The Troubling Beliefs of an "Influential" Atheist

[Dark Jaguar]

I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality (who does it hurt?), and though I disagree with suicide I still consider it a personal choice. I DO have a problem with the concept of "farming" kids for vital organs. Now of course if the kid is born and has, say, stem cells or a single kidney transplanted, they could live a healthy life without that and I don't have an issue with that, even if they originally had the kid to get those things, so long as the kid is allowed to live. However, if they do so to get a liver, or something else that would be a death sentence to that kid, yeah I'd consider that totally immoral. Who would they be to say "you were made for this reason" to some kid like that and off them?

 

[Roadtoad]

The problem here is there's no context. You have sound bites, but nothing more. There's no connection to the main interview which tells us why Singer said any of this, (if he did), which leaves me confused. If Singer really made these statements, I'm stumped as to how he could be so stupid to do so to a writer that would take them and use them in this manner. He had to have some idea from the writer's past work that his own words would be used in a way to put him in the worst possible light.

I've found myself in recent years going from being against gay marriage, to being neutral, to becoming a supporter. From what point would my stated beliefs be quoted and used against me? And would that use be deemed "fair" in a rational discussion? There's something pretty creepy in DOC's OP.

As printed here, yes, I'd have some problems with Singer's declarations. But I would suspect that a man who teaches philosophy would have some reason for believing as he does, and would have some background information as to why he takes such views, controversial as they are. I can't imagine that he'd act like the guy at the end of the bar on a Friday night, the same one who can't get a date because he's some know-it-all with an opinion on everything. Unfortunately, that's the image we're left with with this cherry-picked selection of quotes.

I mean, seriously, how does Singer live himself? And can you imagine anyone wanting to take a philosophy class from someone who says it's cool to do a corpse? There's a lot missing here, and I resent the attempt at a smear.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Posted by DOC

Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he {Peter Singer} responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."




Besides the 3 verses in the bible that condemn it (2 with the death penalty), I'll just say my inner voice tells me its wrong and also not in my best interest. Also it could conceivably cause an obsession or addiction in the animal.

___

It sounds like you have no objection with his statement.

Are you saying your fear of burning in he!! and your fear sex with animals could be addicting are two of the things keeping you back from experimenting with bestiality?

 

[DOC]

I would be careful about inner voices -- could be psychotic hallucinations or delusions. There is no inner voice. There is no little man inside your head talking to you, giving you moral guidance. .

So then you don't believe in a conscience, then

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, DOC, I do believe most of us have 'consciences' that don't exactly 'speak' to us.

 

[JoeEllison]

Besides the 3 verses in the bible that condemn it (2 with the death penalty), I'll just say my inner voice tells me its wrong and also not in my best interest.

So, you admit that there are obviously several non-religious reasons not to engage in bestiality. You and I agree that it is just pretty damned nasty. There's no need to be a Christian to be disgusted by the idea.

Why then would you go out of your way to try to associate bestiality with atheism, over and over again, by your constant reference to Peter Singer?

 

[DOC]

Well, DOC, I do believe most of us have 'consciences' that don't exactly 'speak' to us.

Some psychologists say sociopaths don't possess a conscience, but being a Christian I believe there is hope even for the sociopath. Look at the Son of Sam who killed 6 or more people. He says he is now a Christian. And I believe he is sincere from what I've read about him.

 

[Roadtoad]

So, you admit that there are obviously several non-religious reasons not to engage in bestiality. You and I agree that it is just pretty damned nasty. There's no need to be a Christian to be disgusted by the idea.

Why then would you go out of your way to try to associate bestiality with atheism, over and over again, by your constant reference to Peter Singer?

How else can he smear so many with so few words?

Beastiality is condemned by many societies, many which have no Christian influence at all. It's abusive to the animal, it's destructive to the human, and ultimately, we don't condone things which are abusive or destructive. As I said, though, this is something which has been cherry picked out, and there's no way to understand why Singer would have said what he did. For all we know, there's more to the story than we've been told. I resent being played for a sucker.

 

[Roadtoad]

Some psychologists say sociopaths don't possess a conscience, but being a Christian I believe there is hope even for the sociopath.

That statement might bear more weight if you had any decency, and displayed any respect for the atheist.

 

[JoeEllison]

The problem here is there's no context. You have sound bites, but nothing more. There's no connection to the main interview which tells us why Singer said any of this, (if he did), which leaves me confused. If Singer really made these statements, I'm stumped as to how he could be so stupid to do so to a writer that would take them and use them in this manner. He had to have some idea from the writer's past work that his own words would be used in a way to put him in the worst possible light.

I've found myself in recent years going from being against gay marriage, to being neutral, to becoming a supporter. From what point would my stated beliefs be quoted and used against me? And would that use be deemed "fair" in a rational discussion? There's something pretty creepy in DOC's OP.

As printed here, yes, I'd have some problems with Singer's declarations. But I would suspect that a man who teaches philosophy would have some reason for believing as he does, and would have some background information as to why he takes such views, controversial as they are. I can't imagine that he'd act like the guy at the end of the bar on a Friday night, the same one who can't get a date because he's some know-it-all with an opinion on everything. Unfortunately, that's the image we're left with with this cherry-picked selection of quotes.

I mean, seriously, how does Singer live himself? And can you imagine anyone wanting to take a philosophy class from someone who says it's cool to do a corpse? There's a lot missing here, and I resent the attempt at a smear.

I don't know anything about Singer, and I'd never even heard about him until DOC insisted on mentioning him over and over again. I'm not defending his comments, but I'm willing to guess at other likely explanations for his statements.


Honest and naive people tend to assume people are as honorable as they are, until they've been burned enough times to know better. One can imagine Singer being so used to conversing with fellow academics that he forgets himself when dealing with the media, and says things that can easily be taken out of context.

I was watching Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew the other night, and he said something along the lines of "there's nothing wrong with what you're doing" to porn star Mary Carey. Now, if you saw an article with the headline "Dr. Drew says there's nothing wrong with being a coked-up porn star," containing the "there's nothing wrong with what you're doing" quote, you'd think he was an idiot. Of course, he followed it up with "It isn't about right and wrong, it is about healthy and unhealthy behavior. If it were healthy, I'd tell you to do it... but it isn't." Not so stupid after all, if you're trying to convince someone that they are a sick person who needs help, not a bad person who should keep beating herself up over her poor decisions.

Anything that people say can be meant with the best intentions, or as a hypothetical to illustrate a point, and it is dangerous to yank things out of context and misrepresent them.

 

[joobz]

Some psychologists say sociopaths don't possess a conscience, but being a Christian I believe there is hope even for the sociopath. Look at the Son of Sam who killed 6 or more people. He says he is now a Christian. And I believe he is sincere from what I've read about him.

So am I to understand that you value the Son of Sam killer more than you value atheists on this board?

 

[DOC]

There's something pretty creepy in DOC's OP.

I agree.

 

[JoeEllison]

Some psychologists say sociopaths don't possess a conscience, but being a Christian I believe there is hope even for the sociopath. Look at the Son of Sam who killed 6 or more people. He says he is now a Christian. And I believe he is sincere from what I've read about him.

So you condone serial killers, as long as they adopt your cult's beliefs... and yet you claim to be able to stand in judgment of people who have to your knowledge never done anything wrong, just because they are atheists? That is some GIGANTIC hypocrisy you're carrying around there... do you have to get help lifting it?

 

[joobz]

I don't know anything about Singer, and I'd never even heard about him until DOC insisted on mentioning him over and over again. I'm not defending his comments, but I'm willing to guess at other likely explanations for his statements.


Honest and naive people tend to assume people are as honorable as they are, until they've been burned enough times to know better. One can imagine Singer being so used to conversing with fellow academics that he forgets himself when dealing with the media, and says things that can easily be taken out of context.

I was watching Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew the other night, and he said something along the lines of "there's nothing wrong with what you're doing" to porn star Mary Carey. Now, if you saw an article with the headline "Dr. Drew says there's nothing wrong with being a coked-up porn star," containing the "there's nothing wrong with what you're doing" quote, you'd think he was an idiot. Of course, he followed it up with "It isn't about right and wrong, it is about healthy and unhealthy behavior. If it were healthy, I'd tell you to do it... but it isn't." Not so stupid after all, if you're trying to convince someone that they are a sick person who needs help, not a bad person who should keep beating herself up over her poor decisions.

Anything that people say can be meant with the best intentions, or as a hypothetical to illustrate a point, and it is dangerous to yank things out of context and misrepresent them.

such is the nature of quotemining. It is why it is a horribly dishonest and rather immoral practice. If only some christians actually would remember that "thou shalt not bear false witness" is a commandment.

 

[orpheus]

You've never been to one of his parties, have you.

plumjam, I've read a lot of your posts in other threads. To put it mildly, I disagree strongly with a lot of what you write. I'm sure you and I could get into a whale of an argument, and I'd even go so far as to say that if we met, we probably wouldn't like one another at all.

But I must say, that is one brilliantly funny post!

Bravo.

 

[JoeEllison]

That statement might bear more weight if you had any decency, and displayed any respect for the atheist.

He doesn't have to have any decency, or display any respect... he has Jesus, so he believes he's better than everyone else, and he doesn't have to bother with honesty or decency when dealing with us mere mortals. He thinks he's one step away from perfection, doesn't he?

 

[hgc]

Some psychologists say sociopaths don't possess a conscience, but being a Christian I believe there is hope even for the sociopath. Look at the Son of Sam who killed 6 or more people. He says he is now a Christian. And I believe he is sincere from what I've read about him.

Let's be precise, rather than supposing what "some psychologists say." DSM IV says:

Antisocial Personality Disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called sociopaths or in the rare extreme, psychopaths, who have a disregard for human (and other forms of) life in addition, intentionally cause injury or death and are incapable of feeling guilt or remorse.

I don't think this is for a lack of imagining that your thoughts are fed to you by a moralistic doppelganger. I also don't think that any of amount of finding Jesus and praying will cure it, but I'm willing to be convinced.

 

[JoeEllison]

such is the nature of quotemining. It is why it is a horribly dishonest and rather immoral practice. If only some christians actually would remember that "thou shalt not bear false witness" is a commandment.

You don't have to worry about the commandments, so long as you hate atheists and homosexuals, right? Being honest about what people say is obviously not a value that DOC and the Christians he loves to quote actually believe in. Lying for Jesus is more their speed.

remember how many times DOC claimed that his posts were just to "provide information", and not to prove a point about Christianity? How many times did he lie about it before and after the few times he admitted the truth?

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
Some psychologists say sociopaths don't possess a conscience, but being a Christian I believe there is hope even for the sociopath. Look at the Son of Sam who killed 6 or more people. He says he is now a Christian. And I believe he is sincere from what I've read about him.

So am I to understand that you value the Son of Sam killer more than you value atheists on this board?

Non sequitur, straw man, and this thread is not really about me.

 

[X]

So you condone serial killers, as long as they adopt your cult's beliefs... and yet you claim to be able to stand in judgment of people who have to your knowledge never done anything wrong, just because they are atheists? That is some GIGANTIC hypocrisy you're carrying around there... do you have to get help lifting it?

I'd call it more doublethink.

This cult is good, all else is bad,
If a cult member is bad, they are actually good.
If an outsider is good, they are actually bad.

Sort of a two-way Scotsman, isn't it?
Is there a specific term for that?