This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

OhioAtheist's Profile

OhioAtheist's Avatar Joined about 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by OhioAtheist

More Discussions by OhioAtheist

Latest Comments by OhioAtheist

Go to: 'All Terrorists are Darwinists': An Interview with Harun Yahya

OhioAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by OhioAtheist

A nice reminder that Muslim leaders who condemn terrorism are still eminently capable of proving themselves dogmatic, primitive, and generally empty-headed.

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:50:00 UTC | #239492

Go to: Pastor Rick's Test

OhioAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by OhioAtheist

bamafreethinker:

Wasn't McCain the only republican that raised his hand when asked if he believes in evolution, or was that someone else?


At the first Republican primary debate, the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not accept evolution. The only three to do so were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. The other seven (there were ten candidates at this time) left their hands down and implied that they did believe in evolution. Not a terrible state of affairs, really; if only we could get 70% of the public to come around!

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:34:00 UTC | #221421

Go to: Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Thinking about Morality

OhioAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by OhioAtheist

Paul42:

Was It Sam Harris who gave the example of jewish children approving of genocide if the story was given in their favour but not if the word Israelites was replaced by something else?


I believe that experiment was referenced in The God Delusion.

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:14:00 UTC | #210330

Go to: Atheism and Violence

OhioAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by OhioAtheist

England's most pious unbeliever concludes with this wan distinction: "Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't, but even if he was, the bottom line of the Stalin/Hitler debating point is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." So it's not atheism that's the problem, only atheists! At this point you can probably already hear someone offstage lip-synching G. K. Chesterton: it's not that atheism has been tried and found wanting, you see, it's just never been tried at all in its pure form, a point that would not likely have consoled the Carmelite nuns as they were being killed by Republican forces during Spain's civil war in the 1930s.


Is it just me, or is this extract entirely devoid of engagement with Dawkins' actual point?

It's remarkable how popular Nietzsche is with the theological crowd. They don't seem to get that "Nietzsche, an atheist, wrote that atheism leads to nihilism; therefore atheism leads to nihilism" does not an argument make.

Such obtuseness is shared by most liberals today, who merrily fuse opposition to capital punishment, support for abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, condemnation of racism, and a vaguely appreciative acquaintance with evolutionary theory¬ówithout the least sense of the impossible dilemmas entailed in these contradictory positions.


What a ludicrous obfuscation. The appeal to nature in moral reasoning is a logical fallacy; Oakes ought to know better. The truth or falsity of a particular scientific theory has no bearing on our moral principles whatsoever.

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:24:00 UTC | #112226

Go to: Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

OhioAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by OhioAtheist

Dawkins' and Singer's arguments require one to believe that there is, ontologically and morally, no difference between taking the life of a fellow sentient creature and taking the life of another human being.


If you had any familiarity with Singer you would know that this is bullshit. He makes quite clear that he considers the taking of a human life more wrong than the taking of, say, a cow's, on the preference-utilitarian grounds that, as a person (a being with a conception of a "self" persisting over time), the human is more able to value his own life than the cow, a non-person, is. In other words, you wrong the human you kill more than the cow you kill. He does believe that it wrong to place human interests, by default, above animal interests of comparable value (say, their interest in avoiding the torment inflicted upon them in the billions by the modern meat industry); but this is quite a different matter from what you allege. Animals unable to consciously value their own lives simply have no interest in staying alive, Singer implies, which is why he has, as Joey Kurtzman of Jewcy says, "left many of us with the understanding that death has no value whatsoever in Singer's utilitarian calculations, and is undesirable only to the extent that it comes with associated suffering. If Charles Eisenstein were to detonate a neutron bomb on a small island full of chocolate labrador puppies, I don't know that Singer would find this of any great concern."

In the future please deign to stay away from straw men.

Sat, 08 Dec 2007 07:04:00 UTC | #91001

More Comments by OhioAtheist