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?

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

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?

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