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

scotsman4188's Profile

scotsman4188's Avatar Joined about 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by scotsman4188

More Discussions by scotsman4188

Latest Comments by scotsman4188

Go to: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

scotsman4188's Avatar Jump to comment 547 by scotsman4188

Comment 539 by JHJEFFERY :

Comment 528 by scotsman4188

Does that satisfy you, you undereducated lemming Dawkins-bot chicken turd?

Why, yes, it does. And that was the thread before you tried to hijack it with your anti-Singer rant. So good on you for disowning the despicable WLC. Now if we could just get you to understand the philosophical distinction between the alleviation of a life of excruciating pain and genocide, the effort will have been worth it.

------------- The excruciating pain of down's syndrome?

By the way, I see that my post 428 was deleted by the moderator. Sorry, but I am not going to continue in a discussion where others on the favored side of this website can call me coward or Godbot or say that I am a retarded donkey, but when I return the language in kind (immature admittedly) my posts get deleted.

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:09:57 UTC | #883563

Go to: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

scotsman4188's Avatar Jump to comment 537 by scotsman4188

Comment 535 by Quine :

Wow, I am sure glad to hear that Craig's views have no influence in society. Here, I was worried his support of religion, in general, had provided some cover for the actions of clergy behind all the terrible stories we have seen in the last few years of the abuse of children at their hands.

------- Oh, sure, that comment makes a lot of sense. Any concerns about Singer or is he just hunky-dory?

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:18:21 UTC | #883545

Go to: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

scotsman4188's Avatar Jump to comment 522 by scotsman4188

Comment 518 by PatW :

------------- What is Peter Singer's position on euthanizing infants who are born with, say, down's syndrome or hemophilia? Does he or does he not support the right of parents to do that?

I have no idea if he ever expressed any. If you persist in telling us what Dr. Singer has said, then post the entire context not cherry picked parts of it for self-serving convenience.

---------- Go read pages 190-193 of Writings on an Ethical Life. You can preview it at Amazon.com. Sorry, but you can't copy and paste from it.

I had no idea so many parents were demanding to euthanize their offspring merely because their offspring had Down Syndrome or hemophilia. I never met or even heard about any of those parents. If that demand doesn’t exist, there’s nothing to support, is there?

-------------- No, there are not many people, thank God, who support euthanizing their children because they have down's syndrome or hemophilia. Unfortunately, Singer supports their right to do so.

Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:11:15 UTC | #883518

Go to: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

scotsman4188's Avatar Jump to comment 511 by scotsman4188

Comment 509 by PatW Comment 473 by Philosophy2424 :

You are clearly ignorant. Name one theistic philosopher who has ever claimed that God's omnipotence means He can do contradictions.

Take your pick at the Vatican. There are plenty to choose from starting with the popes and edicts from the papal chair sitter. Read any RC 1st grade catechism, and you'll easily find it contradicting you. It says "God sees all, hears all, knows all, does all." (Definition of omnipotent) There’s nothing tacked on saying ".....but only if it's logical

--------- Oh, please, this from someone who is claiming that others take Dawkins or Singer out of context. An unnamed catechism for 1st graders doesn't include a philosophically rigorous definition of omnipotence and do you think Catholics or Christians don't presume logical contradictions to be outside of God's omnipotence. Here is an explicit statement to the contrary from Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 25, Art 3 (so you can read it yourself).

All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent. Now according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 17), a thing is said to be possible in two ways.

It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.

Show me an statement from a pope or other Christian authority which has said anything to the contrary.

Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:54:46 UTC | #883488

Go to: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

scotsman4188's Avatar Jump to comment 491 by scotsman4188

Comment 487 by PatW :

If the ad hominem critics of Dawkins had actually watched the video accessed from a link placed on this board, and made an effort to comprehend the exchange between Drs. Singer and Dawkins, they would learned that what I have posted above is exactly the lose/lose dilemma they discussed in general. Though they did not actually expound on their discussion as I did with specifics as I did, I knew exactly what both meant. They didn’t mean they condone infanticide or any other killing or murder under any and all cases, as Craig persistently clearly condones using the physical concept genocide by myth example. What Drs. Singer and Dawkins said and meant stated this as did I do the same. The correct answers aren’t easy, far from it. The discussion directly pertaining to any necessary case of humane vs. inhumane final result, and where is any line to be drawn beyond case by case. How that equates to condoning infanticide, I have no idea. Because the comments from opposition aren‘t logical, not even in personal opinion hypothesis.

------------- What is Peter Singer's position on euthanizing infants who are born with, say, down's syndrome or hemophilia? Does he or does he not support the right of parents to do that?

Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:05:23 UTC | #883457

More Comments by scotsman4188