Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    hopefully we can have some good discussion in this thread.
    I guess not.

    A few people here just plain don't seem to understand that being able to find atheists who disagree with other atheists is not some sort of major coup, anymore than finding some religious people who disagree with other religious people... it's a big big world and people have a lot of views. I would say that The God Delusion remains the number one best selling book on atheism more than a decade after it was written because it is a very very good book. A few of the miffed philosophers quoted who had reviewed it were essentially objecting that it was not in the genre of academic philosophy and not written in a boring verbose way that explicitly counters all possible objections that could be dreamed up... which is true - Dawkins takes what I would say are many of the best philosophical arguments and lays them out simply and clearly and is able to cover a lot of ground and keep the audience interested precisely because he's not writing an book of academic philosophy and so doesn't need to waste time countering every one of 100 possible silly objections to every single statement he makes. He hits the nail on the head, and then moves on to hitting the next nail on the head, and doesn't stop to have an argument with a potential quibbler who might have an unusual view about the nature of the first nail.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    On Singer:
    He supports infanticide, which should make you happy Star.
    So does Dawkins if you watch the discussion in the OP.

    As Singer points out, it is fairly common for hospitals to actually do infanticide - in quite a lot of neonatal wards where the baby is born particularly early and is suffering serious complications due to it and highly likely to have serious disabilities for life as a result, the doctors will often offer the parents the option of simply ceasing all life support for the infant and letting it die rather than going to the effort to keep it alive to live a seriously sub-optimal life.

    And he has no problem with bestiality if it is mutually satisfying with no harm.
    Philosophers and laws have generally been all over the place on the subject. It is legal is some US states and not others, and legal in some Western nations but not neighboring nations. Most bestiality is legal, declared Canada's Supreme Court in 2016. And this article looks at bestiality practices in 10 nations ranging from Germany to Denmark to Colombia to Brazil to South Africa.

    I don't have really have a personal opinion on or any interest in the subject. I guess I agree with Singer that if no harm is being caused then there's no problem, but can see that you could easily argue that if it's legal then there's a potential for harm, e.g. the Enumclaw horse sex case where a man died due to having sex with a horse.

    Yes, [Singer] is a moral scumbag
    Dawkins describes him as the most moral person he knows. Singer's achievements include almost singlehandedly starting the modern animal rights movements, and playing a huge part in encouraging people to give all they can to charity to help save lives in the third world. The man is probably indirectly responsible for helping millions of humans and billions of animals, and is probably the single individual who has done the most of anyone living to help improve the lives of both humans and animals. But I guess in your up-is-down world, Seer, where you approve of the slaughter of captured soldiers, support torture and war etc, helping people and animals is immoral to you.

    As Rogue notes:
    Singer... won the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics.


    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    If you truly believe human life is important and worth saving, then oppose abortion and infanticide.
    Like Singer, I don't think there is anything particularly special about human life, and think intelligent animals are worthy of our respect and serious moral consideration. What I and Singer see as important is 'intelligent' life by which we mean the wide variety of traits that include: Consciousness, ability to experience pain and pleasure, ability to have emotions, ability to remember the past, ability to have thoughts about the future, ability to feel that things are meaningful to you, ability to have purposes and goals which can be achieved or thwarted, having a sense of oneself as an "I" who exists over time, ability to reason, ability to place value on things etc. He and I both accept the general view that fetuses and infants only have the first two or three of the properties on that list as compared to the more intelligent animals which may have many more of things on the list, and thus hold that the killing of an intelligent animal (e.g. for food) is significantly more wrong than killing a human fetus or infant. We do not think that the human fetus cells happening to have human DNA in them is a relevant moral consideration anymore than I think exfoliating my skin is terrible because I am destroying cells containing human DNA.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      A few of the miffed philosophers quoted who had reviewed it were essentially objecting that it was not in the genre of academic philosophy and not written in a boring verbose way
      Looks like Starlight's poor reading comprehension is rearing its ugly head again.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      As Singer points out, it is fairly common for hospitals to actually do infanticide - in quite a lot of neonatal wards where the baby is born particularly early and is suffering serious complications due to it and highly likely to have serious disabilities for life as a result, the doctors will often offer the parents the option of simply ceasing all life support for the infant and letting it die rather than going to the effort to keep it alive to live a seriously sub-optimal life.
      Singer doesn't care if the child is suffering from serious complications. He is fine with all types of child murder, even when the child is otherwise healthy.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      I don't have really have a personal opinion on or any interest in the subject. I guess I agree with Singer that if no harm is being caused then there's no problem
      I should be surprised, but I'm not. Absolutely pathetic.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Singer's achievements include almost singlehandedly starting the modern animal rights movements
      Oh yeah, we've seen how much Singer loves animals.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      The man is probably indirectly responsible for helping millions of humans
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Like Singer, I don't think there is anything particularly special about human life...He and I both accept the general view that fetuses and infants only have the first two or three of the properties on that list as compared to the more intelligent animals which may have many more of things on the list, and thus hold that the killing of an intelligent animal (e.g. for food) is significantly more wrong than killing a human fetus or infant. We do not think that the human fetus cells happening to have human DNA in them is a relevant moral consideration anymore than I think exfoliating my skin is terrible because I am destroying cells containing human DNA.
      Deplorable.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Yep. I've read and listened to him on a number of occasions. I do believe that he has a very simplistic view of faith, and what that means to the believer, but he's far more patient and reasonable than any of those in the New Atheist camp.
        The New Atheist view of those who have religious views can be summed up by a remark from P.Z. Myers:

        "I think Intelligent Design creationism is just as strained, just as ludicrous, just as fallacious as Tzortzis’s Muslim creationism, or Ken Ham’s fundamentalist creationism, or Hugh Ross’s old earth creationism, or Biologos’s theistic evolution. I despise you all equally."

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post


          hopefully we can have some good discussion in this thread.
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          I guess not.
          In Starlight's dark world apparently the only way to have a "good discussion" is if you agree with him.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
            Behold your gods.
            What do you even mean by that?

            I don't:
            - Worship them, pray to them, sing songs to them, or say "thank Dawkins" when something good happens to me.
            - Believe they created the world.
            - Believe they have supernatural powers.
            - Think things are true or right just because they say so, or believe everything they've ever written or said is correct.
            - Think they are the only intellectuals worth reading or listening to or believe they have some sort of vastly superior grasp of reality to other good writers that I like.
            - Feel that I am bound to do things just because they tell me I should do them.
            - Continually read and reread their particular writings religiously.

            I do:
            - Criticize them both in my head and to others when I think they are wrong about something.
            - Disagree with them both sometimes.
            - Occasionally recommend their talks or writings to others.

            In what way are they my 'gods'? I don't get what you are even meaning by that.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              The New Atheist view of those who have religious views can be summed up by a remark from P.Z. Myers:

              "I think Intelligent Design creationism is just as strained, just as ludicrous, just as fallacious as Tzortzis’s Muslim creationism, or Ken Ham’s fundamentalist creationism, or Hugh Ross’s old earth creationism, or Biologos’s theistic evolution. I despise you all equally."
              I'm quite partial to the hypothesis that the universe is a fully-immerse virtual-reality computer game (a MMORPG) and that we are all players in it. That's a deist view because obviously the creators of the game (quite possibly us) engineered the basic features of the universe (e.g. the 'fine tuning') to support the kinds of life they wanted to have in the game, and it's arguably a religious view because it implies possible life after 'death' (either that we respawn as a new character at some point in history or that we fall out of the game and back to 'reality' - I use quotes because Elon Musk and others have persuasively argued that there's no reason such computer games / simulations can't be multiple levels deep... unless of course we are in-game creations of the simulation and then of course we'd actually die upon death which seems to be Elon Musk's own view.). You might want to say that because I am very open to such a view that I am therefore open to "Intelligent Design creationism" in some sort of general sense... but I would regard myself as subscribing to "New Atheism" simply because it seems so clear that the kind of omnipotent God of monotheism does not exist, so I am an 'atheist' (not-theist) because I explicitly rule out all common theistic beliefs.

              All of which is to say that though I despise the way the people who call themselves "Intelligent Design" creationists shamelessly try to manipulate science and mislead the public, and don't for a second think their religiously-motivated views should be allowed anywhere near either schools or serious scientific journals, nonetheless as a "New Atheist" I am open to a strain of "Intelligent Design" in and of itself (as it exists theoretically rather than as it exists in practice) and would thus not necessarily agree with your quote from Myers - unless he is talking about the people who currently peddle "Intelligent Design" as a disingenuous justification to try to slap a pseudo-scientific label on the religious views that they are really trying to peddle via the deception, rather than the theoretical concept of 'intelligent design' itself.
              Last edited by Starlight; 01-10-2017, 09:39 PM.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                The New Atheist view of those who have religious views can be summed up by a remark from P.Z. Myers:

                "I think Intelligent Design creationism is just as strained, just as ludicrous, just as fallacious as Tzortzis’s Muslim creationism, or Ken Ham’s fundamentalist creationism, or Hugh Ross’s old earth creationism, or Biologos’s theistic evolution. I despise you all equally."
                PZ Myers has it about right. None of those beliefs are evidence-based nor are they espoused by the vast majority of those in a position to know, namely scientists.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  I'm quite partial to the hypothesis that the universe is a fully-immerse virtual-reality computer game (a MMORPG) and that we are all players in it. That's a deist view because obviously the creators of the game (quite possibly us) engineered the basic features of the universe (e.g. the 'fine tuning') to support the kinds of life they wanted to have in the game, and it's arguably a religious view because it implies possible life after 'death' (either that we respawn as a new character at some point in history or that we fall out of the game and back to 'reality' - I use quotes because Elon Musk and others have persuasively argued that there's no reason such computer games / simulations can't be multiple levels deep... unless of course we are in-game creations of the simulation and then of course we'd actually die upon death which seems to be Elon Musk's own view.). You might want to say that because I am very open to such a view that I am therefore open to "Intelligent Design creationism" in some sort of general sense... but I would regard myself as subscribing to "New Atheism" simply because it seems so clear that the kind of omnipotent God of monotheism does not exist, so I am an 'atheist' (not-theist) because I explicitly rule out all common theistic beliefs.

                  All of which is to say that though I despise the way the people who call themselves "Intelligent Design" creationists shamelessly try to manipulate science and mislead the public, and don't for a second think their religiously-motivated views should be allowed anywhere near either schools or serious scientific journals, nonetheless as a "New Atheist" I am open to a strain of "Intelligent Design" in and of itself (as it exists theoretically rather than as it exists in practice) and would thus not necessarily agree with your quote from Myers - unless he is talking about the people who currently peddle "Intelligent Design" as a disingenuous justification to try to slap a pseudo-scientific label on the religious views that they are really trying to peddle via the deception, rather than the theoretical concept of 'intelligent design' itself.
                  Myers is making it crystal clear that he despises virtually anyone who believes in God not just ID advocates.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    A few of the miffed philosophers quoted who had reviewed it were essentially objecting that it was not in the genre of academic philosophy and not written in a boring verbose way that explicitly counters all possible objections that could be dreamed up...
                    Can you cite two then, specifically where they do this?


                    Originally posted by Starlight
                    which is true - Dawkins takes what I would say are many of the best philosophical arguments and lays them out simply and clearly and is able to cover a lot of ground and keep the audience interested precisely because he's not writing an book of academic philosophy and so doesn't need to waste time countering every one of 100 possible silly objections to every single statement he makes. He hits the nail on the head, and then moves on to hitting the next nail on the head, and doesn't stop to have an argument with a potential quibbler who might have an unusual view about the nature of the first nail.
                    Uh, no.

                    How about you cite one of Dawkin's discussions of philosophical arguments and we can analyse his efforts together?
                    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Myers is making it crystal clear that he despises virtually anyone who believes in God not just ID advocates.
                      This is just the standard sense of persecution that Christians so enjoy. PZ Myers does not "despise" theists, he just thinks they are silly:

                      "This does not mean that scientists can't be religious. We can encompass irrational beliefs without regret and without obligation—I can, actually, look at my kids in a different way than I would an experimental subject under my microscope. I also do not pretend that I view my children rationally and objectively, untainted by emotion or history, and I'm not ashamed of that at all. So, a scientist should have no problem demanding one standard of logic and evidence in the lab, and dropping that demand if they choose to go to church on Sunday - "What should a scientist think about religion?", 29 June 2006
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Like Singer, I don't think there is anything particularly special about human life, and think intelligent animals are worthy of our respect and serious moral consideration. What I and Singer see as important is 'intelligent' life by which we mean the wide variety of traits that include: Consciousness, ability to experience pain and pleasure, ability to have emotions, ability to remember the past, ability to have thoughts about the future, ability to feel that things are meaningful to you, ability to have purposes and goals which can be achieved or thwarted, having a sense of oneself as an "I" who exists over time, ability to reason, ability to place value on things etc. He and I both accept the general view that fetuses and infants only have the first two or three of the properties on that list as compared to the more intelligent animals which may have many more of things on the list, and thus hold that the killing of an intelligent animal (e.g. for food) is significantly more wrong than killing a human fetus or infant. We do not think that the human fetus cells happening to have human DNA in them is a relevant moral consideration anymore than I think exfoliating my skin is terrible because I am destroying cells containing human DNA.
                        So then you DON'T agree "people are morally obligated to give the most they possibly can to help save the lives of people in the 3rd world" after all. Got it.

                        And you also claim that Singer was just blowing smoke when he said that. OK. Makes sense.

                        You think protecting an animal's life is more important than protecting a human's.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          This is just the standard sense of persecution that Christians so enjoy. PZ Myers does not "despise" theists, he just thinks they are silly:
                          What part of "I despise you all equally" are you have trouble with?

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            I would say that The God Delusion remains the number one best selling book on atheism more than a decade after it was written because it is a very very good book. A few of the miffed philosophers quoted who had reviewed it were essentially objecting that it was not in the genre of academic philosophy and not written in a boring verbose way that explicitly counters all possible objections that could be dreamed up... which is true - Dawkins takes what I would say are many of the best philosophical arguments and lays them out simply and clearly and is able to cover a lot of ground and keep the audience interested precisely because he's not writing an book of academic philosophy and so doesn't need to waste time countering every one of 100 possible silly objections to every single statement he makes. He hits the nail on the head, and then moves on to hitting the next nail on the head, and doesn't stop to have an argument with a potential quibbler who might have an unusual view about the nature of the first nail.
                            I don't think that this is even remotely true. Most of the population (Christian, atheists, etc) simply are not informed and have limited critical thinking skills.

                            I challenge you to pick your favorite or the most "impactful" argument from the God Delusion and I am willing to bet that I can rip it to pieces. Please note that I am not saying that I will prove to you or other atheists that the argument is wrong and God exists, I am saying that I will show you why the argument itself fails as an argument.

                            There are a number of arguments against God's existence that actually have some weight to them, they are not found in the God delusion AFAIR.
                            Last edited by element771; 01-11-2017, 10:53 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                              Really? That's hilarious.


                              From a real philosopher:
                              "Christian philosopher" is an oxymoron.
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                "Christian philosopher" is an oxymoron.
                                you're just a regular moron.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X