - Continues to use ad hominem and assertion rather than actual argument - Check.

Thank you for making it so easy to debate Atheists. It makes talking to the more rational, less zealous atheist so much easier when I can point to such clear cases of irrationality...
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

Good try at attempting to salvage your ‘reputation’. Bad luck it failed.

Outside of Christian fundamentalist circles, Jefferson is a deist.

Of course, there is opposition to Gregory Paul from Christianity.

You can pad that the enlightenment personalities did not have “courage”, if you want.

Both web sites contain the same kind of fantasyland propaganda.

No, I have decided that religion can be bad by observation now and knowledge of history,

I did not attack your ‘beliefs’. I possibly pointed out you are a Christian fundamentalist who believes without any evidence supported in peer reviewed accredited scientific journals, that creationism is a valid way of looking at nature. If you believe that, then you are capable of believing anything, and you do.

I still have no answer on who is or who is not a ‘true Christian’.

You are playing semantics with Gee. Write to him.

Yes, apparently it is easy to debate atheists, just as easy as it is to believe in the creationist fairytale.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:59:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

Your muddying of the waters on disagreement between divergent ideas of palaeontologists on the periphery of evolutionary theory is a method consistent with fundamentalist creationism. Scientists involved with the study of evolution do disagree; that is the nature of science. The Gee case is a good example. There is rigorously investigation of varying explanations until the evidence supports the highest probability of a certain set of factors being no longer in dispute. Even then, future evidence may alter that. However, the overall picture of evolution remains solid, irrefutable and intact

The reason being:

The deeper into strata, the less advanced are organisms.

Morphological and chronological investigation of fossils is consistent.

Hominid and dinosaur fossils do not exist in the same strata.

Hominid fossils do not exist in strata below strata containing dinosaur fossils.

Rare exceptions have scientifically based explanations. (Tectonic plate movement, local flood etc)

Many disciplines of science support evolution.

I think you have stated you are a science teacher. If so, the above is inconsistent with your parting statement on the Gee page of your blog and is most unscientific:

“Somethings never change....Evolution continues to rely on a sliding scale of evidence. Every time one evidence collapses, they find something else to prop up their rickety old theory.”

Evolution, a “rickety old theory”? Only those out of desperation in believing their childhood indoctrination, or those who have lost control of the rational part of their brain, would state such rubbish.

Pity help your students.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 6:51:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

On your site, click, ‘Blogs I Frequent’

http://alangrey.blogspot.com/ then the heading, ‘Intelligent Design the Future’

This leads here:

http://www.idthefuture.com/

Search for ‘Thomas Jefferson and Intelligent Design’ and play the audio supporting “intelligent design”:

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-07-04T19_24_48-07_00

Apart from the obfuscation, it clearly states Jefferson’s views on religion and virtually calls him a deist. If there were any evidence at all, that Jefferson was a Christian then these people would have used it.

I am not going to go through endless hours looking for the errors in all your ‘logic’ but maybe you can explain this discrepancy between the audio and your statement that: “Jefferson's earlier writings (and indeed his funding and efforts of evangelism) clearly show his non-deistic beliefs.”

“Clearly?” is not a good description. This audio does not scream – “I am a Christian”.

And this site:

http://www.leroygarrett.org/ac_tj/chap04.htm

“Jefferson, for instance, was branded "an atheistical monster" by the president of Trinity College (Methodist), now called Duke University. The president said Jefferson's establishment of the University of Virginia was "a long-range plan for the subversion of Christianity" and "a bold enterprise and deistic daring of enormous proportions." He called him "a deist, an infidel, agnostic and materialist." (M. D. Peterson, The Jefferson Image, p. 243)

And a conclusion from a priest:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_012.htm

“The question is, how are these damaging confessions to be understood? Was Jefferson an atheist not only nominally but really? And if only nominally, what proof do we have that in real life he admitted the existence of a personal God in spite of the bizarre speculations he put on paper when trying to philosophize on his religious beliefs? It is the writer’s opinion that the Morals of Jesus or the Jefferson Bible give us the key to the problem, proving that its author was not an infidel but a deist, in the sense of one who rejects the need of divine revelation and consequently repudiates any form of established religion, beyond the limits of independent human reason and will.”

Summing up, Jefferson held a strange mixture of religious belief far more in line with deism than Christianity.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 6:47:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey’s Anatomy (2)

Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:00:55 PM
“I think this article nicely shows how atheism leads to a loss of rationality.”
(Note: Grey immediately introduces an unsubstantiated negative opinion to initiate doubt – An old trick but a good one)

“Atheists may donate to charities, but they donate less that the conservative religious.”
(Note: Buffet and Gates, atheists, donate in the billions. Singer donates 20% of his salary. Ticket-to-heaven and other religious donations, are used for, hoarding, politics, proselytising, propping up business and charitable works. Percentage distribution unknown)

Posted by Grey, Thursday, 10 July 2008 5:40:54 PM
“Global warming wouldn't be a problem”
(Note: In contradiction, Grey’s website says global warming is not a problem.)

“try and avoid giving atheism credit for communism and the associated 200 million in one century death toll”
(Note: Fundamentalist Christians love this exaggerated historical simplification)

Posted by Grey, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:28:37 PM
“I would have thought you would have been more tech savvy than that.”
(Note: Implication – therefore, wrong elsewhere)

Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:04:43 PM
“Amongst much derision and non-rational rhetoric,”
(Note: Hyperbolic opinion. ‘Hubris’, is another Grey favourite)

“an atheistic philosopher who has written that infanticide is a ethical logical position and a study by Gregory S Paul which is the academic equivalent of a 2 year-old's crayon scrawl.
(Note: This reference to Peter Singer is unsophisticated mischievous misrepresentation. It is a Christian fundamentalist belief - No exaggerated bias regarding Paul here…?)

“This shows your close-mindedness and real lack of rational thought.”
(Note: Do I smell another ad hominem?)

“After this little gem, you decide to try and start attacking my belief”
(Note: The beliefs one holds, does produce bias. (Vested interest) The less evidence supporting such beliefs, the more the bias. I was therefore attempting to establish Grey’s beliefs – of which, I am still unsure, and which remain a mystery)

Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:07:21 PM
“You then proceed to take Jefferson out of context”
(Note: No, incorrect, as further evidence provided supports)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 24 July 2008 11:30:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah David, you're still projecting your own lame rhetorical tricks onto others....

Case in point...
"Good try at attempting to salvage your ‘reputation’. Bad luck it failed."
and
"Grey immediately introduces an unsubstantiated negative opinion to initiate doubt – An old trick but a good one"

You seem to have problem putting together a logical, rational argument. Others don't. My comment was an introduction/abstract, immediately followed by links to peer-reviewed studies by scientists that highlights how you self-servingly ignore evidence disagreeing with your atheistic faith whilst simultaneously putting forward a hopelessly inept 'study' to supports your beliefs.

Rationality is having consistent standards of evaluating evidence. Your response however, is to dismiss anything disagreeing with your beliefs. This is further evidenced by your comment
"Of course, there is opposition to Gregory Paul from Christianity."
Math and logic aren't Christian or non-Christian. They’re universal and are evaluated objectively.

If you evaluated Paul’s study skeptically, you would note
1) Paul has selected crimes and countries in a non-random fashion. Brief evaluation of non-selected countries seem to indicate they diverge from Paul's thesis. Paul admits this "The especially low rates [of_homicide] in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample" – Paul doesn’t back up the 'statistical noise' claim.

2)Paul fails to properly define his data groupings

3)Paul indicates his data is not all from the same time period, but nowhere describes which years were used for which countries or document his data sources, giving no confidence that his study can be replicated.

4) Paul fails to perform a multivariate analysis, making any results meaningless.

5) Paul fails to provide any correlation coefficient/other standard statistical measures

Any one of these points is enough to cast serious doubt about his study; that all of them apply makes this truly appalling ‘research’.

Let me reiterate. None of these points have anything to do with Christian/non-Christian belief, but are simply related to doing valid research. Paul's study is the academic equivalent of a 2-year-old's crayon scrawl. You, however, place great faith in it because it agrees with your bigotry.
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 1:16:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...
Your ability to ignore evidence with belief is again demonstrated by citing the philanthropy of a few as if it refutes a proper study.

11-July-2008_6:41:22_PM
"It is not my fault you a[re] frightened of dying or wish for eternal bliss." and
"The imagined existence of a god premises your worldview"
and yet you claim on 22-July-2008_5:59:18_PM
"I did not attack your ‘beliefs’."
(And even in the same post "Both web sites contain the same kind of fantasyland propaganda."

Also, I have quoted Gee accurately, as his response I posted clearly states. You really need to stop this whole 'projection' thing David.

I have also not misrepresented Singer. A review of his book Practical Ethics can confirm this.

Regarding Jefferson, you continue to show a lack of careful thought. The very point of the idthefuture podcast was to try and show that ID was not merely a Christian belief. So you comment "If there were any evidence at all, that Jefferson was a Christian then these people would have used it." is just plainly and very obviously wrong.

You also seem to think that a couple of people's comments about a prominent politician can be used as evidence of that politicians personal beliefs. Surely even you see how weak this claim is? Should we decide Obama's beliefs based on the pronouncements of Pat Robertson?
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 2:43:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

You may wish to promote that my article had a basis in the study by Gregory Paul. However, it was at the end of the article supporting the premise, which was that ethical behaviour is assisted by the lack of religion and is self-explanatory. The article did not need Paul’s study but it was placed to help overcome the outrage at such a suggestion and to make the reader think. Try that sometime.

Paul’s study has its faults but to dismiss it outright because of them is nonsense.

Name the progressive democratic countries where religion is politically and/or socially potent where dysfunctional instances are less than in those progressive democratic countries with a more secular input, which Gregory Paul’s study did not include.

Yes, I mentioned a few atheist philanthropists but also explained that religious donations are not effective as is portrayed. Obvious really, to an unbiased mind that is.

You said: “To support this you quote a study by an atheistic philosopher who has written that infanticide is a ethical logical position”

What has the Hauser/Singer paper on ethical choice comparisons to do with infanticide? This is a blatant attempt to discredit with a non-related issue. It is like saying, because Singer donates 20% of his income to charity, that donating 20% of income to charity must be bad. To use the word infanticide (Murdering an infant) without looking at the context in Peter Singer’s work is less than honest.

Right wing Christian fundamentalist mentality loves to denigrate Singer, as he is a threat to their ‘logical’ proposition of the existence of a human attribute called a ‘soul ‘which allegedly separates us from the other animals. To date, no evidence for ‘souls’ exists.

The following gives a clear picture on how others view Singer’s words. Warning: it may be too rational for you, so read with care.

http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/review-of-practical-ethics-by-peter-singer/

Here is some of what Singer actually says:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

Your selective thinking about Jefferson is pitiful. Don’t look now but it is you who picks and chooses convenient sources supporting your non-position on many topics.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 11:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, you say
"You may wish to promote that my article had a basis in the study by Gregory Paul. However, it was at the end of the article supporting the premise, which was that ethical behaviour is assisted by the lack of religion and is self-explanatory. The article did not need Paul’s study but it was placed to help overcome the outrage at such a suggestion and to make the reader think."

I merely assumed you would want to back up your assertions with real evidence. I guess that was my mistake. It is obvious you don't care about actual evidence. In fact, you really provide no evidence at all for your assertion that ethical behaviour is assisted by the lack of religion. Worse still, you seem to affirm the view of singer linked to
http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/review-of-practical-ethics-by-peter-singer/

The reviewer states, in agreement with my comments that
"You have to respect the brave manner in which Singer dares to follows his reasoning even into unconventional places (eg he believes infanticide should be permitted until one month after birth)."

Singer, an Atheist, and apparently 'rational' according to you, supports infanticide as a logical ethical position. Do you agree with Singer David? Or are you saying that no rational atheistic ethic truly exists and that each atheist can make it up as they decide personally?

Personally, if an atheistic rational ethic supports infanticide, I'll pass.

You still seem to be defending the idea that personal statements from a preacher about a political figure are somehow good evidence for that political figures belief. This is of course, nonsense. It is essentially useless hearsay that doesn't meet any real definition of evidence.

Would you really place any value on statements by Pat Robertson about Barack Obama?
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 5 August 2008 4:28:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

Gregory Paul’s study brought to light a connection between religiosity and dysfunction in societies. Something that is no secret. The failure of the religious backed abstinence programs in the USA, an example adding weight to the link. Nations with entwined religion and politics, another.

Paul’s is not a definitive work and Paul does not pretend it is. It also is not fiction. As Paul states in his concluding remarks; "It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject."

Branding it as you have, is a sign of fright, nothing less. I’ll say again. It supports my article, which is self-evident.

Of course, Singer may be ‘brave’ but he is not advocating that we should kill all infants as your words suggested. He has taken knowledge to its philosophical limits because of the unspoken grey (Pardon the word) areas surrounding conception to birth and shortly after. Singer agrees that if a foetus, and more so a child, just after birth, are wanted, that gives the foetus or child more right to life than if they are not. Where the grey area comes in is when a child is born with a severe disability, such as an encephalitic condition. (No consciousness and no likelihood of recovery)

This presents the parents and medical profession with a problem not defined in law. Consequently, such a child is therefore starved to death over a number of days. Singer says this is irrational and I agree with him. His position is that active measures should be employed to end the child’s life quickly.

The tricky part is how one arrives at this position and how to make acceptable universal moral judgments in these cases. It is very involved and your simplistic evaluation is right off the mark. You did this intentionally or ignorantly.

Fully reading Singers ideas on this matter does not show him advocating “infanticide” at whim, as your words sneakily suggested.

Pat Robertson is a nut case, so I would be wary of anything he says.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 5 August 2008 6:11:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy