Why are atheists interested in religion?

[Saint Frankenstein]

And when we come to consider the work Peter Singer, who is the actual "preacher" of the Atheistic set... well, it is difficult to even find something to fault, really.

Peter Singer is disgusting, even disregarding whatever he thinks about religion:
Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LuisDantas]

Peter Singer is disgusting, even disregarding whatever he thinks about religion:
Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exxcuuuuseeee... meee?

What is there to dislike in him?

He is just about the best author on ethics that I ever found.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Exxcuuuuseeee... meee?

What is there to dislike in him?

Did you even look at the section I linked to? He thinks that killing an infant isn't killing a human being, because he arbitrarily defines some groups of people out of the concept. Due to how he defines a human being, this means that some disabled and handicapped people aren't human beings and it's not murder to kill them! You agree with him, then?

It's positively astounding that a professor at an Ivy League university is allowed to promote such noxious concepts after the horrors of Nazi Germany's program to kill the disabled and the post-war UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (his views particularly violate Article 3, which says that all human beings have a right to life and Article 1 that says all humans are equal in dignity and rights). Apparently people like him have no problem spitting on all that. Apparently we've learned nothing at all and some people have forgotten that we've already been down that road before (i.e. some arbitrary group of people don't have a right to live and these groups are usually helpless to defend themselves) and have been trying to get far away from it since.

 

[nilsz]

I do not agree with him - I don't trust anyone to have the maturity to make such a judgement in this day and age. However, the section makes it clear that it is not arbitrary, but has its reasoning. These kinds of judgements may have been more acceptable when a lack of medicine, sanitation and sexual education brought a high childhood mortality.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do not agree with him - I don't trust anyone to have the maturity to make such a judgement in this day and age. However, the section makes it clear that it is not arbitrary, but has its reasoning. These kinds of judgements may have been more acceptable when a lack of medicine, sanitation and sexual education brought a high childhood mortality.

True, perhaps arbitrary isn't the right word for it. But his reasoning is obviously flawed and leads to dangerous territory. Even the Nazis had their reasons for targeting the groups they did for genocide. I wonder if he ever thought of the possible ramifications of such a concept.

 

[McBell]

Did you even look at the section I linked to? He thinks that killing an infant isn't killing a human being, because he arbitrarily defines some groups of people out of the concept. Due to how he defines a human being, this means that some disabled and handicapped people aren't human beings and it's not murder to kill them! You agree with him, then?

It's positively astounding that a professor at an Ivy League university is allowed to promote such noxious concepts after the horrors of Nazi Germany's program to kill the disabled and the post-war UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (his views particularly violate Article 3, which says that all human beings have a right to life and Article 1 that says all humans are equal in dignity and rights). Apparently people like him have no problem spitting on all that. Apparently we've learned nothing at all and some people have forgotten that we've already been down that road before (i.e. some arbitrary group of people don't have a right to live and these groups are usually helpless to defend themselves) and have been trying to get far away from it since.

Nice rant.
Please be so kind as to let us know when you are done with your emotional outburst.
Perhaps then you can go back to your link and read it in context.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nice rant.
Please be so kind as to let us know when you are done with your emotional outburst.
Perhaps then you can go back to your link and read it in context.

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize that it's unseemly for a person who cares about the human rights of others to get angry over the promotion of such concepts. I'll try my best not to give a **** in the future.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, perhaps arbitrary isn't the right word for it. But his reasoning is obviously flawed and leads to dangerous territory. Even the Nazis had their reasons for targeting the groups they did for genocide. I wonder if he ever thought of the possible ramifications of such a concept.

Speaking of ramifications of positions on the personhood of fetuses, you ought to ask Savita Halappanavar's widower about the ramifications of deciding that the fetus' rights trump those of the woman.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize that it's unseemly for a person who cares about the human rights of others to get angry over the promotion of such concepts. I'll try my best not to give a **** in the future.

You're doing a good job of not giving a **** about pregnant women; I'm sure that in time, you can learn to give the same disregard to fetuses, too.

Edit: but if this discussion is going to continue, it really should have its own thread.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Speaking of ramifications of positions on the personhood of fetuses, you ought to ask Savita Halappanavar's widower about the ramifications of deciding that the fetus' rights trump those of the woman.

You're doing a good job of not giving a **** about pregnant women; I'm sure that in time, you can learn to give the same disregard to fetuses, too.

I didn't mention anything about fetuses or abortion. Nice try, though.

For the record, I don't personally support banning abortions because I don't see how that will solve anything. I am morally opposed to abortion, but I don't object to abortions in life or death cases such as Savita Halappanavar's. It's sad enough when one cannot be saved, but even worse when two are lost when one could've been saved.

 

[Objective Qualia]

Atheism is a religion within itself. A religion with the core tenet of 'God does not exist'.

Like any religion, Atheists do their fair share of proselytizing and preaching their philosophy to all and sundry.

They are just as passionate about their 'no God policy' as believers are about God.

Atheists all want to 'wake up deluded people' who still believe in an illogical, irrational deity, because they see it as being the downfall of society and also, others beliefs in a God are having a negative/detrimental effect on their personal lives and they wish to change that.

They cannot change another's beliefs, so they become officially 'Atheist' to cement their resolve.

Atheists shouldn't worry about what other people believe in if they don't, but like I said, Atheists are just as mad about proselytizing as Muslims and Christians are - if not moreso!

They want to see a world ruled by science and logic, where God has no part of that.

Little do they know, they actually have no say in it.

I had no idea that was what I believed all along. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[nilsz]

Nice rant.
Please be so kind as to let us know when you are done with your emotional outburst.
Perhaps then you can go back to your link and read it in context.

I wish you would understand that many people who live with disabilities are very concerned about the prospect of euthanasia, and that you do not belittle people for it.

 

[psychoslice]

Why are atheists interested in religion?, why is medical science interested in cancer ?. Sadly religion can become a cancer to society if we let it, of course i am talking about fundamentalist, and these are who we should keep am eye on for everyone's sake.

 

[McBell]

I wish you would understand that many people who live with disabilities are very concerned about the prospect of euthanasia, and that you do not belittle people for it.

Well with my having no disabilities or genetic disorders or anything like that....

 

[McBell]

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize that it's unseemly for a person who cares about the human rights of others to get angry over the promotion of such concepts. I'll try my best not to give a **** in the future.

Have you read the books in question?
Or are you basing your emotional rant merely on the wiki article?

Now since I have read the books in question....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Have you read the books in question?
Or are you basing your emotional rant merely on the wiki article?

Now since I have read the books in question....

Why does it matter? Does it all end up being a hypothetical or he's not being serious about it? If not, it doesn't change anything I said.

 

[Sunstone]

Atheists don't believe in God but there are many who participate in this forum. I'm glad they do because their opinions and knowledge are very interesting but I don't understand their motivation.
If someone doesn't believe in a deity, why be interested in religion?

Skylar, I believe you may have just earned for yourself a reputation on this Forum for not always asking the most well thought out and intelligent questions.

Thank you so much for a clear and logical answer.:clap

And perhaps also a reputation for not always noticing when an argument lacks substantial evidence.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

[LuisDantas]

Did you even look at the section I linked to? He thinks that killing an infant isn't killing a human being, because he arbitrarily defines some groups of people out of the concept. Due to how he defines a human being, this means that some disabled and handicapped people aren't human beings and it's not murder to kill them! You agree with him, then?

Isn't it obvious?

It's positively astounding that a professor at an Ivy League university is allowed to promote such noxious concepts after the horrors of Nazi Germany's program to kill the disabled and the post-war UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (his views particularly violate Article 3, which says that all human beings have a right to life and Article 1 that says all humans are equal in dignity and rights). Apparently people like him have no problem spitting on all that. Apparently we've learned nothing at all and some people have forgotten that we've already been down that road before (i.e. some arbitrary group of people don't have a right to live and these groups are usually helpless to defend themselves) and have been trying to get far away from it since.

Didn't read his works, I see.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why does it matter? Does it all end up being a hypothetical or he's not being serious about it? If not, it doesn't change anything I said.

Surely you do not mean what you just said.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Isn't it obvious?

Why in the world would you agree with him on that? You don't think newborn infants and certain disabled people are human beings?!

Didn't read his works, I see.

See my reply to Mestemia.