1. I’d simply call that good a PR/recruitment program.

2. they have to spend their obscene fortunes on SOMETHING.

3. Scientology funds tons of drug and alcohol recovery programs. Good on them… doesn’t mean their beliefs are valid in the least.

4. anonymity is lame.

Trying to discredit atheists by saying that the Catholic church spends more on hospitals on them is an unfair argument, as it is widely known that the Catholic church has much more money that any single atheist, and probably a lot of atheists combined. Being an atheist doesn’t mean we don’t donate money to people who need it, so please cast aside your delusion.

Your accusation is exactly the same as saying that Bill Gates is a better person than me because he donates more money to charities than I do. It is a ridiculous accusation since Bill Gates has much more money than I do and can therefore donate more. Our views on donating money are probably the same, and if I suddenly became as rich as he is, there is no reason why I wouldn’t donate the same amounts.

Exactly the point I made in my “hypothesis” concerning democratic morality. Although I am the first to admit that my hypothesis only has basic scientific arguments in it, and I have no evidence but history itself, I think I make the point clearly that a world without morality would be evil running wild. History dictates that is not the case, and was never the case. One only has to look at our genetic brothers, the apes, to see that morality is already present in the animal kingdom.

What the hell did people do before the Ten Commandments were magically inscribed on those fabled stone tablets - run around like crazed madmen, raping and pillaging and killing every child in sight??!

In both cases, (Utilitarian and atheistic) these perspectives are very common to my own, but as I stated above, myself and Mr Singer disagree on a few ethical points.

“Isn’t that exactly what you are doing with this post?”

Not at all. I’m not saying that every single person who believes in faith healing is sick and twisted and likes to torture and murder children. I am well aware that the vast majority of people try faith healing alongside traditional medical assistance. What I am doing is saying that this family (and a few others) have gone too far, and have put their religious beliefs above anything else offered to them.

Thank you, your honor I rest my case.

Peter Singer’s wiki states “He specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian and atheistic perspective.”

Utilitarian and atheistic perspective, aren’t those view common to yours? Utilitarian, meaning morality from society.

“I’m saying that you can’t use someone’s religious beliefs to label their ethical ones.”

Isn’t that exactly what you are doing with this post?

Atheistic ethics? There is no such thing. Atheism is a belief that there is no God, and that is all. You can’t have ethics based on atheism because there is nothing there to base it on. I’m not saying ethics based on Christianity or indeed theism is correct, I’m just saying that you can’t base it on a non existent belief system. Peter Singer’s ethics are his own view, and if people subscribe to that then that’s their choice, However, it’s not based on atheism, it’s based on a harsh form of eugenics, something entirely different.

The Terri Schiavo case was widely reported in the UK, so I am aware somewhat of it. The opposition once again took a harsh eugenical view on the case, not an atheistic one. This lady was disabled, and had nothing to offer society so she had no “value” in such a society. Now, I’m not saying I subscribe to such ethics, I don’t, I’m saying that you can’t use someone’s religious beliefs to label their ethical ones.

If you want my ethical views on cases similar to Terri Schiavo, they are simple. If the person has no hope of recovery, and is reduced to an essentially non existent life, then there is no reason for the state to support that life. If the family want to come up with the money to continue treatment and care, that is their prerogative, and I have no argument against it.

If however the person is destined for a life of continual pain and suffering and are unaware of the world around them (mentally speaking) then that person should have their life ended. There is no reason for any person to go through such suffering. I don’t think the family should have any say in the order of things, as they would be doing more harm to the person to keep her alive than to allow her to die.

In the third case, where the person is very much aware or the world, and in an insufferable amount of pain, then there is no reason why the state or anyone should oppose them if they wish to be allowed to die. I am fully in favour of both passive and active forms of euthanasia, but obviously with strict conditions applied to the passive kind (see above).

I believe I am right in saying that in the case of Terri Schiavo, the patient was unaware of the world around them. According to Wikipedia she suffered from PVS (persistent vegetative state) which backs up my point. In terms of my personal ethics then, I would have expected the state to not support that life, and for it to be up to the family to provide the support financially for her to be kept alive.