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

croftr's Profile

croftr's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by croftr

More Discussions by croftr

Latest Comments by croftr

Go to: Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

croftr's Avatar Jump to comment 146 by croftr

@ignorant amos

I am certainly not speaking for you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself given that half the comments in this entire thread seem to come from you.

As for Richard he says:

"I am not in favour of banning crosses unless it can be shown that, like daggers, they can do damage or should be banned for other reasons in particular circumstances which might be discussed. But I am also not in favour of religion being used as grounds for exemption from any law that the rest of us have to obey"

Anyone with a little bit of PR awareness about them would see this as a chance to make that point publicly which both clears the confusion about what this is actually about and also highlights that Richard is not in favor of mindlessly oppressing the religious which is the way the media are always keen to portray him.

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:50:15 UTC | #926396

Go to: Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

croftr's Avatar Jump to comment 140 by croftr

If you are reading this Richard please make a public pronouncement defending Christians right to wear crosses. This is not a problem of religion, its harmless and most of us atheists seem to have no issue with it. It’s also a great PR opportunity to show that you don’t just mindlessly want to oppress the religious. Let’s attack the real issues such as faith schools and support freedom of expression for all.

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:31:13 UTC | #926387

Go to: Response to Critics

croftr's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by croftr

After reading The Moral Landscape and many of the critiques here is my summation of what is going on here.

The worst critics of Harris totally misunderstand his arguments or have not even read the book or simply take objection to the idea that science can be used at all concerning questions of morality. Some of the better critics seem to think he is stating something more profound or original than he actually is.

Harris seems to be doing nothing more than stating the obvious to me but to be doing it in a rather grandiose style which seems to be confusing people in thinking he is claiming more than he is.

He does claim an objective basis for morality but it is objective in a sense which allows for many different right ways to be moral and thus reduces to a kind of subjectivism albeit one in which allows you to point at some extreme practices and claim they are morally wrong.

Morality can only exist in a world with conscious sentient creatures and should reduce to the well being of those creatures. There are better and worse ways of maximising the wellbeing of these creatures and science can, in principle at least, tell us how to achieve this.

Really what is wrong with that view?

When you cut through a lot of the rhetoric that is his basic claim and one I think many of his critics actually agree with.

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:57:42 UTC | #596016

Go to: Vatican confirms report of sexual abuse and rape of nuns by priests in 23 countries

croftr's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by croftr

Lets see them blame this one on the evils of secularism and homosexuals.

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:31:07 UTC | #595996

Go to: Tom Sutcliffe's Review: Faith Schools Menace?

croftr's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by croftr

Is there not a case to be made for an investigation as to why a biology teacher doesn’t know what evolution is and also has not produced one student who accepts evolution to be true?

Is there perhaps something more than incompetence at work here?

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:30:35 UTC | #502328

More Comments by croftr