Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > science discussion forum

I disagree with Richard Dawkins


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-21 of 21 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 20 Aug 2014 22:18:59 BDT
Withnail says:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

I profoundly disagree with Dawkins regarding this. I still agree with him that there is no god.

Posted on 20 Aug 2014 22:57:55 BDT
Although Down's Syndrome isn't considered to be a painful condition in itself, I believe they tend to have heart and lung problems which can shorten their lives. In fact a syndrome isn't a disease in itself but a collection of symptoms, so the approach I would have thought would be to give them extra support so their bodies can deal with the problems. It might be thought that the chromosomal abnormality would be irrepairable, but the body has a great capacity to repair itself if given the chance.

Posted on 20 Aug 2014 23:12:03 BDT
Anita says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 21 Aug 2014 00:26:10 BDT
Ronald Craig says:
Eventually, hopefully, we'll be able to detect and correct such problems in utero and Down's will become a thing of the past.

What Man can imagine, Man can do.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2014 00:40:37 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 23 Aug 2014 15:12:31 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2014 10:01:37 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Aug 2014 10:03:18 BDT
Drew Jones says:
He's constantly walked a fine line on Twitter and made me cringe with embarrassment but I also see the limitations of the medium make almost any comment on ethical issues problematic. This is coupled with another problem of other people jumping on twitter posts as if a 140 character status has to be absolute and ungenerously attributed to the worst interpretation possible, and we've seen how much people can get a kick out of this sort of thing* means I've never had high hopes for him using it to carry on making his point.

While I've often been able to read between the lines somewhat and see some rational sense in his other contentious statements, even if there is still a detectable sense of him relishing the trolling-like way he phrases things and gets attention, this time the statement is too all-encompassing to be excusable. It looks very definitive and is harsh because of that. The 'start again' bit being highly callous.

* I'm expecting people to suggest the error of judgement in this tweet makes his criticisms of religion null and avoid and therefore there is a god!

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2014 11:48:18 BDT
That's the attitude of science though isn't it? Hopefully one day there will be an answer to such and such a problem. It's not surprising that some people clutch at straws when it comes to addressing the problems they have now, and don't want to have to wait 50 years for a solution.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2014 11:55:55 BDT
Ronald Craig says:
This is the Science forum, isn't it? What other attitude is relevant?

People who learn that they're going to have a child with Down's should have the right to decide whether they want to accept those problems or not. And should take responsibility for their decisions.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2014 12:27:49 BDT
Withnail says:
Agreed. It is the right of that family to make a decision, and their responsibility to live with that decision. Comments from Dawkins about abortion being the default position are not helpful.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2014 21:57:28 BDT
Ghostgrey51 says:
Hi Withnail
I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Normally I don't comment on Professor Dawkins' or his works because the gap between his beliefs and mine are very very wide and that's that.

This one though strikes me as a bit chilling. Anita's "Other than that, if memory is to be trusted, no society which didn't care about the weak, ill, disabled ended up well. Think anything from Sparta to the nazis " sums it up.
Also echoes of various SF novels I have read down the year concerning 'drains' or 'defectives'.

Then there will be the more excitable fellow-theists who will be jumping up and down with barely restrained glee masquerading as horror by saying 'See! See! This is what all atheists are about!!' (If this comes to pass as a Christian and thus who gets associated with some fundamentalist groups' 'odd' ideas- you will have my sympathies)

Looking at the article from the Independent he does indeed seem to have fallen into the dread social media trap of trying to cover a very complex & emotional resonant subject in a small space.

Hubris maybe?
(Though leaving out the celestial deity punishment bit- far worse- censure in the media).

Having said all that it was uplifting to read so many constructive, compassionate and positive postings.

Posted on 24 Aug 2014 19:43:55 BDT
I agree with him - quelle surprise.
And if you do have one, then I don't think you should be entitled to any benefits for it, considering you CHOSE to have it.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Aug 2014 19:49:28 BDT
Ghostgrey51 says:
Hi Chief.
But how does that square with the love of the potential parent?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Aug 2014 20:17:53 BDT
Anita says:
Hiya, Chief. As an extention: if you have a healthy child, should you not get any payment - because you chose to have a child?

(Not a tongue-in-cheek question btw, just curious, as your thinking sometimes goes in odd curves which I find unfamiliar. But then, I suffer from too high level of curiosity in my blood ;) )

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2015 09:12:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jun 2015 20:57:34 BDT
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

Withnail says:- I profoundly disagree with Dawkins regarding this.

Why ?
Seems to me this is one of the first sensible statements Dawkins has made.

It has to be 'immoral' to preserve the mentally/physically/genetically defective, at a time when the healthy are being slaughtered/aborted by the millions annually.

Such a 'policy' spits in the face of Charles Darwin's advice, because the only result must be to debase the human gene pool.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2015 11:24:19 BDT
Withnail says:
you realise that this comment completely contradicts your oft quoted position that abortion is murder. Try and be consistent.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2015 14:35:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 Jun 2015 14:47:23 BDT
Withnail

Abortion is murder, end of story.

What you fail to understand however is that I've no problem with murder (or any other vice/immorality?) whatever, per se. It's the hypocrisy that I loath.

Take a good look at the sanctimonious lies/double standards of the 'Liberal'/Socialist regimes you venerate Withnail:-
1'
They squeal about the sanctity of 'Free Speech' while attempting to gain power; but pass 'Hate Crime Laws' to muzzle the Free Speech of others once in power.
2.
They prattle sanctity of Human Life, but create a 'Health' industry that butchers tens of millions of unborn children every year.
3.
They preach 'tolerance'; but spew hatred/vilification at any who have a different set of 'tolerances'.
4.
They preach 'Freedom', by pass petty dictates by the thousands every year, 'legislating' about everything and anything, but achieving nothing, because the same 'leadership' writing the 'laws' ignores them if/when inconvenient.
5.
They teach children about 'Darwinism', but do everything possible to preserve/protect the limp/lame and lazy (largely themselves of course) from that same Natural Selection process.

What 'Liberal/Socialism has really done of course, is to substitute their own inferior 'morality', for the age old 'Divine Morality' that's served humanity well since the dawn of time.

IF ? like many amongst the Satanic leaders so many millions of weak/ineffectual 'liberals' hero worship; you were prepared to stand up and uncompromisingly declare to the world:-

"Damn all morality! Do as Thou whilst shall be all of the Law! "

I'd agree with you whole-heartedly; because I'd be more than happy to live life by 'big boys rules' I assure you! My 'natural amorality' was one of the characteristics that Sir Edward Heath said he most admired in me.

The real farce is that these people want to be 'luvved'? call themselves 'luvvies'?
even as they diligently construct vast Police States, in which people like myself are hired by the millions (as military, police or security personnel) to enforce their spiteful/vindictive dictates, work the CCTV camera networks, staff the telephone/Inter-Net bugging systems, extract the taxes etc...... etc.....

No !
As far as I'm concerned, the freedom for Me and Mine, to do what's best for Me and Mine; is the only 'Freedom' that matters. If that involves doing 'harm' to others, so what ?

That's Charles Darwin's doctrine of Natural Selection in action, isn't it ?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2015 14:53:24 BDT
Kleist says:
C. W. Bradbury says:

'Withnail

Abortion is murder, end of story.

What you fail to understand however is that I've no problem with murder (or any other vice/immorality?) whatever, per se. It's the hypocrisy that I loath.'

So hypocrisy isn't a vice or immoral? Ok, if you think not. Why loath it then? (then follows lots of moral condemnation of alleged - but of course imagined - hypocrisy).

And you are fine with every immoral act? Good, then you won't be condemning homosexuality any more as immoral. (not that it is, but since you think it is you should have no problem with it).

C. W. Bradbury says:

'As far as I'm concerned, the freedom for Me and Mine, to do what's best for Me and Mine; is the only 'Freedom' that matters. If that involves doing 'harm' to others, so what ?

That's Charles Darwin's doctrine of Natural Selection in action, isn't it ?'

No it isn't.

It isn't even remotely Darwin's theory. Natural selection - as has been explained to you umpteen times to ABSOLUTELY no avail - is a biological theory of how species evolved. It has ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to how human beings ought to act toward each other in the moral sense of 'ought.'

Children ought to know this.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2015 15:10:08 BDT
Withnail says:
So in the cwb world it is ok to murder so long as you are honest about it. Ok, not much I can say about that....

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2015 16:06:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 Jun 2015 16:09:55 BDT
"Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." - Galatians 4:8.

Try and grasp the wisdom of the Scripture above Mr Wilde, because it's speaking of you and millions like you.

Full of unacknowledged but strictly orthodox (conformist ? ) 'Liberal' double standards, you say:-

"It has ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to how human beings ought to act toward each other in the moral sense "

Oh really ? and on what authority do you make that statement Mr Wilde ?
What you think might be best for you perhaps ? because you've already denied God's authority and are now denying Darwin's.

Historically, those words represent precisely why Hedonistic societies degenerate into chaos, with innumerable petty factions tearing at each other; whilst remaining oblivious to external threat.
With no universally accepted 'Moral Code', each man begins to make his own, and as the Scriptures warns us:-

"out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders ".

"Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. They pursue evil schemes; acts of violence mark their ways. "

Those same Scriptures also warn us of how that route leads to utter disaster/catastrophe:-

"the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. " - Matthew 7:13-14.

"Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the kingdoms that do not call on your name" - Psalm 79:6.

"At the breath of God they perish; at the blast of his anger they are no more. " - Job 4:9.

That's what's happening to your quasi-Marxist Shangri-La right now Mr Wilde. As you pontificate but fail to substantiate "how human beings ought to act toward each other ", evermore millions/billions (from Islamics, through Marxists, Fascists, Racists and lapsed Christians, to Satanists and cannibals) around the planet are coming to look your dream-world with the same contempt you have for Divine Law.

The only real difference is that Divine Law works, while mankind's best efforts don't; as degenerate Atheistic/Hedonistic societies have invariably discovered throughout history.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2015 16:36:54 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 Jun 2015 16:39:45 BDT
Kleist says:
C. W. Bradbury says:

"It has ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to how human beings ought to act toward each other in the moral sense "

Oh really ? and on what authority do you make that statement Mr Wilde ?
What you think might be best for you perhaps ? because you've already denied God's authority and are now denying Darwin's.'

No. On the authority of simple logic.

Darwin was a naturalist and developed a theory of natural selection which explained how species developed. He was not a moralist (or hardly) and any inference from what is contained in a doctrine about species development to ethical theory or theory of values commits the rather obvious fallacy of the Appeal to nature or the Naturalistic fallacy. These, in one form or another, have been know since Hume and no first-year undergraduate would make such an infantile error.

Darwin himself attempts to base morality on empathy and instinctive sympathy which leads to altruism - just the opposite of what you attribute to him. But he is not particularly good on ethical questions in my view because he remained within the remit of utilitarianism. That, however, is beside the point. One need not hold views on morality which Darwin held in order to find his theory of natural selection compelling. The two quite obviously are very different. Only social-Darwinists, Nazis and the uneducated conflate them. (Just as one may agree with Dawkins' views on genetics without agreeing with his view on abortion - as the OP makes plain).

I know this is pointless because you will never understand this, but it is obvious nonetheless.

C. W. Bradbury says:

'Historically, those words represent precisely why Hedonistic societies degenerate into chaos, with innumerable petty factions tearing at each other; whilst remaining oblivious to external threat.
With no universally accepted 'Moral Code', each man begins to make his own, and as the Scriptures warns us:- '

There is a perfectly obvious (set) of moral codes. They are the one's that you just said you have 'no problem' with people transgressing, indeed you welcomed it so long as you and yours did alright.

Quote: CWB: ' I've no problem with murder (or any other vice/immorality?) whatever, per se.' (edit: CWB: 'As far as I'm concerned, the freedom for Me and Mine, to do what's best for Me and Mine; is the only 'Freedom' that matters. If that involves doing 'harm' to others, so what ?')

It is little wonder that you have no understanding whatsoever of morality and no moral sense.

C. W. Bradbury says:

'That's what's happening to your quasi-Marxist Shangri-La right now Mr Wilde. As you pontificate but fail to substantiate "how human beings ought to act toward each other ", evermore millions/billions (from Islamics, through Marxists, Fascists, Racists and lapsed Christians, to Satanists and cannibals) around the planet are coming to look your dream-world with the same contempt you have for Divine Law.'

Attributing views to me that I don't hold and pointing out my failure to do what I had no intention of doing does not really make your case any stronger. It just makes you look sillier.

You have no idea even what you are talking about.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Oct 2015 12:28:01 BDT
Ian says:
"That's Charles Darwin's doctrine of Natural Selection in action, isn't it ?"

It's not a doctrine; it's an explanation of how the diversity of organisms we see on the planet came about from a common ancestor.

You're confusing "social darwinism" (of which Darwin was not a proponent) with Natural Selection.

Social darwinism is based on a number of fundamental misunderstandings; a misunderstanding of the concepts of 'survival of the fittest' and 'struggle for existence' (and, as the OP is about Dawkins we might as well as 'selfish gene' to the list) none of which imply that the only way to succeed is through brutal and selfish behaviour. Altruism is common in nature because it is a successful strategy.

Also, the same error you made; the mistaken idea that because there is evidence that natural selection has happened that we must take this as some sort of doctrine which defines what it is to be a successful human being. This is as foolish as believing that because science has shown that the universe is expanding then people must expand too; therefore the only successful people are the ones who are getting fatter on a daily basis.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the science discussion forum (91 discussions)

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
'The yeti is a polar bear'? 58 30 May 2016
Stephen Hawking: the radical stupidity of the very intelligent... 0 19 Jan 2016
Excessively well-researched webpage shows nobody born gay (mygenes.co.nz) --it shows also neuroplasticity is real 254 24 Oct 2015
Why have humans not travelled further than the moon? 270 10 Oct 2015
I disagree with Richard Dawkins 20 10 Oct 2015
Two books ("My genes made me do it" and "The Brain that changes itself") shows parental neglect causes homosexuality 0 18 Sep 2015
Cheaper than EBAY and AMAZON! 0 6 Sep 2015
The Brain and its amazing ability to read 0 25 Aug 2015
Is the Earth hollow? 109 6 Jun 2015
Is the introduction of genetically modified mosquitos the cure for Malaria? 9 15 May 2015
I Hate Spin 84 20 Aug 2014
new research shows everybody is gay! 46 20 Aug 2014

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  science discussion forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  21
Initial post:  20 Aug 2014
Latest post:  10 Oct 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions