Richard Dawkins Hero
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 30 Jun 15 1.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote steviebarton at 29 Jun 2015 7.57pm
Dawkins is certainly not universally admired in the 'scientific community'; not least because his gift of rational argument has been distorted by his prejudices. He also falls into the trap of believing that all truth = scientific truth, which is a delusion of its own. What he has achieved is to compel Christian academics to review evidence scrupulously, and to avoid sloppy arguments, and for that we should be appreciative. Indeed, and notably quantitative scientific truth. Dawkins tends to forget that science has moved on a lot since he was a student, and ignores inconvenient braches such as qualitative science such as phenomenology.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 reborn 30 Jun 15 4.09pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.19pm
Quote reborn at 30 Jun 2015 12.53pm
So you agree that to have a Downs Syndrome baby is morally wrong Jamie. Yes or No? (I know you struggle with short answers) Short answer, if depends on the severity of the Downs Syndrome and the suffering of the child, I'd guess. I've known people with Downes who lived relatively good lives, and of others who suffered terrible short lives. So Yes then?
My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Jun 15 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote reborn at 30 Jun 2015 4.09pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.19pm
Quote reborn at 30 Jun 2015 12.53pm
So you agree that to have a Downs Syndrome baby is morally wrong Jamie. Yes or No? (I know you struggle with short answers) Short answer, if depends on the severity of the Downs Syndrome and the suffering of the child, I'd guess. I've known people with Downes who lived relatively good lives, and of others who suffered terrible short lives. So Yes then? Actually its a no, as I'd abort long before Downes syndrome would have been diagnosed.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Ray in Houston  Houston 30 Jun 15 4.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.19pm
Short answer, if depends on the severity of the Downs Syndrome and the suffering of the child, I'd guess. I've known people with Downes who lived relatively good lives, and of others who suffered terrible short lives.
I refuse to pass judgment on any parent's decision to abort a pregnancy. It's their - incredibly tough -decision alone.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
coulsdoneagle  London 30 Jun 15 6.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Hero status should go to the millions of Atheists and religious people who have their beliefs and don't shove them in anyone's faces. Yours is yours, I don't give a sh!t what you believe or think either way.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Catfish Burgess Hill 30 Jun 15 6.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote coulsdoneagle at 30 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Hero status should go to the millions of Atheists and religious people who have their beliefs and don't shove them in anyone's faces. Yours is yours, I don't give a sh!t what you believe or think either way. On the other hand, if anyone would like their religious beliefs ridiculed and mocked I am happy to oblige.
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Jul 15 7.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.17pm
Quote reborn at 30 Jun 2015 12.53pm
So you agree that to have a Downs Syndrome baby is morally wrong Jamie. Yes or No? (I know you struggle with short answers) I think the context is central. You can't reduce moral or ethical questions to a yes or no answer. I'd say yes, but the important part is the bit following (I think its morally questionable to have children, let alone ones with severe disabilities). Personally I believe having children is morally wrong, and selfish, given the population of the planet is absurdly out of kilter, it can only add to the misery, both of humans and a death sentence to countless other species. Ultimately we cull or neuter or otherwise control the populations of other species and yet we have spread like a virus across the planet, destroying species, eco-systems and ultimately ourselves, increasingly as resources run low. The options ultimately, for humanity will be a cull or population birth control or species collapse. of the three, birth control seem the more humane. So I don't have children. I wouldn't think twice about aborting a fetus, downes or otherwise, truth be told As we can create test tube babies we could ensure children have none of these nasty imperfections. Could control their numbers and even make them all the same colour to eradicate racism. If only we could identify a gay gene, we could also make them all gay to eradicate homophobia. O wonder!
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheJudge 01 Jul 15 9.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.21pm
Quote steviebarton at 29 Jun 2015 7.57pm
Dawkins is certainly not universally admired in the 'scientific community'; not least because his gift of rational argument has been distorted by his prejudices. He also falls into the trap of believing that all truth = scientific truth[/b], which is a delusion of its own. What he has achieved is to compel Christian academics to review evidence scrupulously, and to avoid sloppy arguments, and for that we should be appreciative. Indeed, and notably quantitative scientific truth. Dawkins tends to forget that science has moved on a lot since he was a student, and ignores inconvenient braches such as qualitative science such as phenomenology.
All things fall within science because science is the study of all things. There is no supernatural since anything that actually existed would be just natural. No one claims that science is always right or has all the answers.but it is the only reasonable way to try and find them.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Jul 15 9.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” [Bill S.]
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Catfish Burgess Hill 01 Jul 15 9.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 9.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.21pm
Quote steviebarton at 29 Jun 2015 7.57pm
Dawkins is certainly not universally admired in the 'scientific community'; not least because his gift of rational argument has been distorted by his prejudices. He also falls into the trap of believing that all truth = scientific truth[/b], which is a delusion of its own. What he has achieved is to compel Christian academics to review evidence scrupulously, and to avoid sloppy arguments, and for that we should be appreciative. Indeed, and notably quantitative scientific truth. Dawkins tends to forget that science has moved on a lot since he was a student, and ignores inconvenient braches such as qualitative science such as phenomenology.
All things fall within science because science is the study of all things. There is no supernatural since anything that actually existed would be just natural. No one claims that science is always right or has all the answers.but it is the only reasonable way to try and find them. Well said. The basic truth about religious argument is that it is building castles in the air. No matter how many pinnacles, gildings or ornamentation you put on a religious argument it has absolutely no foundation.
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Jul 15 10.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Catfish at 01 Jul 2015 9.47pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 9.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.21pm
Quote steviebarton at 29 Jun 2015 7.57pm
Dawkins is certainly not universally admired in the 'scientific community'; not least because his gift of rational argument has been distorted by his prejudices. He also falls into the trap of believing that all truth = scientific truth[/b], which is a delusion of its own. What he has achieved is to compel Christian academics to review evidence scrupulously, and to avoid sloppy arguments, and for that we should be appreciative. Indeed, and notably quantitative scientific truth. Dawkins tends to forget that science has moved on a lot since he was a student, and ignores inconvenient braches such as qualitative science such as phenomenology.
All things fall within science because science is the study of all things. There is no supernatural since anything that actually existed would be just natural. No one claims that science is always right or has all the answers.but it is the only reasonable way to try and find them. Well said. The basic truth about religious argument is that it is building castles in the air. No matter how many pinnacles, gildings or ornamentation you put on a religious argument it has absolutely no foundation. Basically agree with you on religion. But you could use the same paragraph for many things, depending on your view, by changing the word 'religious' to say 'socialist', or 'pro-EU', or pseudoscience' etc
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jul 15 10.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 9.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.21pm
Quote steviebarton at 29 Jun 2015 7.57pm
Dawkins is certainly not universally admired in the 'scientific community'; not least because his gift of rational argument has been distorted by his prejudices. He also falls into the trap of believing that all truth = scientific truth[/b], which is a delusion of its own. What he has achieved is to compel Christian academics to review evidence scrupulously, and to avoid sloppy arguments, and for that we should be appreciative. Indeed, and notably quantitative scientific truth. Dawkins tends to forget that science has moved on a lot since he was a student, and ignores inconvenient braches such as qualitative science such as phenomenology.
All things fall within science because science is the study of all things. There is no supernatural since anything that actually existed would be just natural. No one claims that science is always right or has all the answers.but it is the only reasonable way to try and find them. Phemonology is a branch of science that takes a non-reductionist approach, notably in social science, to the importance of experience as a whole phenomena. Scientific methodology has enormous value, but one of the problems of Dawkins, seen in the God Delusion is the tendency to present heavily questionable science as fact (notably evolutionary psychology and assumptions of biology outside of the scientific paradigm). I'd agree with most of what you have written, except the last paragraph - Religion is only sometimes an issue for science, notably fundamentalist Christianity and its attempt to push an agenda of pseudoscience as science. There is a lot more to, and in religion, than just god and who created what. I'm an atheist, but I have found value in the teachings of Christ, Siddhartra, mystics and zazen, that science cannot offer. Similarly in philosophy, we can find important meaning and understand of existence, that transcends that presentable in empirical science (indeed, its important to remember that science is itself a branch of philosophy).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.