Quotes and comments;
1. 'As a philosopher, Dawkins moralizes on the wickedness of ‘speciesism’, the view that we humans are more valuable than any other species.' [1.]
- A materialist has no basis for talking about wickedness, let alone the so called wickedness of speciesism! This is a joke. (Is there any New Age or Left wing fad Dawkins hasn't fallen for; he's as naive as a school boy.) Remember now, that he claims human beings are just gene carrying robots with no free will. This belief gives him no foundation for pontificating on the 'evils' of so called speciesism. (Talk about a delusion.)
- What makes this so laughable is the Dawkins is the prime example of someone who imagines he's wildly superior to other people. For decades he's ridiculed and mocked Christians and creationist; treating them like worms as he looks down on them from his god-like height. (But I guess that's okay. I guess it's okay to treat fellow human beings as grossly inferior as long as you don't treat rats and rabbits as inferior.)
- This is the kind of Granola bar Dawkins is. What basis can a gene bag have for making such a conclusion? i.e. how can you make moral judgments if there is no such thing as right and wrong? [see note #4.]
- I wonder if we dare tell Rich that all animals are guilty of speciesism. [Wasn't that what evolution was/is all about?] I'm not sure; the effect on his already unstable mental state might be damaging.
- If human beings aren't more 'valuable' than animals I guess that means we can eat human beings. (This is the obvious deduction from such an anti-human remark.)
- Why is it considered intellectually acceptable to say something no one in the world believes. (There isn't one single person on earth who doesn't believe human beings are superior to animals, and yet buffoons like Dawkins are allowed to spout off on the subject with nary a rebuke. It's more than passing strange.
- Valuable? that has no meaning in terms of evolutionary reductionism. Animals have no sense of value in the human sense; they use things they don't value things, let alone ideals, goals, institutions, etc. (Again; Dawkins is abusing language; engaging in flagrant equivocation.)
- Has dear old Rich forgotten that he doesn't believe in good and evil. This being the case it's hypocritical of him to speak of wickedness. (Why is he allowed to get away with this nonsense?)
- 'Richard Dawkins has said, ‘The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music [emphasis added].’ River out of Eden p.133 [4.]
- There's something ironic (if not irrational) about a man who doesn't believe he's superior to animals claiming (no, insisting) that there is no creator God.
- Maybe we should ask some of the other animals; after all, their opinion would be every bit as good as his.
- Dawkins loves to pretend to be humble, and in my opinion this is more of that posturing. (The man's real character comes out as soon as he picks up a pen to write.)
- As a philosopher! Please.
- Dawkins fancies himself a great philosopher. He's written a piece [2.] denouncing punishment for criminals. His rationale is this; man is just a machine, and we don't punish machines do we? Therefore (cough) we shouldn't punish human beings either. (He actually includes a bit where he describes an incident from Faulty Towers, where John Cleese beats up on his poor little car for stalling on him.) Are you impressed?
- Dawkins of course isn't above punishing Christians and creationists. (e.g. we have his vicious tirades on a seemingly endless basis. We have, from his peers, the fact Creationists denied tenure, fired from jobs, etc.) [3.] This is hypocrisy as absurd as Monty Python.
- The above is an interesting article; if Dawkins is correct that man is just a machine we find here the first manifesto written by a machine. (No wonder it's against punishing machines :=) It's all a joke. Machines can't think in moral terms; nor can mere matter in motion. The question then is this; why should I pay any attention to philosophy written by a machine?
Notes;
1. [Devil's Chaplain; chapter 1.3]
- I took the 'quote' from a review; Secular sermons; A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins [Creation.com]
2. 'Let's all stop beating Basil's car' [The Edge]
3. "On this episode [ID the Future] we provide breaking news and the latest developments in the ongoing controversy over Iowa State University's denial of tenure to noted astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez.
At the same time ISU denied tenure to Gonzalez, it promoted to full professor his chief persecutor--Hector Avalos, whose most recent book argues that the Bible is worse than Hitler's Mein Kampf." Here
3. When I called Dawkins a nut I meant of course to call him an eccentric.
4. ‘The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music [emphasis added].’ River out of Eden p.133
- John Lennox (who I have a high regard) has claimed in a lecture that the new atheists aren't postmodernists; that they believe in good and evil, in truth and falsehood; but this isn't true. (At least with Dawkins)
- How can a man who insists human beings are the slaves of selfish genes know what is or isn't a delusion? This is a joke.
- Dawkins claims Christians are irrational because they have no evidence for their faith. Gee; this is a man who claims people are deluded by their genes every time they do something. What pray tell is his basis for saying something is or is not a delusion? This makes no sense.
5. When Dawkins claims humans are no more 'valuable' than any other species, hasn't he insulted the genes he's carrying around :=)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
