|
amanofthisworld (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes I admit that Dawkins may sound very cold just plain logic, nothing human in his words. But I don't really believe such a scenario is even possible and I bet he doesn't want to reject compassion for people in trouble. He also wrote that to be charitable isn't against evolution sometimes it is exactly opposite.The thing here is that religions gives us nothing special except illusions and easy ways to explain all bad deeds.
fluffynoses (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
will look into that
ropewalkingelephant (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Watch the second episode of 'The genius of Charles Darwin' Dawkins covers this issue
fluffynoses (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I agree that secularists can be moral, but i'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that if we saw the world strictly through the logic and reason of science that dawkins wants us to, we would often ignore the plight of the poor because logic would tell us not to put ourselves at risk for the welfare of others etc. don't forget that in the 19th century, science was used to prove horrible ideas like eugenics and racial superiority. religion did too, but you'd expect more from science honestly
fluffynoses (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
there are people who are religious but aren't dogmatic to religious texts like the bible, the koran etc. The problem with religion is that many followers cling to specific dogmas (no gay rights, no abortion etc.) but they forget they can't adapt a 4000-year old book to the present day. that's the problem with religion. it is not wholly bad until people start thinking backwards.
amanofthisworld (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Two things:- we have a secular charity foundations as well, we can be moral and charitable without any gods,- how many atrocities have been inflicted on innocent people in the name of God?The Bible can't be a source of morals. Read it, especially the parts when the Jews kill every living thing just for the promised land. In the name of God of course...No, I don't believe that Dawkins should changed anything about his approach to religion. It is time for us to change just to get rid of it
fluffynoses (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
religion brings forth lots of charity and morality, that can't be denied. the reason of science would tell us to ignore the plight of the poor in places like africa and india through this idea of "survival of the fittest." but faith and morals gave us humanitarians who went there and helped. i think dawkins should shift his argument against dogma and extremism, as opposed to religion b/c there is nothing wrong with religion, until it is distorted which it often is.
phlewis86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Science should be avlable to all who can benefit from it even if they don't believe in it or understand it. Science is for for the benefit of civilazation as a whole even if there are those who unwilling or incapable of understading it.
joerules22 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
how about this, the individuals who insult science should have all the benefits of science: medicine, technology and anything that came from science removed from there use. Since they want to live in the dark ages anyways let them, pick an island.
Nykytyne (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I lol'd at Dawkins playing the flute. I thought he was doing pretty well actually.... |
