What did we get as responses?
1) G-man tripped all over himself trying to explain Desire Utilitarianism.
He's right that more explanation would be required.
Maybe I'll break down his recent post on the subject soon. I *am* growing a little thin on blogpost ideas, so that'd be a needed shot in the arm.
2) Anonymous said:
-As an atheist I would say:
*Is* what he is doing wrong ?
Awesome - you and I are thinking on the same wavelength, given atheism. Now just go ahead and try to live that out, my friend. It'll be a LOT harder to live that out in real life than to say "no" in a blog combox.
Besides, ANY time you protest anyone else's rights (or, arguably, even your own) not to be oppressed or something similar, you show that you don't really believe this.
Then he says:
-Some people deserve to live. Most people don't.
By this he shows that he can't live it out. And he didn't even make it past one short combox comment!
This brings up a question, Anonymous, if you're still around - how do you know who deserves to live and who doesn't?
3) John Morales asked about circumcision.
He offered no explanation in the slightest but just asked me another question. Hopefully he'll decide to explain, given a 2nd call-out.
4) merkur begged the question in the following way:
-it is worth noting that some things are of course "more wrong" than others. This mutilation of which you speak, for example, is less wrong than raping little girls
Thereby showing that he can't live out Anonymous' claim either.
But maybe he doesn't believe it.
Then he says:
-A secular moral system can explain this
That's the question I keep asking.
Why is it I answer questions posed to me, but a substantial amount of atheist commenters here won't? Here's hoping for another try.