Originally posted by rwingettPraise JebaDawkins!!!
If it's good enough for Dawkins, then it's good enough for me. For if Dawkins said it, and it's been written down, then it is scripture. Our task now is not to examine the evidence and see where it leads us, but to force all available evidence to conform to our pre-determined conclusion. We will be unveiling a new line of Dawkinsian eugenic atheodicies to add to the catechism very soon.
Amen.
Originally posted by rwingettWow, interesting, I think Dawkins is the new prophet for the Dawkinian religon.
If it's good enough for Dawkins, then it's good enough for me. For if Dawkins said it, and it's been written down, then it is scripture. Our task now is not to examine the evidence and see where it leads us, but to force all available evidence to conform to our pre-determined conclusion. We will be unveiling a new line of Dawkinsian eugenic atheodicies to add to the catechism very soon.
Amen.
I smell a blind faith here !!!!!
Originally posted by lucifershammerAt least Dawkins was never in the Wermacht.
Right. Because it's Ratzinger who's talking about killing off inferior races.
But seriously...
If you look at the quotes Halitose provided, he's not talking about killing off anyone. He's talking about breeding for gain in specific attributes. Given that mankind continues to evolve, the question is whether we can actively guide the path that evolutionary process follows. Instead of having evolution merely happen to us, we could actively channel our own evolutionary destiny. And you'll note that he isn't even supporting such a proposition, or that it is feasible, but is saying that we should at least be allowed to ponder the matter.
All this talk about eugenics reminds me of Margaret Sanger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
After all, she began planned parenthood and was an advocate of certain aspects of eugenics that are in practice today. Here is one of her quotes,
"It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernell of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Austrailian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step highter than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction from the streets."
No, it gets better. She says that the only answer to help control such inferior "species" is eugenics. She argued for a,
"A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that ojectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring"
Here is the clincher, however. This is how she viewed birth control.
"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Originally posted by whodeyMargaret Sanger was over 100 years ago, she lived in an entirely different world where racism was prevalent. It is important to note that for all the faults of her ethical outlook, she was vital to the process of making birth control available to all.
All this talk about eugenics reminds me of Margaret Sanger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
After all, she began planned parenthood and was an advocate of certain aspects of eugenics that are in practice today. Here is one of her quotes,
"It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernell of an almond. In a ...[text shortened]... merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Originally posted by telerionWhat is it about being "a highly respected man of science" that turns off the brain of his supporters?
What is it about being saved that turns off a human brain?
Given the absurdly liberal way these people twist the words of Israeli goatherders and shaman, I suppose it should not surprise us that they can't understand a highly respected man of science.
Originally posted by StarrmanIs'nt it funny how people can dismiss the morality and/or perspectives of people who lived in times past when they are so blantantly and obviously contrary and wrong in our own eyes today? This is what happens when one allows themselves to adapt to the morality/perspectives of the culture in which they reside instead of holding themselves to a higher moral authority that is unchanging and unwaivering and which may or may not run contrary to the common accepted morality/view of the day.
Margaret Sanger was over 100 years ago, she lived in an entirely different world where racism was prevalent. It is important to note that for all the faults of her ethical outlook, she was vital to the process of making birth control available to all.
Originally posted by StarrmanAnd that sure helped save civilisation, didn't it?
Margaret Sanger was over 100 years ago, she lived in an entirely different world where racism was prevalent. It is important to note that for all the faults of her ethical outlook, she was vital to the process of making birth control available to all.
If racism was prevalent then, something else is prevalent now. As I said earlier, I'm just waiting for Dawkins to put his views on eugenics together with his theories on religious genes to argue that religious folk should not be allowed to breed.