Richard Dawkins rips off his mask...

[Turgonian]

...and the Nazi colours are painted all over his face.

Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics

Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics
Says Nazi regime's genocidal project “may not be bad”

By Hilary White

LONDON, November 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) — A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime's genocidal project “may not be bad.”

Since the end of the second world war, the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation, is one that conjures instant images of the Nazi death camps and “racial hygiene” programs.

In a letter to the editor of Scotland's Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, “if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”

Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, but is best known as one of the world's most outspoken current opponents of religious belief, giving lectures and interviews and writing articles in which “fundamentalist” Christianity is among his favourite targets.

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.

Dawkins' campaign against religion has led him to publish a book, “The God Delusion”, in September this year and he is one of the instigators of the notion, popular with journalists, that the Catholic Church's opposition to artificial contraception will result in mass starvation.

Dawkins is also a leader of the movement to gain legal “human” rights for great apes, arguing that since there is no such thing as a soul, there is no moral difference between apes and humans.

The atheistic philosophy of utilitarianism, that led in the 1930's to the Nazi eugenics program, is now a respectable stream of thought in much of the contemporary academic world.

But we still don't need religion as a basis for morality. Eh, Nietzsche? What say you?

In any case Dawkins can't claim God doesn't exist because evil people like Hitler have existed. After all, he doesn't think Hitler was evil...and wants to re-create him!

This, my little unaborted children, is what comes of naughty 'hard scientists' who never open a book on history and philosophy -- in any case, not with the intention of reading it.

[FFC]

...and the Nazi colours are painted all over his face.

Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics

Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics
Says Nazi regime's genocidal project “may not be bad”

By Hilary White

LONDON, November 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) — A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime's genocidal project “may not be bad.”

Since the end of the second world war, the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation, is one that conjures instant images of the Nazi death camps and “racial hygiene” programs.

In a letter to the editor of Scotland's Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, “if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”

Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, but is best known as one of the world's most outspoken current opponents of religious belief, giving lectures and interviews and writing articles in which “fundamentalist” Christianity is among his favourite targets.

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.

Dawkins' campaign against religion has led him to publish a book, “The God Delusion”, in September this year and he is one of the instigators of the notion, popular with journalists, that the Catholic Church's opposition to artificial contraception will result in mass starvation.

Dawkins is also a leader of the movement to gain legal “human” rights for great apes, arguing that since there is no such thing as a soul, there is no moral difference between apes and humans.

The atheistic philosophy of utilitarianism, that led in the 1930's to the Nazi eugenics program, is now a respectable stream of thought in much of the contemporary academic world.

But we still don't need religion as a basis for morality. Eh, Nietzsche? What say you?

In any case Dawkins can't claim God doesn't exist because evil people like Hitler have existed. After all, he doesn't think Hitler was evil...and wants to re-create him!

This, my little unaborted children, is what comes of naughty 'hard scientists' who never open a book on history and philosophy -- in any case, not with the intention of reading it.

What a pompous ***! I can almost hear the collective gasp of the Jewish Defense League.

[ttoews]

...But we still don't need religion as a basis for morality. Eh, Nietzsche? What say you?

Turgy, do you think arranged marriages are necessarily immoral?...do you think arranged marriages for the purposes of selective breeding are necessarily immoral?

In any case Dawkins can't claim God doesn't exist because evil people

like Hitler have existed. After all, he doesn't think Hitler was evil...and wants to re-create him!

Turgy, I don't think you are being fair here...I believe Dawkins would say Hitler was evil, but then he goes on to say that selective breeding could be beneficially applied to humans.

[Turgonian]

Turgy, do you think arranged marriages are necessarily immoral?

Nope.

...do you think arranged marriages for the purposes of selective breeding are necessarily immoral?

Probably. It's treating humans like objects, like soulless animals.

Turgy, I don't think you are being fair here...I believe Dawkins would say Hitler was evil, but then he goes on to say that selective breeding could be beneficially applied to humans.

If he would, he would be very inconsistent.
The Nazis wanted to exterminate the bad races and breed the good ones. In other words, they saw humans as objects. Whenever you go there, you're going too far.

[faithinware]

Turg, what's your real problem with Dawkins.

In fact, what he says does make sense, whether you like it or not.
To force selective breeding is something hitler condoned. I bet he liked hamburgers if he ever ate one. Do you like hamburgers? Then your like Hitler.

Your argument has a fallacy, just don't remember which one it is.
Try something different, if you hate Dawkins so much. It's apparent in your argument.

[Turgonian]

Turg...

Turgy, please.

...what's your real problem with Dawkins.

He thinks he's any authority when it comes to philosophy and religion.

In fact, what he says does make sense, whether you like it or not.

I don't like it. If it makes sense in Dawkins's worldview, then it says a lot of negative things about his worldview. Apparently he sees people as no more than animals.

Oh, and Richard, the answer to your question is that music lessons are provided with the consent of the individual, or at least the parent. Breeding heavily implies, (although it does not absolutely require), a lack of consent on the part of the individuals involved. Of course, if you don't believe that Man possesses God-given rights because there is no God to give them, then there's no rational reason why one shouldn't treat men and women like dogs.

To force selective breeding is something hitler condoned. I bet he liked hamburgers if he ever ate one. Do you like hamburgers? Then your like Hitler.

Your argument has a fallacy, just don't remember which one it is.

Now THAT's a fallacy if I ever saw one -- guilt by association. You might as well say that because Hitler was a human, I'm like Hitler. The point here is that both Hitler and Dawkins advocate human breeding. Hitler did it because he wanted to create the perfect human race, the Aryan race. Dawkins does it because he wants to perfect the human race, probably...but history has shown that breeding is always experimental, and nasty things may happen if humans are treated that way. From an article on dog breeding:

Linebreeding, the tool largely responsible for creating the variety of dog breeds we are familiar with today, inadvertently also aggregates deleterious genes, producing disorders that may not be apparent in every generation.

These disorders often go undetected until the condition becomes frequent enough to be recognized as inherited. Generations may be unaffected when carriers are rare. As unaffected carriers become common, more affected individuals will appear. Removing affected individuals from the breeding population is not an effective solution since many unidentified carriers remain. The disease-producing genes will continue to spread unless unaffected carriers can be identified and selective breeding practiced.

[Gman]

Turg, what's your real problem with Dawkins.

In fact, what he says does make sense, whether you like it or not.
To force selective breeding is something hitler condoned. I bet he liked hamburgers if he ever ate one. Do you like hamburgers? Then your like Hitler.

Your argument has a fallacy, just don't remember which one it is.
Try something different, if you hate Dawkins so much. It's apparent in your argument.

It's not just Turgy who despises Dawkins.. Dawkins is delusional.. He twists scripture about God to feed his own warped arguments. It's apparent he hasn't read the Bible. I'm surprised how much publicity he has been getting... Like he is saying something new... I've heard his type of arguments so many times it's starting to sound like a broken record...

Dawkins praises Darwin, and Darwin fueled racist beliefs in his own words...

In the Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin; “The Descent of Man”, 2nd ed. P.178)

[August]

Turg, what's your real problem with Dawkins.

In fact, what he says does make sense, whether you like it or not.
To force selective breeding is something hitler condoned. I bet he liked hamburgers if he ever ate one. Do you like hamburgers? Then your like Hitler.

Your argument has a fallacy, just don't remember which one it is.
Try something different, if you hate Dawkins so much. It's apparent in your argument.

What Dawkins says makes sense? That is laughable. His "arguments" consist of one long ad-hominem attack, float in the bottomless pit of relativism, and sink on materialistic fatalism. He has no ontological or epistimological foundation for anything he says.

No-one here hates Dawkins as a person, it is that his arguments are so weak that they are barely worth refuting. If he did not get so much publicity from the secular press, no-one would pay any attention to him.