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

AgriculturalAtheist's Profile

AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Joined about 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by AgriculturalAtheist

More Discussions by AgriculturalAtheist

Latest Comments by AgriculturalAtheist

Go to: Scapegoat for Catholic evils?

AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by AgriculturalAtheist

Comment 26 by Premiseless :

Comment 25 by AgriculturalAtheist :

I don't get the whole scapegoat mentality. Children were raped. Adult genitalia were forced upon minors (or vice versa). These children will always be troubled and haunted by this. True, it could have been prevented by someone above them who knew about it, but from the victims' points of view, it was the individual priests' penises - not the scapegoat's - that raped them. Like the Penn State Sandusky case, justice will not be properly served until the ACTUAL RAPISTS are behind bars. THEN we can begin working on those who helped sweep the issue under the proverbial rug, at which point they won't be "only" scapegoats any more.

This might be a good point at which to mention "multiculturalism" and how human brains per se are supposed to integrate a universal ethic on the subject minus examples of each cultures infectious memes becoming "cross cultural"

But wasn't it precisely "multiculturalism" (or rather, one person's imaging of what it was, along with a "universal ethic," raising the issue that even these terms are not "universally" accepted or defined) that let this horrible woman who debated Dawkins (or someone else?) "justifying" female genital mutilation because it respected the practices of that culture? WE agree she was wrong, but who exactly holds a "god's eye" unbiased extra-mutlicultural perspective to patrol how "human brain.....are SUPPOSED to integrate [this] universal ethic on [a] subject minus [these kinds of] examples"?

My point was more about who we blame and who we punish (which, would you believe it, some disagree should even be done, or more typically what KIND of punishment is appropriate, moral, effective, etc.). Had Sandusky been a teen coach committing these acts on slightly younger peers, or instead of priests raping, the elder (but not adult) altar boys organized a raping ring, one would obviously hold the adults responsible for them, er, responsible AND still levy a punishment against the minors, not just transfer them somewhere else. In the actual cases the perpetrators are adults who did what they did with out their superiors knowing about it (at the time). I don't see why they should not be held responsible FIRST and most severely, then get to the "after the fact enablers" in due course.

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:03:50 UTC | #950339

Go to: Scapegoat for Catholic evils?

AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by AgriculturalAtheist

I don't get the whole scapegoat mentality. Children were raped. Adult genitalia were forced upon minors (or vice versa). These children will always be troubled and haunted by this. True, it could have been prevented by someone above them who knew about it, but from the victims' points of view, it was the individual priests' penises - not the scapegoat's - that raped them. Like the Penn State Sandusky case, justice will not be properly served until the ACTUAL RAPISTS are behind bars. THEN we can begin working on those who helped sweep the issue under the proverbial rug, at which point they won't be "only" scapegoats any more.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:11:12 UTC | #950108

Go to: Against All Gods

AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by AgriculturalAtheist

Not I!

But wait - though I may delude myself that I am sophisticated, I am certainly not a theologian, or even a theist! Still, for what it is worth, here is the first post of agreement from "the choir."

My only worry is that the excerpt might be seen as waving a taunting red flag at believers. If the tone were not (albeit, justifiably so) sarcastic, the perception of "baiting" or "trolling" might be avoided. However, I predict either full major chord choral agreement on this, or (much rarer, at least here) debate and resentment.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:04:59 UTC | #950107

Go to: The raw deal of determinism and reductionism

AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by AgriculturalAtheist

Seems like an overly complicated argument over an issue that remains to be proven. Free will is a felt, intuitive belief and so its existence and reality is asserted. What mountain of data on this topic, other than a few tantalizing studies that seem to suggest that it does not exist (at least not as we think it does), is there for anybody to account for and trace back through a causal/determined sequence? Or, reduce down to something simpler?

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:54:26 UTC | #948950

Go to: The living fossils of brain evolution

AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by AgriculturalAtheist

And yet obviously size alone does not account for how "advanced" a brain is. At least with regard to its body, how quickly does the largest mammal (and largest animal ever) the blue whale take to feel pain or touch on its rear flipper, and then be able to respond? Similarly, the size of the dolphin brain in relation to its body (or our brain) implies, demonstrates, proves, disproves, or calls in to question what, exactly, with regard to the article?

Fri, 25 May 2012 15:21:57 UTC | #943496

More Comments by AgriculturalAtheist