One for the unbelievers and not so sures

[deiseach]

theskull1, I find it curious that you can find "nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see" even though the Man Himself says "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn". I'm sure he'd be proud of you for thinking for yourself, but maybe you should be arguing with him on whether it's contentious!

[Milltown Row2]

Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!

In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.

I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.

However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?

Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.

That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.

Yeah not a bad set of principles to lead your life in a simplistic kind of way.

The first four yes I can agree with but ffs live a little, not on this shit hole for long 

[J70]

Can we not have this thread derailed, mmkay?

"mmkay"?? 

[theskull1]

But as a parent to be told I was morally wrong to bring my son into the world and that I am condemned to a life of suffering and unhappiness is so far from the truth and reality.
That's the problem I have with his opinion.

LL I think you know he is not telling you that. He was giving his reasons why he would think it to be morally wrong. There is a very subtle but huge difference here. Its a sensitive issue and its very easy for people to get offended.

On the life of suffering and unhappiness, when you say its far from reality in your situation (which is fantastic) is it your opinion that every DS child would bring the same joy and have the same quality of life? Of course not. Surely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for ...........Remember too, his comments refer to something hypothetical which has not made it into the world, so its not like he is targeting his opinions toward a real person. No different than considering the hypothecical son you could have borne had you not have been strangling your granny 

theskull1, I find it curious that you can find "nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see" even though the Man Himself says "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn". I'm sure he'd be proud of you for thinking for yourself, but maybe you should be arguing with him on whether it's contentious!

Are you tokin there big lad? 

Look , the very fact he made the statement "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn" helps makes what he says less disputatious.
He is putting his considered point of view forward and has considered the fact that, yes his views are contentious and that there could be the possibility that he could be enlightened to take a different perspective.....so he's acknowledging that he's open to well considered opposing positions rather than just accepting that he is right. What's there not to respect about his position? 

[ONeill]

Dawkins shouldn't be on Twitter. That's like Tony McCoy on a rocking horse. "Look, he's shite"

[Syferus]

The sheer smugness of the likes of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have always been very off-putting for me. Always try to be open to new ideas or perspectives but not (ironically, I guess) when they're put forth with such dogmatic elitism.

[Hardy]

And that Richard Darwin was full of shit.

[laoislad]

But as a parent to be told I was morally wrong to bring my son into the world and that I am condemned to a life of suffering and unhappiness is so far from the truth and reality.
That's the problem I have with his opinion.

LL I think you know he is not telling you that. He was giving his reasons why he would think it to be morally wrong. There is a very subtle but huge difference here. Its a sensitive issue and its very easy for people to get offended.

On the life of suffering and unhappiness, when you say its far from reality in your situation (which is fantastic) is it your opinion that every DS child would bring the same joy and have the same quality of life? Of course not. Surely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for ...........Remember too, his comments refer to something hypothetical which has not made it into the world, so its not like he is targeting his opinions toward a real person. No different than considering the hypothecical son you could have borne had you not have been strangling your granny 

His reasons that he gives that it would be morally wrong ,as I said before,are based on ignorant and outdated stereotypes.
And I don't see why I shouldn't speak against him just because it is his opinion and that he's not speaking about any individual or family.

Surely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for

For some,yes of course. But surely the same could be said about any child that is brought into the world? You have no idea how any child will turn out.
With kids with DS there are so many Early Intervention programs now, that they didn't have even as short as 20 years ago,that the possibilities for them now are endless.
I have met dozens of families in the same situation as myself in the last few years and I don't think I have met one yet that is suffering or unhappy.That includes families with adult sons/daughters who wouldn't have had the same early intervention as my son is getting.
I have met loads of older siblings who have said that the single biggest influence on their lives have been their brother or sister with DS,and from my research that same goes for anyone that has had a brother or sister with any sort of special needs.Surely that's a good thing no? There are plenty of studies done that prove that a sibling with special needs can have a huge positive effect on the entire family but especially for other siblings.

Look,I had never heard of this Dawkins guy before. I don't care about his beliefs or non beliefs regarding God or whatever.
I'm not easily offended on this either btw. I use to be,but you grow a thick skin very quickly because there are a lot of ignorant people out there that make sweeping generalisations about this topic just like this Dawkins guy has.

You like everyone else are entitled to your opinion skull,but I'm a little surprised at you that you are defending everything this guy is saying on this particular subject.

[seafoid]

But as a parent to be told I was morally wrong to bring my son into the world and that I am condemned to a life of suffering and unhappiness is so far from the truth and reality.
That's the problem I have with his opinion.

LL I think you know he is not telling you that. He was giving his reasons why he would think it to be morally wrong. There is a very subtle but huge difference here. Its a sensitive issue and its very easy for people to get offended.

On the life of suffering and unhappiness, when you say its far from reality in your situation (which is fantastic) is it your opinion that every DS child would bring the same joy and have the same quality of life? Of course not. Surely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for ...........Remember too, his comments refer to something hypothetical which has not made it into the world, so its not like he is targeting his opinions toward a real person. No different than considering the hypothecical son you could have borne had you not have been strangling your granny 

His reasons that he gives that it would be morally wrong ,as I said before,are based on ignorant and outdated stereotypes.
And I don't see why I shouldn't speak against him just because it is his opinion and that he's not speaking about any individual or family.

Surely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for

For some,yes of course. But surely the same could be said about any child that is brought into the world? You have no idea how any child will turn out.
With kids with DS there are so many Early Intervention programs now, that they didn't have even as short as 20 years ago,that the possibilities for them now are endless.
I have met dozens of families in the same situation as myself in the last few years and I don't think I have met one yet that is suffering or unhappy.That includes families with adult sons/daughters who wouldn't have had the same early intervention as my son is getting.
I have met loads of older siblings who have said that the single biggest influence on their lives have been their brother or sister with DS,and from my research that same goes for anyone that has had a brother or sister with any sort of special needs.Surely that's a good thing no? There are plenty of studies done that prove that a sibling with special needs can have a huge positive effect on the entire family but especially for other siblings.

Look,I had never heard of this Dawkins guy before. I don't care about his beliefs or non beliefs regarding God or whatever.
I'm not easily offended on this either btw. I use to be,but you grow a thick skin very quickly because there are a lot of ignorant people out there that make sweeping generalisations about this topic just like this Dawkins guy has.

You like everyone else are entitled to your opinion skull,but I'm a little surprised at you that you are defending everything this guy is saying on this particular subject.

Great post, Laoislad

[deiseach]

theskull1, I find it curious that you can find "nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see" even though the Man Himself says "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn". I'm sure he'd be proud of you for thinking for yourself, but maybe you should be arguing with him on whether it's contentious!

Are you tokin there big lad? 

Look , the very fact he made the statement "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn" helps makes what he says less disputatious.
He is putting his considered point of view forward and has considered the fact that, yes his views are contentious and that there could be the possibility that he could be enlightened to take a different perspective.....so he's acknowledging that he's open to well considered opposing positions rather than just accepting that he is right. What's there not to respect about his position?

Did you read what I said? More to the point, did you read what you said? You find nothing contentious about what he said even though he admits what he said is contentious! Just saying "This is going to be contentious" doesn't make what you say any less contentious, no more than free speech gives you the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. At this stage I think you are determined to cast anyone who objects to Dawkins' comments as closed-minded so I think it's best to take my leave of the conversation.

[theskull1]

For the record ... I am not agreeing with everything the man says. I am stating that I am impressed with his ability to put forward his opinions in an articulate and precise way. He has every right to hold his opinion and articulate it as long as its been well considered and he is prepared to listen to alternative views.

In its entirety I'm saying I can appreciate his point of view on the subject which is discussing his opinion if a foetus was abnormal, not a child with special needs (which someone knows and loves), so why are we getting our backs up regarding the latter?

[J70]

The sheer smugness of the likes of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have always been very off-putting for me. Always try to be open to new ideas or perspectives but not (ironically, I guess) when they're put forth with such dogmatic elitism.

There's plenty of smugness on the religious side too. Do you find that off-putting?

[trueblue1234]

For the record ... I am not agreeing with everything the man says. I am stating that I am impressed with his ability to put forward his opinions in an articulate and precise way. He has every right to hold his opinion and articulate it as long as its been well considered and he is prepared to listen to alternative views.

In its entirety I'm saying I can appreciate his point of view on the subject which is discussing his opinion if a foetus was abnormal, not a child with special needs (which someone knows and loves), so why are we getting our backs up regarding the latter?

It's not a case of people getting their backs up about his opinion. People are just disagreeing with his opinion. I don't think anyone is trying to tell him that he isn't allowed to hold that opinion. People may make a decision to view him differently because of that opinion but again that's their prerogative to do so. As Deiseach (I Think) said if a church came out with such a view people would be quick to jump to condemn or condone the comments. So his comments are no different considering he has such a big following. And sticking "It's only my opinion" doesn't immune his comments from criticism. 

[theskull1]

Dawkins is putting forward his opinion and is happy to debate the pros and cons of his position. The church puts forward a dogma that's not up for debate. I dont mind you coming up with a better comparison, but that one does not work
The fact large numbers of people appreciate his ability to approach certain taboo subject areas with rational thought and has the conviction to express his view really has nothing to do with the argument.

[johnneycool]

Dawkins is putting forward his opinion and is happy to debate the pros and cons of his position. The church puts forward a dogma that's not up for debate. I dont mind you coming up with a better comparison, but that one does not work
The fact large numbers of people appreciate his ability to approach certain taboo subject areas with rational thought and has the conviction to express his view really has nothing to do with the argument.

Haven't read a whole pile on Dawkins, but has he any thoughts on abortion and when life begins? I presume he's not against abortion by that last snippet on the Down Syndrome foetus, but from a scientific perspective when does he believe life actually begins?

Not that you're his spokesman for him on this board  , just that you may be more aware of his opinions on this!