Dawkins: Religion equals 'child abuse'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 1/8/06

[r9etb]

2) If someone dies in the same way you did, you are responsible for their actions?

And if someone perverts (your word) an idea to their own ends, is the idea itself to blame?

I guess you've just shot down any point you may have thought you were making.

[Senator Bedfellow]

And if someone perverts (your word) an idea to their own ends, is the idea itself to blame?

Well, let's run back up the thread and see how many are effectively making that argument about evolution and Dawkins...

[Teófilo]

For an atheist, Dawkins surely pontificates a lot.

-Theo

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" And if someone perverts (your word) an idea to their own ends, is the idea itself to blame?

I guess you've just shot down any point you may have thought you were making."

So, you DO think that when someone perverts an idea, that the original idea is itself to blame? Very interesting. You therefore hold Nietzsche responsible for the distortions made by the Nazis to his philosophy, which was anti-Nazi. Interesting moral code you have.

[Tribune7]

Hitler was not an atheist.

[Rocky]

Life without purpose: The bequest of atheism.

[r9etb]

He initiated force against others. That's always an evil.

I agree that he was evil. The question is: how can you say it? By your definition, hunters are evil, and so are lions and chimps. They do, after all, "initiate force against others." How about armies: are they evil, too? And heck: while we're at it, why don't you give us an objective definition of force?

You can't be aware of the consequences of your actions if you are insane. That's the definition of insanity.

Well, no. As you pointed out, insanity is a legal standard, not a psychiatric one. One can, however, be "mentally deranged" (i.e., insane) in the manner of Ted Bundy, and still be totally aware of their actions.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Let's save the rhetorical comparisons to Hitler and Nazis for those who really deserve them--hate groups who proudly assume the Nazi mantle, and 'Holocaust revisionists' who would fantasize away Hitler's genocidal crimes." (from the link you gave)

That's something I wholeheartedly agree with. My point was not to paint Christians as Hitlerian, but to show that Hitler wasn't an atheist. The assertion was that *atheism* was responsible for the concentration camps, and I responded with what I said. My whole family is Christian; they and Hitler are 180 degrees opposed.

[r9etb]

So, you DO think that when someone perverts an idea, that the original idea is itself to blame?

Nope. I was simply noting that your posts no longer have any meaning, as you've just argued yourself into a circle and bit your own hind end.

Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts about "reading comprehension" and "kindergarten logic."

[Sensei Ern]

Another fruitcake ping

PM me if you want on the Another fruitcake ping list. Then, tune in your tinfoil hat to accept lateral beta waves.

(Disclaimer: this is a high count ping list)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The question is: how can you say it? By your definition, hunters are evil, and so are lions and chimps. They do, after all, "initiate force against others."

You obviously have no conception of a rational morality. If you happen to lose your faith, warn us so we can lock you up. You will know of no way to make moral decisions then and will be too dangerous to be let to your own devices.

"One can, however, be "mentally deranged" (i.e., insane) in the manner of Ted Bundy, and still be totally aware of their actions."

I said aware of the consequences of their actions. If you are insane you are by definition unable to make moral choices. Hitler was aware of the consequences of his actions.

[Heartlander]

Blaming him on Darwin, when Hitler doesn't mention Darwin or evolution, is intellectually dishonest.

FYI…

Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.

… If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
-Mein Kampf CHAPTER XI --- RACE AND PEOPLE

[Sensei Ern]

I think Dawkins is more of an evidence for Not-So-Intelligent Design.

[Aquinasfan]

Controversial scientist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler," calls religion a "virus" and faith-based education "child abuse"

Dude, if everything reduces to matter in motion, who's to say what's right and wrong? How can matter in motion be "abusive"?

In fact, education that ignores man's final end, God, is child abuse of the highest order. Better to lose one's life than to lose one's soul.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Nope. I was simply noting that your posts no longer have any meaning, as you've just argued yourself into a circle and bit your own hind end."

Your mere saying so is not evidence. I made a perfectly logical criticism, and you had nothing to argue against it. Typical.

[betty boop]

Kinda like a 'hollywood hunk'.

Kinda like Steven Pinker. :^)

[metmom]

Although Dawkins is rather...extreme...I have to say that: Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads is worth repeating.

Wherever it leads? wherever? Be careful what you wish for. There is no way to justify this. With no controls on it *reason* can lead to some pretty awful things. A lot of people do things that seem logical and reasonable to them because they have a different mindset or are insane. *reason* is not in and of itself a good enough guide to behavior. There are no failsafes on it to prevent it from being used in an evil and destructive way. If Dawkins mindset and comments are an example of where reason can lead, we are in big danger using that criteria.

[Diamond]

Well, let's run back up the thread and see how many are effectively making that argument about evolution and Dawkins...

Good idea.

The first mention of Hitler in this thread is in the article:

Scientist compares Moses to Hitler, calls New Testament 'sado-masochistic doctrine'

a Hitler comparison made by Dawkins, and commented upon by several posts.

There are some posts mentioning atheism, but the very first mention of Hitler in association with atheism (an accusation that had not yet been made) is a denial of same;

Hitler was many things; atheist was not one of them. Not by a long shot. He believed that the Aryan race was the perfect special creation of God; he was in essence a creationist.

That is the first reference in this thread specifically identifying Hitler as a creationist.

Cordially,

[r9etb]

You obviously have no conception of a rational morality. If you happen to lose your faith, warn us so we can lock you up.

I look forward to reading your completely rational and logical proof of morality, presented from an atheist perspective. There's only one catch: you can't make up your own definitions. You must, as Rand herself demanded, use the following rules:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Among the material provided by man's senses is something about which you're very vocal: evolution, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. Your main task is to find some objective, rational, logical way of demonstrating that "initiation of force," which is a major element of natural selection, is somehow not evil in nature, even among members of the same species; but is evil specifically among humans. And remember: everything you say must be logically consistent, and nothing made up.

I said aware of the consequences of their actions. If you are insane you are by definition unable to make moral choices. Hitler was aware of the consequences of his actions.

So was Ted Bundy. See his final interview. He knew what he was doing, and he knew the consequences. But Ted Bundy was also crazy.

[r9etb]

I just love that "cordially" of yours. Evisceration with a smile. ;-)