Richard Dawkins on the morality of hitler: Are you kidding me??

[kalt]

Values come from numerous places. Some are decided by the reason; some are inborn (a natural biological drive towards empathy, similar to what we see in social animals); many are the result of social training; many are the result of internalizing the norms of those around us; and other values probably come from other sources.

“Values” aren’t usually things that we wake up and decide upon, but they are subject to a lot of influences over time.

My values lead me to oppose it. If your values are different on this subject, I’m going to keep my distance from you.

And how do you decide which “values” to keep and which to oppose?

It’s clear that you disagree with the values of the Man/Boy types. Can you explain why, though their views are values, and by your thinking equally valid values, since there is no objective good or evil, you’ve decided to reject their values and adopt different values?

The personal attack at the end of your post is childish and a poor attempt to deflect challenges to your debate point, which you are having great difficulty defending.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Hm, I’m not a Dawkins fan but . . . . there is a context to it, isn’t there?

What he went on to say was words to the effect of ‘whatever it is, it isn’t the Bible’.

In other words, he was saying something like “It’s interesting to contemplate what it is that tells us that Hitler was wrong, whatever it is it isn’t the Bible.”

Dawkins is such an easy target that quotes taken out of context to say things like ‘Dawkins supports Hitler’ are a bit pathetic really.

nicely stated

Frankly, I think Dawkins has a tendancy to overreach though (for instance, moral philosophy hardly seems like a topic suited for an evolutionary biologist). Nevertheless, he seems to be making a fortune by merely stating the obvious

My favorite (commentator on theism that is) would have to be Christopher Hitchens.

 

[StrawberryJam]

nicely stated

Frankly, I think Dawkins has a tendancy to overreach though (for instance, moral philosophy hardly seems like a topic suited for an evolutionary biologist). Nevertheless, he seems to be making a fortune by merely stating the obvious

My favorite (commentator on theism that is) would have to be Christopher Hitchens.

While I enjoy Christopher Hitchens, he would never be able to engage a Jesuit in a civil converstation for a great deal of time as Mr. Dawkins has, and did. If he has, I am unaware of it.

 

[bridgeforsale]

While I enjoy Christopher Hitchens, he would never be able to engage a Jesuit in a civil converstation for a great deal of time as Mr. Dawkins has, and did. If he has, I am unaware of it.

I imagine you’re right (Hitchens is much harsher on debate opponents than Dawkins). That’s part of the reason I like Hitchens so much (plus I like Hitchens’ views on many other topics as well, like his strong stance against Islamic crazies, his support of our war on terror, his defense of American liberty, and so on).

It’s great to see an influential atheist who doesn’t tow the line of the far left. I’ve often wondered how market capitalism and skepticism with regard to theism became divorced from one anther (when the fathers of ideas like market capitalism, like Adam Smith, embodied that enlightenment skepticism of theism and other deeply rooted ideas).

 

[StrawberryJam]

I imagine you’re right (Hitchens is much harsher on debate opponents than Dawkins). That’s part of the reason I like Hitchens so much (plus I like Hitchens’ views on many other topics as well, like his strong stance against Islamic crazies, his support of our war on terror, his defense of American liberty, and so on).

He is a character. Love to buy the man a drink someday if I ever had the opportunity to.
What about Sam Harris? He can play both hard and subtle.