Dawkins controversial again.

smacl · 26-08-2014 11:42am

recedite wrote: »

The term "morality" has religious connotations, but as they say, fight fire with fire.

Eye for an eye...

Akrasia · 26-08-2014 11:42am

smacl wrote: »

While I agree almost entirely with what you're saying, if you re-read your post you'll note that any morality you apply is dependant on context. So morally, it is fair to say we should examine circumstances on a case by case basis. I agree that the sensible option for most people in the majority of cases would be to terminate a DS pregnancy, and that morally there is a duty of care is to make the prospective parents aware of exactly what they are undertaking should they decide to go ahead and have a DS baby. I still don't believe this equates to telling them they are wrong to do so, independently of circumstance.

I do think it is dangerous to put external pressure on anyone to keep or terminate a pregnancy on grounds of morality. Once people are made fully aware of the consequences of their actions, the choice should be theirs.

Of course you're right. Morality is totally context dependent (unless you're a Kantian)

I don't think it would be a good thing to put social pressure on women to abort their pregnancies if there is an abnormality. That could be just as damaging as pressuring women to carry pregnancies to term regardless of the circumstances.

In my opinion, the social pressure should be to respect the decision made by the woman in these extremely sensitive matters, without second guessing her motives or debating with her, whether or not she did the right thing.

Regardless of what the woman decides, the world will continue to turn and the rest of us will move on with our lives. The woman and her family are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of her decision either way, and therefore, we should respect her choice

smacl · 26-08-2014 11:48am

kylith wrote: »

I think that it's telling that, if I found I was carrying a DS foetus I would terminate because I don't want a DS child, I honestly don't know if I would tell anyone. I think I would even tell family members that I had miscarried, or that there was a FFA, and this is because I feel that I would be judged as somehow immoral, wrong, or bad because I don't want a DS child, even though I know it would be the right thing for me to do. And I wonder how many women have had DS children simply because they feel that way too.

Unfortunately, in this country if you were carrying any foetus you didn't want and got an abortion on that basis, people would tend to judge you left right and centre anyway. Don't know whether they'd judge you less or more if the foetus was DS or had some other serious problem.

Pro-lifers and other religious nut jobs tend to cloud the issue from a local perspective.

kylith · 26-08-2014 12:22pm

smacl wrote: »

Unfortunately, in this country if you were carrying any foetus you didn't want and got an abortion on that basis, people would tend to judge you left right and centre anyway. Don't know whether they'd judge you less or more if the foetus was DS or had some other serious problem.

Pro-lifers and other religious nut jobs tend to cloud the issue from a local perspective.

I think they would judge more. I think that 'I'm not ready to have a child' is, for a lot of people, more understandable that 'I want to have a child, but not this one'. There's a feeling that if you decide to have a child then you have to take what you're given, so to speak.

smacl · 26-08-2014 12:39pm

kylith wrote: »

I think they would judge more. I think that 'I'm not ready to have a child' is, for a lot of people, more understandable that 'I want to have a child, but not this one'. There's a feeling that if you decide to have a child then you have to take what you're given, so to speak.

Fair enough, but the moral fault there is with those who pass judgement on you, whichever decision you make, where basically it is not their business. While Dawkins' comments may have been made in an attempt to redress a perceived imbalance, they're nonetheless similarly judgemental. If you flipped the coin and decided to keep the DS baby, you wouldn't want to be judged as being immoral on that basis any more than you might currently be judged as immoral for having the abortion.

Czarcasm · 26-08-2014 1:32pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Being a notable figure in no way compares him to priests. Yes you will have idiots out there that will be influenced by whoever they cling to, but Dawkins does not claim any such authority, unlike priests.
He never called himself a philosopher. He goes out of his way to say he is not one, does not know the lingo and admits he is only a layman in any field outside of biology, in both books and speeches. So that is a strawman right there.

Moralising, reason, critical thinking, are these not all parts of philosophy? I don't think it's a straw-man when he sets himself against a philosophy that he doesn't agree with and actively tries to discourage that philosophy in other people, going so far as to question their intellect on the basis of their philosophy. For an educated man, he knows it's a cheap shot. I mean, you can make it as literal as you like in that within religious organisations there is a hierarchy and deference to authority, and Dawkins doesn't see himself that way, but undoubtedly similarities can be drawn from the way he is viewed by those who see him as an authority on philosophical matters (not his fault, I know, etc. He would never acknowledge that fact either).

He he may not be held in the same regard as Sagan, he never tried to be another Sagan. I like both for different reasons.
I bet Dawkins would not say what you are saying he would. Perhaps PZ Myers might react like that in a related issue, but Dawkins has repeatedly been polite.

"Fireballs of hatred" was his expression, not mine, and suggesting that those who disagree with his opinion should aim their fireballs of hatred at women who have abortions was his suggestion, not mine. It was classic deflection onto those who do not ask to be judged, who do not hold themselves up to be judged, who unlike Richard didn't come out and say that it would be immoral not to abort in those circumstances. "I'm only saying what everyone else is thinking" is no justification for being an ass. We might be forgiven for thinking these were the words of an immature teenager who knew nothing about the complexities of life, but a man in Richard Dawkins position? Really?

As I said, if we wouldn't excuse religious leaders for such asinine utterances, I don't see why Richard Dawkins should get a free pass. He has a responsibility in his position of influence and to suggest that he is "just a layman", laymen don't usually have such a following on social media. He has handled the matter poorly in my opinion, and continues to handle the matter poorly. Akrasia above put forward a far more reasonable framework for discussion than the blase and laissez-faire attitude that influenced Dawkins latest rather unfortunate brain fart.

I have listened to others, more level headed than you, and I agree Dawkins could have phrased it better, perhaps said that it was not immoral to abort, rather than it was immoral not to abort.

Given that your indicative baseline for who may be level headed and who isn't is Richard Dawkins, you will understand when I say I'm not going to be too perturbed by that remark. Perhaps instead of offering his layman's opinion on something which he clearly has no knowledge or understanding, Dawkins could have kept his opinions to himself.

Too much to ask? It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

lazygal · 26-08-2014 1:37pm

There are women who've undergone IVF (which I'm sure anti choicers also oppose) and then terminated for medical reasons or fatal abnormalities. There's many, many shades of grey in reproductive choices. I know myself when I would and wouldn't terminate a pregnancy and we discussed this before I had anomaly scans during my pregnancies. I'm in the lucky position of being able to afford to have choices during pregnancy. Many women are not, and the pro life solution to every single pregnancy is to remain pregnant, regardless of anything else.

Michael OBrien · 26-08-2014 2:47pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

"Moralising, reason, critical thinking, are these not all parts of philosophy? I don't think it's a straw-man.."

Czarcasm wrote: »

"He calls himself a philosopher, but he ignores the basics of Humanity when it suits him."

Please view both quotes and note the difference.
Everyone uses philosophy when discussing anything, it is how we work, but that does not make us philosophers, anymore than if I discuss science, makes me a scientist.
I was bringing up the fact you said "he CALLS himself a philosopher". He does not.

Czarcasm wrote: »

He'd accuse me of directing my fireballs of hatred at him and tell me to aim therm at women having abortions instead.

OK, I read the article, he does use the term "fireballs of hatred" but the context you presented in your post to me was misleading and inflamatory. His explanation is perfectly clear that all he feels he did was voice an opinion that many women with a similar dilemma held. It was also in response to SOME comments about him appealing to mob rule, which he denies. You make it out as some kind of glib response to all criticism. He never said he wanted people to hurl hatred at those facing the dilemma, only that they should reflect on why they were hitting him with hatred for agreeing with those that chose that option.

Czarcasm wrote: »

..suggesting that those who disagree with his opinion should aim their fireballs of hatred at women who have abortions was his suggestion, not mine.

Therefore you misunderstood what he was saying by posting this stuff.

Czarcasm wrote: »

..didn't come out and say that it would be immoral not to abort in those circumstances.

So you think you know their minds on the topic, if they chose to abort, do you think they considered themselves doing the right thing? Most people generally do think they are doing the right thing, in some context, when they take a serious action like abortion.
All Dawkins did was open it up for debate, rather than hide it in shadows, which is seemingly what you prefer.

Czarcasm wrote: »

if we wouldn't excuse religious leaders for such asinine utterances, I don't see why Richard Dawkins should get a free pass.

Religious leaders mandate morality from their supposed god, with a threat of hellfire if disobeyed, Richard gave his opinion, and clarified that was all it was, and that he would never force it on anyone. There is a huge difference.
Atheists don't have leaders in that sense whatsoever.

Czarcasm wrote: »

laymen don't usually have such a following on social media.

Are you serious? Just because people 'follow' his twitter feeds does not mean they 'follow' Richard like people do with priests and popes. There are loads of popular twitterers out there, some with much bigger followers, are they exempt from expressing their opinion on any area outside their own field of expertise. Is there a twitter limit perhaps? Is 1000 follows low but 1001 too much? Where does free speech end?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Dawkins could have kept his opinions to himself.

Well so much for open discourse then. While it might be a heated topic, it is great it gets aired and discussed. Far too many times people want to keep such issues under lock and key because it is uncomfortable.
Dawkins may indeed have been clumsy in how he handled it, but it's worth it if it gets discussed and perhaps people gain a better understanding of the condition than ever before. I certainly did when I looked up the condition. I might never have if Dawkins never stuck his foot in his mouth.

Dades · 26-08-2014 3:24pm

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I'd put him ahead of Dawkins anyday.

Likewise. Not least because Sagan wrote one of my favourite SF novels of all time.

Pherekydes · 26-08-2014 4:58pm

Dades wrote: »

If you'd read, for example, The Demon-Haunted World, you'd know Carl Sagan consistently addressed issues of gods and spirituality, going beyond his remit as a scientist to speculate on metaphysical claims. But we just don't know Carl Sagan's opinions about everything as the thoughts of public figures could only be found on TV, books and paper publications.

And none of us can state what he would have thought about this issue, given the same tests for DS didn't even exist when Carl was a public figure.

Sagan considered the question of abortion and he came to the conclusion that he agreed with the central tenet of Roe Vs Wade, that abortion should be freely available until the foetus reaches viability.

The test for Down Syndrome via amniocentesis has been available since the early 70s.

To wit:

Nadler and Gerbie published the important article "Role of amniocentesis in the intra-uterine diagnosis of genetic defects" in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1970. This was the real impetus in genetic amniocentesis and diagnosis, and from then on, genetic laboratories for analysis of amniotic fluid had become prevalent and indications for genetic amniocentesis included the detection of chromosomal abnormalities, X-Iinked conditons, inborn errors of metabolism, and the neural tube defects.

From http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/amniocentesis.html

Pherekydes · 26-08-2014 5:10pm

Addendum to the above post:

Sagan and Druyan wrote:

Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester--except in cases of grave medical necessity--it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life.

The full essay is here.

MrPudding · 29-08-2014 9:05am

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No he's saying it's imoral not to abort someone with Downs. Do you agree ?

That is not quite what he is saying though. What he is saying is slightly more nuanced than how you are representing it, which is understandable as you are clearly trying to make a particular point. He is saying that 'if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering' then having the child 'might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare'

So, he has not made a blanket declaration that all you parents with DS kids have been immoral in having them. He is limiting this idea to where a person's morality is based on a particular world view, even then it is not an absolute proclamation, he does not say it is immoral, only that it might be. Further, he also admits that the idea needs to be argued further and, after that argument, may need to be withdrawn completely.

I appreciate that there is a clamour to jump on anything remotely controversial that Dawkins might say, but in reality, is what he has said really that controversial? I am kind of ignoring the tweet, as 140 characters does not really allow for a nuanced argument, but if you look at it full statement on the matter it is heavily qualified and he even admits it may not stand up to scrutiny. Seriously, what is the big deal?

We all have opinions that will offend other people. Many of the anti-choice crowd think that women who have abortions are child murderers. Do they not understand that, to a woman that feels she had no choice but to have an abortion, that this is a highly offensive viewpoint? Again, this viewpoint is dependent on the particular beliefs of the person holding or arguing against it. If you believe that a handful of cells is a person then you might think abortion is murder. On the other hand, if you think that personhood requires a little more then you won't.

My own view on FFA would be offensive to some. I think it is immoral to continue a pregnancy, where there is an option not to, simply for 'closure' or some other spurious, IMO, reason. This is based on my viewpoint that quality of life is almost as important as life, I don't believe in life at any cost. I don't believe that there is anything 'in it' for a child that will only know suffering to be born. it will not know it is being held, it will not know it was loved. I personally think that these births are for the parent's benefit rather than the child's, and that offends me.

But, and this is the big point, like Dawkins and his DS view, I would not try to impose my view on someone else because, like Dawkins and his view, I appreciate that my opinion on this is based on my particular view of the world and my particular beliefs. Someone that has a different view of the world or a different set of beliefs may find my opinion abhorrent and offensive and think me a monster for even typing it, and that is fine. I take no offence from that, because I know that opinion is based on their world view.

Clearly this is a very emotive subject, and, if you feel it is directed at you, it can be very difficult not to take offence, but i think perhaps we take offence too easily. Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, and sometimes that opinion can be offensive to some. Whilst it is difficult I think we need to try, even when it is an emotive subject, to try not to take offence so easily and look behind to the reasons for the opinion. Granted, there are some opinions that it is perfectly ok to be offended about. If you are a black person and someone tells you that they genuinely believe you are sub-human, then I think few would argue that taking offence is justified. However, where the opinion is more nuanced perhaps we need to be a little more objective.

MrP

El_Duderino 09 · 29-08-2014 9:56am

Fair argument Mr P.

One outstanding point though, that the main thrust in the tweet is that 'it might be immoral...' but the main thrust of the full argument is about personal choice. The main point has changed. Why the hell is that a problem? Sequence of events;
1 The guy was in conversation with someone.
2 He makes a tentative claim based on a series of premises.
3 Receives feedback.
4 Modifies his position.

This is good dialectic. IMHO the reason this is such a big deal is that some people understand ALL people are fallible while some people believe that SOME people are infallible and have authority as a result. Those in the second category think some people can't possibly be wrong and they believe there are some people who can't possibly change their position. They also tend to be religious.

Ralphdejones might not be religious but I think he is closer to the second category than the first. If you look back over the last few pages of this thread and you will notice that people who engage Ralph are at cross purposes because they have a fundamentally different outlook on What Dawkins is. One sees him as a guy with interesting opinions (not always right but interesting), the other sees him as some kind of authority figure who has the power to speak on others behalf.

It's called 'flip-flopping' in politics, and it's called recognizing when you are wrong in science.

SharkWhale · 29-08-2014 12:42pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

Let's ignore the Catholic view then (as many people DO actually believe this that aren't even Catholic, but that again brings morality into the discussion, and I personally would try and steer clear of it, as Dawkins should have done in order to answer objectively as an evolutionary biologist), and go with the generally accepted scientific definition of when life begins as at implantation.

Then the two scenarios are still different as the embryo has already been implanted in natural conception, and hasn't been implanted in IVF.

I'm not sure how you make the leap from early miscarriage to downs as 'natures mistakes' as that would imply that nature was sentient, when a 'mistake' in human evolution is merely a matter of perspective. Your body and the way it functions could hardly be described as an accident. You evolved that way, in the very same way as if a person is born with downs, a 'genetic mistake of evolution' is merely a matter of perspective.

I'm not sure why you're egging to bring the religious perspective into this tbh. I know we're in the A&A forum but no mention of religion was made. Dawkins didn't claim anything other than a personal view, and he based his personal view upon his morality, and he bases his morality on the balance of the sum of happiness and suffering in the world. He made no claims as to the power of eternal damnation, but he made claims if you want to look at it that way that failing to abort a downs foetus would be condemning that person to a life of eternal suffering, adding to the sum of all suffering in the world, thereby logically (by Dawkins logic anyway), reducing the sum of happiness in the world.The equation has to balance on both sides.

Now, because Dawkins only looked at the negative consequences concerning the welfare of a person born with downs, basing his opinion on his own personal morality, it doesn't follow any reasonable line of logic that he wouldn't also look at the whole person and examine whether his perception of downs as a genetic mistake in terms of the greater picture of evolution, might actually be a mistake in itself.

The only logical conclusion, that can be drawn from Dawkins point of view, is that humanity needs to stop procreating now, before we further add to the sum total of human suffering, because even attempting to procreate can be stressful, and add to the sum total of human suffering. If we do that though, human beings would eventually become extinct.

How would that sound coming from any other evolutionary biologist than Dawkins? Would you say it was complete horse manure? I certainly would.

Your horse manure, jesus what is wrong with you? not only are now completely off topic but do you now know Dawkins to be an atheist? really?

smacl · 29-08-2014 2:36pm

MrPudding wrote: »

That is not quite what he is saying though. What he is saying is slightly more nuanced than how you are representing it, which is understandable as you are clearly trying to make a particular point. He is saying that 'if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering' then having the child 'might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare'

Quantifying the decreased happiness and increased suffering seems extremely difficult on the one hand, and highly variable on a cases by case basis on the other. I think that having a DS child represents undertaking a severe burden on financial, social, and emotional levels, and for many may also be a source of stress. I'm less sure that this necessarily amounts to decreased net happiness either for parents or child in all cases. For example, in the case where the option is a DS baby or no baby at all for a couple that desperately want a child, the former may entail greater happiness and less suffering than the latter. In this case, to apply Dawkins' moral world view you also have to net off happiness against suffering, where in many cases suffering actually leads to increased happiness. As such, Dawkins could be seen as unreasonably judgemental even in terms of his own moral criteria, which to me seem shaky. While the 'might actually' is a small nod to context, given the original tweet, I think he needs to be a lot clearer.

Dades · 29-08-2014 2:52pm

SharkWhale wrote: »

Your horse manure, jesus what is wrong with you?

"Your horse manure"? Killer reply, man.

Next time address the post and not attempt (badly) to insult the poster.

MrPudding · 29-08-2014 3:29pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair argument Mr P.

One outstanding point though, that the main thrust in the tweet is that 'it might be immoral...' but the main thrust of the full argument is about personal choice. The main point has changed. Why the hell is that a problem? Sequence of events;
1 The guy was in conversation with someone.
2 He makes a tentative claim based on a series of premises.
3 Receives feedback.
4 Modifies his position.

This is good dialectic. IMHO the reason this is such a big deal is that some people understand ALL people are fallible while some people believe that SOME people are infallible and have authority as a result. Those in the second category think some people can't possibly be wrong and they believe there are some people who can't possibly change their position. They also tend to be religious.

Ralphdejones might not be religious but I think he is closer to the second category than the first. If you look back over the last few pages of this thread and you will notice that people who engage Ralph are at cross purposes because they have a fundamentally different outlook on What Dawkins is. One sees him as a guy with interesting opinions (not always right but interesting), the other sees him as some kind of authority figure who has the power to speak on others behalf.

It's called 'flip-flopping' in politics, and it's called recognizing when you are wrong in science.

This is always something I have found strange in politics. I don't want someone that will never change their mind on something, irrespective of the evidence laid before them. That is stupid. Inability to changes one's position in light of new information is not a virtue.

I think it is inevitable, in this case, that the thrust of the argument changed. it is hard to get everything into 140 characters. Also, as someone said earlier (Nodin?) what he said originally and what he said in the fuller explanation are not mutually exclusive. So we have people getting out of joint because he may have changed his main point, but even doing that he has not really 'filp-flopped', he is still saying the same thing.

Whilst I agree with your post, for the general point it makes, I personally don't think the 'main thrust' changed between the tweet and the fuller post. The idea that choosing to have a DS baby is immoral is not withdrawn in the fuller post. It isn't even really modified, it is simply qualified. The underlying idea is still there, he is simply saying this is how it would appear if you believed 'x', like he does, but at the end of the day it is down to a personal choice. The thrust is, IMO, still the same.

smacl wrote: »

Quantifying the decreased happiness and increased suffering seems extremely difficult on the one hand, and highly variable on a cases by case basis on the other. I think that having a DS child represents undertaking a severe burden on financial, social, and emotional levels, and for many may also be a source of stress. I'm less sure that this necessarily amounts to decreased net happiness either for parents or child in all cases. For example, in the case where the option is a DS baby or no baby at all for a couple that desperately want a child, the former may entail greater happiness and less suffering than the latter. In this case, to apply Dawkins' moral world view you also have to net off happiness against suffering, where in many cases suffering actually leads to increased happiness. As such, Dawkins could be seen as unreasonably judgemental even in terms of his own moral criteria, which to me seem shaky. While the 'might actually' is a small nod to context, given the original tweet, I think he needs to be a lot clearer.

I think this is something that is going to be extremely subjective. Whether one approves of it or not, the figures for pregnancies that are aborted after a positive DS test do, I feel, speak for themselves. I have known many DS children and grownups, some of them very close, and like all families, there are ups and downs. Unfortunately, in many cases, I think there are more downs. I personally would not have a DS child. I know I would not be able to cope. I also agree, somewhat, with what Dawkins is saying here. I don't agree with bringing a child into the world where you know it will struggle more than it necessarily needs to. I appreciate that this might sound callous, particularly to anyone that has DS or relatives that have DS, but that is the way it is, and it appears to be the overwhelming consensus on this subject, whether people want to admit it or not.

You point about a couple having trouble conceiving is a good one, I have been very lucky(?) in the sense that I think all I needed to do was look at my GF and say 'how you doin' and she seems to get pregnant, so we had no concerns there. Our concerns would have been around how we would cope and how having a DS child would effect our already born children. Thankfully, we have four healthy kids and never had to make that choice.

MrP

J C · 05-09-2014 10:04pm

MrPudding wrote: »

This is always something I have found strange in politics. I don't want someone that will never change their mind on something, irrespective of the evidence laid before them. That is stupid. Inability to changes one's position in light of new information is not a virtue.

I think it is inevitable, in this case, that the thrust of the argument changed. it is hard to get everything into 140 characters. Also, as someone said earlier (Nodin?) what he said originally and what he said in the fuller explanation are not mutually exclusive. So we have people getting out of joint because he may have changed his main point, but even doing that he has not really 'filp-flopped', he is still saying the same thing.

Whilst I agree with your post, for the general point it makes, I personally don't think the 'main thrust' changed between the tweet and the fuller post. The idea that choosing to have a DS baby is immoral is not withdrawn in the fuller post. It isn't even really modified, it is simply qualified. The underlying idea is still there, he is simply saying this is how it would appear if you believed 'x', like he does, but at the end of the day it is down to a personal choice. The thrust is, IMO, still the same.

I think this is something that is going to be extremely subjective. Whether one approves of it or not, the figures for pregnancies that are aborted after a positive DS test do, I feel, speak for themselves. I have known many DS children and grownups, some of them very close, and like all families, there are ups and downs. Unfortunately, in many cases, I think there are more downs. I personally would not have a DS child. I know I would not be able to cope. I also agree, somewhat, with what Dawkins is saying here. I don't agree with bringing a child into the world where you know it will struggle more than it necessarily needs to. I appreciate that this might sound callous, particularly to anyone that has DS or relatives that have DS, but that is the way it is, and it appears to be the overwhelming consensus on this subject, whether people want to admit it or not.

You point about a couple having trouble conceiving is a good one, I have been very lucky(?) in the sense that I think all I needed to do was look at my GF and say 'how you doin' and she seems to get pregnant, so we had no concerns there. Our concerns would have been around how we would cope and how having a DS child would effect our already born children. Thankfully, we have four healthy kids and never had to make that choice.

MrP

As logical Human Beings we want to be as 'perfect as possible' ourselves and we have the same desire for our children.
However, because we live in a Fallen and therefore hazardous World ... our relative 'perfection' (and that of our children) can be 'impacted' in myriad ways. If or when it is 'impacted' ... the solution is surely not to reject ourselves or our children?
The same also surely applies to any society worthy of the name 'civilized'.
I'd have thought that such sentiments are held by practically everyone ... irrespective of their being persons of faith ... or none.
Indeed, without being presumptuous, I think you also share these sentiments.

Perhaps there is something we can agree on after all???

Hotblack Desiato · 05-09-2014 10:31pm

J C wrote: »

However, because we live in a Fallen and therefore hazardous World ...

I find it laughable when religionists decry the world we live in, the one they claim their perfect god created.

J C · 05-09-2014 11:11pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I find it laughable when religionists decry the world we live in, the one they claim their perfect god created.

I'm not decrying the World ... and I'm very grateful and happy to have been born into it.

However, it shows all of the signs of being 'Fallen' ... and the blame for that lies with Adam and Eve ... and not God.

Equally, despite our now-fallen nature, all Humans have the potential for great love and great achievements ... and that greatly inspires me.

On the substantive point at issue ... do you agree with me that we should love, respect and support people who are less 'perfect' than we are ... and we should never suggest deliberately killing them, just because they are not as 'perfect' as we (and they) might wish them to be?

Hotblack Desiato · 06-09-2014 12:30am

J C wrote: »

I'm not decrying the World ... and I'm very grateful and happy to have been born into it.

No, you just did exactly that by describing it as 'fallen'.

However, it shows all of the signs of being 'Fallen' ... and the blame for that lies with Adam and Eve ... and not God.

Umm, who is it who is supposed to have created them, again?

Equally, despite our now-fallen nature, all Humans have the potential for great love and great achievements ... and that greatly inspires me.

We do indeed, and the best way to achieve this is to free ourselves from our archaic and illusory religious shackles which create a hierarchy of humanity. Those like us > those not like us.

On the substantive point at issue ... do you agree with me that we should love, respect and support people who are less 'perfect' than we are ... and we should never suggest deliberately killing them, just because they are not as 'perfect' as we (and they) might wish them to be?

No. I support the abortion of any foetus before the point of viability if the woman so wishes, foetuses are not people, if they were then we would have homicide investigations and funerals for miscarriages.

recedite · 06-09-2014 10:45am

J C wrote: »

... and the blame for that lies with Adam and Eve ... and not God.

That's why God coined the phrase "if it wasn't for those pesky kids.."

J C · 06-09-2014 8:26pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, you just did exactly that by describing it as 'fallen'.

The world is objectively fallen ... but it retains so much of it's original perfection as to be absolutely amazing ... and you and me are very lucky to have been born into it

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We do indeed, and the best way to achieve this is to free ourselves from our archaic and illusory religious shackles which create a hierarchy of humanity. Those like us > those not like us.

As social beings, Humans will always have hierarchys (of the religious and secular varieties).
This is just an inevitable by-product of social and legal order ... which confers great benefit to each of us, whatever our worldview.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No. I support the abortion of any foetus before the point of viability if the woman so wishes, foetuses are not people, if they were then we would have homicide investigations and funerals for miscarriages.

Firstly, the point of viability is moving back all the time as medical science advances - so what is your position on abortion past the point of viability?
Secondly, many people do have funerals for miscarried children ... and people can be charged with foetal homicide where they attack a pregnant woman and she miscarries, as a result of the attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide
Thirdly, none of this is addressing the substantive issue in my post about whether you agree with me that we should love, respect and support people who are less 'perfect' than we are ... and we should never suggest deliberately killing them, just because they are not as 'perfect' as we (and indeed they themselves) might wish them to be?

J C · 06-09-2014 8:36pm

recedite wrote: »

That's why God coined the phrase "if it wasn't for those pesky kids.."

This is off-topic ... but if you would like an answer please ask it on the mega thread and I will be happy to answer you.

magicbastarder · 12-09-2014 9:26am

oh dear.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

Pherekydes · 12-09-2014 10:04am

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510342953068683264

Czarcasm · 12-09-2014 10:14am

magicbastarder wrote: »

oh dear.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

It's no secret at this point that I have no time for Dawkins thoughtless tweets, but I think what he's attempting to highlight on this occasion is that the term "rape culture" is a fallacy that is only perpetuated by radical feminists who espouse this idea that all sex is rape, like that by now infamous radfem article that claimed all PIV sex was rape.

I would never wish to silence anyone, and in fact I encourage people to express their asinine opinions so that they can be shown up for what they are, but honestly, Richard at this point needs to realise the difference between encouraging critical thinking and debate... and just mediocre sensationalist waffle designed to illicit more "fireballs of hatred" from the social mediasphere. At some stage, people are going to dismiss his opinion outright and ignore him when he actually one day might come out with something worth listening to.

magicbastarder · 12-09-2014 10:15am

people love it when you make vague 'is it or isn't is a joke' statements about rape, richard.

Czarcasm · 12-09-2014 10:20am

Pherekydes wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510342953068683264

A perfect demonstration of my point above - look at how many retweets and favourites (does it bug the hell out of anyone else the bastardization of the English language on social media? Like?) his measured explanation gets, as opposed to his effort to encourage critical thinking that just gets misinterpreted.

Five times as many retweets and favourites for one than the other.

smacl · 12-09-2014 11:00am

magicbastarder wrote: »

oh dear.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

Seems like he's since removed that tweet, or had it censored. What was the gist of it?

Dawkins controversial again.

Comments