Originally posted by scottishinnzPassion and arrogance are two very different things. If you want to write a scientific book, you cannot do it effectively with an axe to grind. The whole point of science is to remain as objective as possible and consider all of the possibilities.
He comes across that way, but the more you read of his stuff, the more you'll see him as a warm, personable guy, albeit with an axe to grind. Nothing wrong with a bit of passion though.
I am trying to read more of his stuff, as I actually find his theories very interesting. It's just that the arrogance is really getting to me. Maybe I should just get a marker and cross out all of the arrogant bits(just kidding, I wouldn't deface his book like that).
Originally posted by ivanhoeAlso consider the alternative -- now that we're quite happily killing our unborn children, where does that end?
What would the world become if we would stop killing our unborn children ...... indeed a very menacing thought ...... where would this end ?
Actually, there isn't much to consider -- a good part of the "civilised" world is already there.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt indeed seems that certain people see the wrong thing as menacing ... and the wrong thing as civilised.
Also consider the alternative -- now that we're quite happily killing our unborn children, where does that end?
Actually, there isn't much to consider -- a good part of the "civilised" world is already there.
I wonder what Richard Dawkins, the guru of the "rationals", thinks of this .....
Originally posted by whiteroseI have the same problem reading him.
Will he? I am having a lot of trouble reading his book because, even though I agree with his theories(as far as I have read them), I find that he comes off as so incredibly pompous, arrogant, and derogatory towards his readers that I want to throw the book across the room. He speaks in absolutes, and most certainly does not allow for the possibility that a theory other than his own could be correct.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAs opposed to killing people who dare to disagree with us? eh Mr Inquisitor? Tortured to death for disagreement, oh and if we could take your property and goods 'for the church' that'd be just fine. What? You wish to recant? Well recant then, and we'll kill you as soon as you have recanted, to prevent you 'being lost' again....
Also consider the alternative -- now that we're quite happily killing our unborn children, where does that end?
Actually, there isn't much to consider -- a good part of the "civilised" world is already there.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWho is killing unborn children? This is definitely illegal all the civilized contries I know of. Now killing an embryo, which does not in any physical way resemble a human child nor have the attributes thereof, now that is a different story.
What would the world become if we would stop killing our unborn children ...... indeed a very menacing thought ...... where would this end ?
Originally posted by whiteroseJust dehumanise it, do not call it human, although it unmistakenly is, and there you go ... you can kill it.
Who is killing unborn children? This is definitely illegal all the civilized contries I know of. Now killing an embryo, which does not in any physical way resemble a human child nor have the attributes thereof, now that is a different story.
This has nothing to do with civilisation but everything with manipulation and (self)deception.