Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics

by Deputy Dog 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  funkyderek

  How tediously typical of fundamentalist Christians to quote Professor Dawkins out of context. Had Deputy Dog done a little bit of research he would have realised what a twisted, inaccurate poorly-realised nasty piece of misinformation it was. But why should he? The writer of the piece clearly didn't do any, missing as she did the entire point of what Dawkins wrote (as an afterword to a book, not a letter but she can't even get the basics right).

  It's all too common for small-minded religious bigots to jump on someone for daring to ask questions that may have uncomfortable answers. Trying to hold on to their ancient scribblings, they seem to have no scruples about defaming people who don't kow-tow to their attempts to hold back the tide of advancing technology and morality.

  Shame on you, Deputy Dog, for being too willing to believe such pap.

  See the comments on http://richarddawkins.net/article,353,How-Predictable-Richard-Dawkins-Supports-Eugenics,Wesley-J-Smith for some insight into what Dawkins actually thinks.
• 

  Elsewhere

  I bought Dawkins book, "The God Delusion" yesterday and have started reading it.... so far I highly recommend it!

  The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ( Hardcover - Sep 18, 2006)
• 

  Scully

  from the link posted by funkyderek:

  Comment #9447 by Aerik Knapp-Loomis on November 24, 2006 at 7:55 pm

  Why do we keep re-posting shitty articles by these douche bags?
• 

  Satanus

  arguing that since there is no such thing as a soul, there is no moral difference between apes and humans.

  I love this controversy. Christians feel their supreme position in the animal kingdom is being threatened by people who accord the same to lower forms. Either there is a 'soul', both human and animal, or there is no 'soul' in either. Maybe it's just the protestants that have this problem. One of the popular catholic saints used to talk to animals (and they supposedly listened).

  S
• 

  Scully

  Would Christian Fundamentalists advocate and endorse eugenics if it allowed them to selectively breed more Christian Fundamentalists?

  I think they already do, although they don't call it that. Isn't that more-or-less what "marrying only in the Lord" is supposed to accomplish?

  I have a sneaking suspicion that if this issue were presented in a Star Trek episode or movie rather than by whom they perceive to be the arch-enemy of their belief system, the Fundamentalist objections would be non-existent.
• 

  Leolaia

  Thank you, funkyderek!! It is so much better to get the full story, rather than out-of-context quotes from a fundy website. Dawkins says:

  "I wrote something similar" in the John Brockman book, to be published next year. That clearly means that you may assume that the words attributed to me are correct, and you are therefore not left wondering what I think. (I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't quote myself in a letter to the Sunday Herald. To have done so in advance of publication of the Brockman book, without asking Mr Brockman's permission, would have been reprehensible. Apparently somebody else did quote me in the Herald, and it seems that they may have mendaciously passed it off as a letter from me. I still haven't managed to track down a copy of the Herald.)

  Also Wesley Smith has retracted his article and his "assertion that Dawkins supports eugenics". In particular, he notes that those paragraphs were excerpted from a longer article and Dawkins did not write the headline that gave the impression that he supported eugenics:

  http://bioethicsnews.com/2006/11/25/i-retract-my-claim-that-richard-dawkins-supports-eugenics/

  Dawkins already hints that his thinking ultimately runs counter to support for eugenics on ethical/moral grounds, but that he wants people to openly debate the issues rather than being afraid to discuss them, especially since he believes that eugenics (as opposed to the unscientific genocide of Hitler) is not scientifically impossible as some people have supposed (since selective breeding is a fact of nature), and rather he believes that open and accurate discussion of these issues is important, especially the bioethical implications of such an endeavor, i.e. "what that [moral] distinction might be" between animal breeding and human eugenics.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Breeding can be controlled in puppies in ways that cannot be done with humans, unless certain inalienable rights are transgressed, since it would always be possible for Ms. Perfect to sleep with Mr. Ill-fitted on the side.

  Amen to that sister! At least leave the dream alive....thats all some of us subhumans have.

  Society will have to make the moral decisions on what genetic traits are acceptable/unacceptable to control (i.e. homosexuality), and ensure protection against discrimination for those who do not meet up to the new genetic par.

  I personally though, would love the opportunity to give my offspring enhanced genetic code so as to greatly improve their quality of life.

  Our recent advances in medicine have lessened the impact of natural selection on our species, so that the genetic stock now has a greater proportion of heritable ailments. Its cold to say this but we've short circuited nature's own sort of eugenic program to the detriment of the gene pool. Believe me, I'm very grateful cuz otherwise this very near sighted, puny, non-athletic hominid would not have survived past my teens (let alone my thirites). But instituting a program that addresses genetic ailments to counter this effect as well as enhancing the physical and mental abilities of our species can be a very good thing....at least for any of my future kids or grandkids......I just gotta find a Ms. Perfect who's willin for some side action.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  well, gosh, good thing we would never have to consider worrying about the genes we passed on in terms of "god belief". after all, we should all know here, that perfectly righteous god-free people come about from god-believing parents.

  thank God for memes! (oops!)

  tetra
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  oh, and imho,

  Watson, though not as outspokenly anti-religious as Dawkins, has ridiculed the notion of an overarching value to human beings. Speaking at a conference at UCLA in 1998, he said, “I think it's complete nonsense ... saying we're sacred and should not be changed…to say we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity? I'd like to know where that idea comes from because it's utter silliness”

  “If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it? What's wrong with it? Who is telling us not to [do] it?”

  amen!

  jah bless,

  tetra