Is it because God says they’re bad? If he changed his mind, would you start murdering babies?

Yes? Then you’re a mindless fool who will sheepishly listen to the commands of a tyrant.

No? Then you admit that there are other criteria for answering moral questions.

See my post on the Euthyphro. Plato addressed this issue thousands of years ago.

Singer doesn’t advocate those acts as things we ought to do, but rather uses them as illustrative examples to get us to actually examine our ethical systems.

Anyway we will beg to differ – that’s fine. I’m not going to change your mind.

Can I grab you onto another tangent regarding someone who has been mentioned on this article? Dawkins often states Peter Singer is the most moral and ethical person he knows.

Do you subscribe to:

Bestiality – of course only under the proviso the animal isn’t hurt and it’s a ‘mutually satisfying activity’. I actually do work in this area Steven and the terminology similar to ‘mutually satisfying activity’ is a phrase pedophiles use on their victims to trick them to thinking that what is being perpetrated upon them is normal.

Incest – only if contraception is used, but if you have same sex children no contraception would of course be required.

Necrophilia,

Infanticide – Down Syndrome is one example he has given. Think I have some authority on this one mate, we have a 22 year old with CP. I personally find his claims reprehensible and appalling and one typically associated with subjective moral values. (Not surprisingly regarding his thoughts on suicide, his mother who is suffering from dementia, he has removed himself from any caring responsibility and having a family member involved in a topical subject has thrown ‘new light’ on the subject).

It’s amazing most atheists write these taboo subjects off as incidental or the ‘Yuck’ factor, but the fact is Dawkins over and over again gives Singer the highest moral and ethical ground over anyone on this planet!!!

How say you Steven? For I have many planks to my faith, the first being science, one other important plank is the moral argument and here Dawkins and Singer play straight into my hands.

Dawkins states, “there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’, ‘DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music’.

Singer agrees that objective moral values do not exist.

But Steven, Bestiality, Incest, necrophilia and Infanticide and the like are abhorrent and are not acceptable in our society. Or do you subscribe to them?

If you agree that they are not acceptable then you have made an objective moral judgement.

And you know what question I’m going to ask you then.

Cheers. You have an awesome weekend to mate!!

But in any case, let’s leave all of those infinitesimal probabilities aside and have all humans (indeed, all life in the cosmos) be friendly toward one another. Best wishes to you, Darren. I hope you have an awesome weekend.

One day you may meet “Poseidon” eye to eye. Good luck.

Even Dawkins (on youtube) when the question was put to him what would he say when he died and he met “Poseidon”. He didn’t rule it out as hypothetical or ridiculous – he actually paraphrased what Russell had said years earlier as his response.

Cheers.

One, thank you for commenting. Even dissenting, cached arguments are welcome.

Two, someone else already said that and I replied to it above.

Three, try rereading what you wrote and replace the word “God” with “Poseidon”. This is literally how it sounds to the ears of an unbeliever. The idea that someone could say things like that about Poseidon likely stymies your imagination. It is how everyone feels about most gods in human history, and how many of us feel about all of them.

If God exists – and no one can prove He doesn’t, he has authority to order the demise of anyone who has turned their back on His teachings. And if He exists, it has only been by his grace that any humans are still alive today, even the supposed most righteous for they are not perfect.

Who knows why there are certain episodes in the Old Testament like the order against the Canaanites (who incidentally were Pagan like, practiced child sacrifices etc) – many believe it was God warning people not to turn their back on Him – but that’s another chapter in itself. There was a specific reason why the Canaanites needed to be driven from the land they occupied.

All Craig has tried to do is interpret God’s reason.

As for Dawkins stating no one knows of Craig – what nonsense. Most of the worlds leading Atheists have debated him and have lost.

Hitchens debated him in 2009. Prior to the debate Hitchens stated that Craig is taken very seriously amongst his fellow non-believers, very scholarly, a tough nut, etc etc. He also stated he doesn’t often get texts and emails before a debate saying ‘Good luck tonight’ – but with Crag he does.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230; Their call on the debate – “Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child”.

Whenever Sam Harris debates Craig he begins along the same line as Hitchens re the texts and emails, and states “I am delighted to be debating William Lane Craig – the one Christian Apologist who puts the fear of God amongst my fellow atheists”

THE REAL REASON DAWKINS WON’T DEBATE CRAIG – HE KNOWS HE WILL BE BEATEN!!!

End of story.