jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (10 posts)

Why do atheists deny the existence and importance of Peter Singer?

  1. Oztinato profile image81
    Oztinatoposted 3 years ago

    Why do atheists deny the existence and importance of Peter Singer?

    Why do Atheist have a selective memory problem with Peter Singer?
    If you still don't know who he is or are pretending not to know: he is the "evil twin" of Richard Dawkins scuttling around in the attic of modern day atheism cooking up ways to legalize infanticide and bestiality.

  2. poppyr profile image98
    poppyrposted 3 years ago

    Do you mean the Australian philosopher?  That's the Peter Singer I know about.  By infanticide do you mean the fact that he is pro-choice?
    What's the basis of your opinion, if you don't mind me asking?

    1. Oztinato profile image81
      Oztinatoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Infanticide is the murder of infants. Many atheists call it after birth abortion! At the moment murder is notpro choice

    2. junkseller profile image85
      junksellerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "Many atheists call it after birth abortion!"

      No, no they don't. You could count on your hand the number who do. You're being ridiculous. This is a complete strawman.

    3. Oztinato profile image81
      Oztinatoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Junkseller
      you and others are in denial. Its a big international agenda and can be researched quite easily.

  3. peeples profile image95
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    Joined 16 months ago, only 2 hubs, I have to wonder what other account you have here. At least then I would know who I was dealing with! Why in the world do believers think we keep up with every other atheist or even care what other atheist/agnostics think?!?!? I base my beliefs off MY brain. I don't run around looking for others who agree with me and then determine if they do something bad or not.

    1. Oztinato profile image81
      Oztinatoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      No objection from peebles to infanticide or beatiality. Why arent I surprised!

    2. Oztinato profile image81
      Oztinatoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The facts are clear. No atheists are objecting online to the populist Peter Singer agenda.

  4. junkseller profile image85
    junksellerposted 3 years ago

    Considering the obvious derogatory characterizations of Peter Singer ("evil," "scuttling around in the attic," and "cooking up ways to legalize infanticide and beastiality"), along with your insinuations about atheists, I'd say it is pretty clear that this is simply a cheap attempt to impugn athiests by a nonexistent association.

    Atheists aren't a cabal. There is no secret handshake. They have no duty to a collective hive, nor a duty to know what everyone claiming to be an atheist thinks or says.

    He is also a philosopher and it is almost always a bad idea to take out pieces of a philosophical argument without understanding the full context of the argument and without doing the heavy lifting of actually reviewing the entire argument.

    One could look wider and see that much of the framework of Singer is based on the notion of reducing the suffering of living creatures. That doesn't sound so bad, so how exactly do his comments about beastiality fit into all of that? I don't know. I haven't read his full body of work, nor am I philosophically fluent, but based upon what you have presented here, the same would seem to be true of you.

    If you really want to get anywhere, you'd have to display a much deeper understanding of the issues and be less hostile in your approach. This isn't going to cut it.

    1. Oztinato profile image81
      Oztinatoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I have made a joke out of Singer to reveal the true state of affairs.
      On a serious note it is easy to find out on Wiki how well organized Atheism has become in recent years with hundreds of linked international organizations pursing similar agendas.

Closed to reply
 
working