18 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisWhich ideas in particular?
But there ideas were picked up and used by fascists.
An I feel compelled to point out that fascists picked up and used many Christian ideas too.
Dawkins lives 100 years later, But he still pushes those idea like they will benefit us all in some way. They didn't the last time.
Which ideas in particular?
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisAll ideas are dangerous in the wrong hands, especially when people like fascists are willing to modify those ideas to their own ends.
To be fair he does have a place playing devils advocate with some creationists, he is progressive in that sense, but surely a man as smart as Dawkins must see his argument is dangerous in the wrong hands.
But this is not an argument for not having ideas.
I shudder to think what would happen if you were given any power given the way you have managed to mangle various ideas.
18 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadGod is dead, has no place in modern society
Which ideas in particular?
An I feel compelled to point out that fascists picked up and used many Christian ideas too.
[b]Dawkins lives 100 years later, But he still pushes those idea like they will benefit us all in some way. They didn't the last time.
Which ideas in particular?[/b]
Evolution / survival of the fittest explains the existance of man
Those 2 ideas. they sound harmless enough but they are philosophical poison to my mind. And its very easy to build fascist arguments ontop of them. You quickly get Eugenics - that won over a lot of supposedly 'clever' people.
I don't mind either one of those ideas, but put them together as a 'philosophy' and they are trouble.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisAs I said, the fascists also built their arguments on Christian teachings. In fact, I would argue that their belief in a 'master race' is remarkably similar to the Jews belief that they are the 'chosen people'.
God is dead, has no place in modern society
Evolution / survival of the fittest explains the existance of man
Those 2 ideas. they sound harmless enough but they are philosophical poison to my mind. And its very easy to build fascist arguments ontop of them. You quickly get Eugenics - that won over a lot of supposedly 'clever' people.
I don't mind either one of those ideas, but put them together as a 'philosophy' and they are trouble.
As for the two ideas in question, they are the truth, and I don't think it is reasonable to suppress the truth for fear that some fascists will find out.
And worse than simply suppressing the truth, you wish to spread malicious lies such as the claim that Dawkins is fascist (which you admit was not true).
Someone mentioned McCarthyism in another thread and I think it fits rather well here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
18 Mar 13
6 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
Maybe to be fair...
Darwin was not a fascist.
Nietzsche was not a fascist
Maybe Dawkins isn't either.
But the first 2 were unquestionably precursors to fascism. I'm not saying it was eithers fault. But there ideas were picked up and used by fascists.
Dawkins lives 100 years later, But he still pushes those ideas like they will benefit us all , but surely a man as smart as Dawkins must see his argument is dangerous in the wrong hands.
Maybe Dawkins isn't either.
there is no “maybe” about it. He is simply NOT fascist and there is absolutely no bases for any claim that he is.
But the first 2 were unquestionably precursors to fascism
No, they clearly are not. What bases have you for this assertion?
Dawkins lives 100 years later, But he still pushes those ideas like they will benefit us all in some way. They didn't the last time.
Do you believe that there has to be some “benefit” to an idea for it to be correct? I would push for the idea that there once existed my great great grandmother. There is no likely “benefit” to that idea so I guess that, as long as there is no benefit, that idea must be wrong and thus she never existed 😛
but surely a man as smart as Dawkins must see his argument is dangerous in the wrong hands
Exactly WHICH of his arguments are dangerous “in the wrong hand”? And exactly HOW so? Just give ONE example....
And even if an argument IS dangerous “in the wrong hand”, does that mean it is logically invalid or erroneous? Who's fault would it be if a person uses somebodies else's argument to do harm; the person who thought of it or the person who did the harm? Thinking should never be thought of as a crime.
18 Mar 13
3 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
God is dead, has no place in modern society
Evolution / survival of the fittest explains the existance of man
Those 2 ideas. they sound harmless enough but they are philosophical poison to my mind. And its very easy to build fascist arguments ontop of them. You quickly get Eugenics - that won over a lot of supposedly 'clever' people.
I don't mind either one of those ideas, but put them together as a 'philosophy' and they are trouble.
God is dead, has no place in modern society
How is that dangerous? Only a moron could need a god to be moral.
Evolution / survival of the fittest explains the existance of man
Not quite: evolution is not about the “survival of the fittest” but rather the “procreation of the better adapted”.
And exactly HOW is that dangerous? Evolution is merely a process that happened. To say it is dangerous to believe evolution has happened and is still happening is as stupid as saying it is dangerous to believe that the moon orbits the Earth -no sane rational person would use the facts as an excuse to do harm so the real danger is NOT the idea which is blameless here but rather the stupidity of man.
And its very easy to build fascist arguments ontop of them.
Only if you are a Moran who cannot understand logic. Apparently, it is also “ very easy to build fascist arguments on top of” Christianity; given the fact that the Nazis were Christian!
Was it the Atheists that created Nazi ideology? -answer, no; it was, in the main, the Christians.
19 Mar 13
Originally posted by humynice, i think mine says good game.
e4chris
you might like to have a quick look at my profile and read all the quotes in my profile. Those quotes explains it all.
My Great Aunt got an OBE for her services in the war and afterwards in the NHS, I used to go round for dinner and we would listen to her rant about the war, she was a marvelous speaker, for some reason I didn't quite get, she hated the french more, she wouldn't buy french apples! Anyway if you tried to explain to her your nazis were christian argument it would not go far, she might say yes they were dear but they were evil. I'm not sure but I don't think it would go far.
19 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisDo you seriously believe that your belief that your Great Aunt would not accept that the Nazis were Christians is somehow an argument in your favour?
My Great Aunt got an OBE for her services in the war and afterwards in the NHS, I used to go round for dinner and we would listen to her rant about the war, she was a marvelous speaker, for some reason I didn't quite get, she hated the french more, she wouldn't buy french apples! Anyway if you tried to explain to her your nazis were christian argument it wou ...[text shortened]... t say yes they were dear but they were evil. I'm not sure but I don't think it would go far.
I don't know about creationists, but I am absolutely certain that you would not make a good scientist.
19 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
nice, i think mine says good game.
My Great Aunt got an OBE for her services in the war and afterwards in the NHS, I used to go round for dinner and we would listen to her rant about the war, she was a marvelous speaker, for some reason I didn't quite get, she hated the french more, she wouldn't buy french apples! Anyway if you tried to explain to her you ...[text shortened]... t say yes they were dear but they were evil. I'm not sure but I don't think it would go far.
if you tried to explain to her your nazis were christian argument it would not go far, she might say yes they were dear but they were evil
wouldn’t that be her agreeing to what I have been saying all along?
And what is it with this “ nazis were christian argument it would not go far”? And “not go far” in what way? It would “go far” enough as proving that being Christian does not aquate with being morally good and that I am satisfied with that for that would go far enough to stop the pretence by some Christians that merely being Christian makes you moral -that should get them off their moral high horse! Those same Christians typically blame atheists like me for the atrocities the Nazis did by pretending that the Nazis where atheist and not Christian -it is time to put a stop to the lies.
19 Mar 13
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is the point, richard dawkins , and you do not give a damn about offending religious people, he is down right rude. I think you should take that back i have 4 science a levels and a chemistry degree, unless you have a phd you CAN NOT DO BETTER. thankyou.
Do you seriously believe that your belief that your Great Aunt would not accept that the Nazis were Christians is somehow an argument in your favour?
I don't know about creationists, but I am absolutely certain that you would not make a good scientist.
Here he is, being a tactless oaf with brandon flowers. I tell you something i learnt in sales, take 5 seconds to think about what someone says, if they like religion maybe they have a very good personal reason to do so, so don't trample on it.
now you 2 can argue who was right in that video.....
19 Mar 13
14 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisThe video shows Dawkins politely explaining his point of view. He didn't once use any foul language and I don't understand your complaint.
This is the point, richard dawkins , and you do not give a damn about offending religious people, he is down right rude. I think you should take that back i have 4 science a levels and a chemistry degree, unless you have a phd you CAN NOT DO BETTER. thankyou.
Here he is, being a tactless oaf with brandon flowers. I tell you something i learnt in sales, ta p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgIIeGnEXI
now you 2 can argue who was right in that video.....
Dawkin said he read the book of Norman and said the book was clearly a fake and then he clearly indicated that this is the conclusion from his research. The other contestant admitted that he did no research into it. So, obviously, it most probably was a fake. The other contestant taking offense to the conclusion of research does not in any way mean that the conclusion is less likely to be true. It is stupid to take offense to what scientific research suggests is true -truth is indifferent to your feelings and truth means no offense thus you should take no offense to the truth.
So how could Dawkins have told how he saw the truth without causing offense to somebody stupid enough to take offense from merely a highly probable truth being clearly stated? Was he supposed to suddenly change the subject to something completely irrelevant? Was he supposed to lie and say the book was NOT a fake? explain...
Who's fault is it when somebody takes offense when somebody else tells the truth?
-the person who tells the truth or the person who takes offense? -answer, the person who takes offense for he should learn to take no offense from the truth.
19 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisActually Richard Dawkins is extremely polite. As for 'offending religious people' I agree with Christopher Hitchens who points out rightly that theism does not own the right not be to offended.
This is the point, richard dawkins , and you do not give a damn about offending religious people, he is down right rude.
In fact I am offended by many of the views you have expressed in this thread. Very offended. But I recognize your right to free speech. But the fact is that you offend me, and clearly do not give a damn either.
I think you should take that back i have 4 science a levels and a chemistry degree, unless you have a phd you CAN NOT DO BETTER. thankyou.
No, I will not take it back. Good science requires logical thinking, something you clearly lack. And no, I do not need a higher degree than yours in order to know this.
I tell you something i learnt in sales, take 5 seconds to think about what someone says, if they like religion maybe they have a very good personal reason to do so, so don't trample on it.
And I'll tell you something I learn't off youtube. If you go on a television debate program with a known atheist who has written a book called "The God Delusion", don't be surprised if your religious views are challenged.