Richard Dawkins Supports the Murder of Innocent Children

[TarousDT]

It doesn't matter that these children are innocent. It's either a painful death not a painful death.

[thelossbloodlock]

Either let your kid suffer in miserable agony or release it from it's pain? Is it really such a hard decision?

[Learnerwp]

Yes. Mercy killing BAD. Have no mercy. Remember this when your pet is in horrible distress. You MUST NOT allow it to be "put to sleep." That would make you a BAD and immoral person.

[JaydeeOldBoy]

Ahhh, so the religious are against ending the suffering of a one year old child, and in favour of letting it suffer agonisingly until its eventual torturous and inevitable death. How do these backwards religious think they know anything about morality? Can someon explain to me the morality in torturing a toddler?

[JohananRaatz]

Ugh! This kind of bone-headed thinking is why I think the new atheism is a terrible idea. Is Dawkins dafted? "Mercy killing" is still murder!

This clip here is a perfect example of why people need to be religious. If one is a WISE atheist, then this is a perfect example of why people need to be "opiated with religion."

You end up with village idiots like this buffoon running amuk otherwise.

[mrwho995]

@JohananRaatz

No, your comment is exactly why people SHOULDN'T be religious. You are actually supporting the horrible pain and suffering of a baby, followed by its death, rather than a painless, peaceful death? Your religion forbids you for thinking for yourself and making the kinder decision. It may be a hard and uncomfortable decision to make, but it is the kindest thing to do. A life of agony is not worth living. It doesn't matter if it 'is still murder'? It is the lesser of two evils.

[JohananRaatz]

@mrwho995 "You are actually supporting the horrible pain"

Who's to say there might not be a treatment in the works that might cure the baby that is not yet known by the parents? Where there is life there is hope.

I've seen this line of reasoning before, and regardless of how eloquently it is argued in academia, in practice it gets corrupted very quickly. We see this kind of garbage all of the time with idiots who think it's better to abort poor babies so they won't live in poverty.

[mrwho995]

@JohananRaatz

The minutest chance of a cure is not worth the excessive pain. Any 'cures' would take years and years to be developed for safe use. Any sane person would do their research, and if there are no recent developments in the area their child is suffering from, the unfortunate truth is that there won't be in time. In this situation, when you can avoid the child suffering a horrible life of great pain, euthanasia is the lesser of two evils (of course, the child has to agree).

[JohananRaatz]

@mrwho995 Well ok, take off life-support perhaps, and give lots of morphine. I can agree with that. But don't you see the slippery slope this opens up? I've seen this same kind of argument given for abortion and euthanasia in cases that are all to often less than what one would consider excessive pain -poverty, Down's syndrome, excessive old age etc.

[mrwho995]

@JohananRaatz

But you could argue a slippery slope for anything. You could claim that introducing laws could be a slippery slope into a dictatorship, for example, or that freedom of religion would be a slippery slope to terrorism. Yes, allowing youth euthanasia for excessive pain could lead to something much worse, but only if people allowed it to happen, and I think it's safe to say that we wouldn't. Even in Nazi Germany, a mass euthanasia program for the disabled was stopped due to protest.

[JohananRaatz]

@mrwho995 You could yes, but the difference here is that people have already gone down and continue to go down this slippery slope. I've seen very similar excuses given by people in situations where they have no business getting abortions.

Now academically it's different.However most people are not oriented towards knowledge, but they want to find excuses for bad behavior.This is just human nature. When an academic says something like this, it gives them an easy way to justify stuff.

[mrwho995]

@JohananRaatz

Well first there's a massive argument as to whether abortions are even an ethically wrong thing. I don't know my stance regarding abortion at this stage. Sorry, I fundamentally disagree that 'most people' want to find excuses for infanticide. Not meaning to be rude, but do you have any evidence of an authority figure supporting euthanasia in very specific circumstances leading towards people feeling infanticide in other forms is justified?

[JohananRaatz]

@mrwho995 "leading towards people feeling infanticide in other forms is justified?"

Peter Singer, and of course we have Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. And in Wisconsin I've seen one of our own senators say something equally egregious. Fortunately he's now out of office -12 years later.

"whether abortions are even an ethically wrong"

I know, and in risk of sounding pretentious I find this ridiculous.(more reason for Straussian style promotion of religion.)

[mrwho995]

@JohananRaatz

Not to be rude, but my question wasn't whether any authority figures support abortion, it was "Do you have any evidence of an authority figure supporting euthanasia in very specific circumstances leading towards people feeling infanticide in other forms is justified?"

I'm not American so if you were in fact giving an example of the quote above, forgive me.

[JohananRaatz]

@mrwho995 Well it's hard to draw specific links and tell that this or that thinker caused someone to push the envelope. However I highly doubt there would be people thinking it was ok in general cases (as is the case with some politicians I know) was the idea not bandied about by some academic first. When people talk about things like this as though they might be legitimate they give people the idea that they might actually be. And that's dangerous.

[mrwho995]

@JohananRaatz

With all due respect, that is mere postulation, and one I simply disagree with.

"When people talk about things like this as though they might be legitimate they give people the idea that they might actually be."

Yet we have reached the conclusion that in some circumstances, euthanasia, be it a child or not, is the ethical decision to make. Should we simply not allow any development in society for the fear that, somehow, it could cause a majority to suddenly become so amoral?

[ElasticGiraffe]

He categorically refuses to debate a philosopher who defends the ancient Israelites' conquest of Canaan, yet he's willing to have a pleasant chat with a philosopher who claims infanticide is in principle morally justifiable (Peter Singer). This alone ought to be a crushing blow to New Atheism, witnessing the dauntless Dawkins run and hide from debates with academics because every time he does he ends up intellectually dwarfed and publicly humiliated.

Feigned outrage, cowardice, and hypocrisy.

[mrwho995]

@ElasticGiraffe

If you actually think that letting an innocent child live a torturous life of pain and no enjoyment, followed by a horrible death, rather than a painless death, you are the one that is immoral here. Your gut reactions are clouding actual morality. It is a horrible decision to make, but, just like euthanasia for other sorts, it is the lesser of two evils. If you disagree with me here, give me a moral, rather than religious reason why and I may change my mind if it is good enough

[Jesrael1986M]

"Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?" - Dawkins' Guardian article.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Please...God supports the murders of innocent children...He does it all through the OT.

[oneandonlyrisenangel]

@cmdrkoenig67 lol that's just blatantly false.

[cmdrkoenig67]

@oneandonlyrisenangel Have you not read the Bible?

[cmdrkoenig67]

@oneandonlyrisenangel Hosea 9:11-16, Hosea 13:16, Numbers 5:11-21, Numbers 31:17, 1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 135:8 & 136:10, Psalms 137:9 and it goes on and on...

[BrotherMichael1000]

@cmdrkoenig67 Your own leader of new atheism sees nothing wrong with killing a 1 year old. His own words. Your sides argument on this matter would now be considered hypocritical and further your sides credibility is shot. 

[cmdrkoenig67]

@BrotherMichael1000 Your God killed plenty of babies and I don't hear you crying about that.

[BrotherMichael1000]

@cmdrkoenig67 Your leader argues he cannot find a reasonable moral argument against infanticide. Further if you had seen this full interview you would also find that he finds no moral argument against rape either. Why would I cry about what God does? Further who are you or I to judge God? Man who is double minded from his birth who lies, betrays, covets, murders, steals, and destroys all for his lust and you would dare think yourself God's judge? Deut. 32:39 1 Samuel 2:6

[Aleex490]

You asshole quote miner. Dawkins is talking about euthanasia. He thinks it's ok to kill a baby that is going to die an agonizing death anyway. That does not mean he support killing innocent babies.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@Aleex490

So how is it that a baby that has a terminal condition no longer "innocent"? There's no quote mining here. Everyone uses that as an excuse when Dawkins is very clear what he's saying here and rfvidz even gives the context of it.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

well yeh, if a child had a horrible disease that caused it constant suffering than yes, to put the child into permanent sleep the most humane way possible would be justified, to keep the child alive through the suffering simply because the parent doesnt want to lose the child is simply barbaric

[Nytmare8u]

Has Stephen Hawkins heard this? WOW

[jeffreysbrother]

@Nytmare8u Stephen Hawking?

[Learnerwp]

@Nytmare8u Stephen Hawkin is a sane man with free will and completely able to make his own decisions. He needs niether Dawkins or you to make any decisions on his behalf. And by the way, Hawkin is enjoying his life.

[MrJamesBP]

When you take things people say out of context (via a youtube video edit) you don't discredit them...you discredit yourself. Clearly this 48 second clip is missing context. What Dawkins goes on to say after is surely a "rather important bit" needed to qualify his statement about infanticide. But that's ok if you're not interested in his actual message....i guess...

[highnote606]

How many times has a doctor condemned a sick person to death and turned out to be wrong. Cancer comes to mind here. Not a single human is a prophet. Hope keeps a sick person alive. Will keep a person alive. Until death shows up, life continues. For someone to take it away is the same as murder. Abortion is murder. Dawkins admitted that he is a potential murderer. Call it any fancy word you want. The meaning is the same. Dawkins is a potential murderer by his own words. Admire this mad man?

[highnote606]

Ok. Now picture that video where Dawkins was holding a baby, showing affection much like Hitler did to fool the gullible minds. Hitler didn't mind killing either. He had no empathy at all. Neither does Dawkins. He is living evidence that atheism and empathy cannot co-exist. The rise in atheism has coincided with a decrease in empathy. Is it a coincidence? Considering the relentless behavior of many atheists, I would say not a coincidence at all. Cruelty co-exists with atheism.

[torontoBluejays87]

@highnote606 Hitler was a deeply religious man.

[MrJamesBP]

@torontoBluejays87 I agree that religion is totally unnecessary for objective morality. However, I have to correct you on the Hitler point. Hitler was not a terribly religious person. He often used religion as a tool and scapegoat (in the case of Judaism) but nothing historically known about him (to my knowledge) could lead one to believe that he, personally, felt very strongly about Christianity.

[torontoBluejays87]

@MrJamesBP You and I cannot speculate what went on in Hitler's head. We have only his words in quotes. Read his quotes, because there are far too many to fit in a 500 character box that support his view on deep faith in Christianity. He was very religious. I am not trying to pile all the bad atheists on one side and all the bad religious ppl on the other, I am just telling you that Hitler was a devout Catholic.

[philosophy7575]

@torontoBluejays87

Slow down. You are exaggerating. You must realize that Hitler made contradictory statements regarding Christianity. In "Mein Kampf", he said he was doing the "lord's work" and other like statements. However, his private statements found in "Hitler's Tabletalk" are quite different. For example, he spoke of destroying Christianity. He called it a scourge. He dabbled in creating his own religion. Anyway, Hitler was full of contradictions. It's not as simple as you think.

[philosophy7575]

@torontoBluejays87

Here are some quotes from Table Talk, a collection of Hitler's private conversations. Don't bother showing me others that seem to support the idea that he was a sincere Catholic. I already know them.

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." [Table Talk, p. 75]

"If it's possible to buy the high dignitaries of the Church with money, let's do it." [Table Talk, p. 411]

[philosophy7575]

@torontoBluejays87

More Hitler quotes from Table Talk. It totally refutes the silly claim made my biased atheists who don't bother looking at both sides of the argument.

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death"

"...when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

[torontoBluejays87]

@highnote606 How dare you call someone like me, who rejects religion, immoral and less empathetic than yourself.

[MrJamesBP]

@highnote606 oh please...what a ridiculous analogy to draw..you should be ashamed of yourself. Fact is, senseless murder is inherently wrong..we all know it. virtually all people know this regardless of whether they are religious or not. It's a rather pompous position to take that only "religious people" have morality...and then only the people belonging to the "right religion" have morality. This position is false and completely undefensable. Even Dr. Craig doesn't come out and say that.

[djs259]

arrogant piece of shit

[FreeeeS]

quote mining detected.

[Donnievil]

"Some incurable disease that leads to death later in life"...like humanity? Mortality?

If Dawkins was consistent (and he NEVER is) this justifies killing any child, since all of them will die later in life because they are stricken with mortality.

And people take this guy seriously???

[HannoverFisk]

whatever

[BGfromGB]

@K11IKB Would you also support the killing of a healthy baby on the basis that the mother does not want him/her. A baby at that stage is unable to know anything pain death or suffering. Would infanticide be OK?

[flackz16]

Taken out of context...yawn. Keep attacking Dawkins theists.. shows how threatened by him you are.

[Davey20071]

Nothing but miscontextualized sensationalist propaganda.

[jamey55lee]

This tiny clip is taken from the Genius of Darwin series. I would recommend anyone watch the whole 43 minute video of this dialogue between Richard Dawkins and the philosopher Peter Singer, in order to contextualize Dawkins' comment.

[HeReformedMe]

I've said some crazy stuff to get outta babysitting, but wow

[AEVautomatic]

In later life no if its going to bleed out of its eyes for 5 hours than die yes. Not if it is physically or mentally challenged though. It should be loved in the latter situation.

[AEVautomatic]

Of course, he is an atheist.

[ChadMStevenson]

Is that Peter Singer with him?

[LittleSn00py]

@ChadMStevenson Yes.

[virtualguitarist]

madness.

[H0tkebab]

Wow, and this is the same guy who refuses to debate Dr William Lane Craig because of a genocide that happened thousands of years ago? Talk about having double standards. -_-

[linuxisbetter0]

I don't see how this is provocating such outrageous responses.

If any one of us had a child, God forbid, having an incurrable disease that makes him/her suffer incredible amounts of pain...non of us have an intuitive inclination to stop his/her agony?

I simply ask everyone to think about that, and if you don't...I guess we agree to disagree

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 The point is more that Dawkins tears strips off William Lane Craig for using a consequentialist argument to defend killing children in one context, and yet Dawkins now does the same thing in this context.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

(1) That point is showed here

(2) Even if that was the point, it's not clear that the 2 cases are justified by the consequences.

Moreover even if the consequentialist defense WLC uses works, it undermines the ethical view he holds to be true, namely Divine Command Theory.

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 Just two points: 1) It's true that Dawkins and Craig will disagree about the actual consequences in the Canaanite conquest. But it's no good for Dawkins to expect Craig to grant his metaphysical beliefs just so that Dawkins' critique works. What this shows us is that Dawkins should first interact with Craig on the metaphysics. Refute Craig's theism and *then* complain that the conquest is unjustified.

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 And 2), the consequentialist defence doesn't undermine divine command ethics. You need to remember, Bill doesn't say that the conquest was the right thing to do *because* of the consequences. He says it was right because of the divine commands. His appeal to the consequences is only to fend off an *objection* based on the consequences. He seeks to show that within a Christian framework the consequences are not as bas as atheists might assume.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

I'm seriously at a lost of words. I don't know how to respond to you first point. I think it's due to the 500 char limit, I'm not sure of what exactly you're trying to say, and if my interpretation is correct I simply think you are wrong.

As far as your second point, differentiating when WLC appeals to consequences does nothing to show how WLC is consistent on morality.

DCT is a deontological theory, not a consequentialist one; appealing to the latter undermines it's foundation.

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 OK, sorry you're at a "lost [sic] for words." As for the rest, you're repeating yourself when I already addressed this. Dawkins raised an objection to Bill's deontological theory because of the *consequences.* It is therefore appropriate for Bill to try to explain why the consequences are not what Dawkins alleges. This does not undermine a deontological theory. Sorry.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

WLC justifies the murder of innocent children by consequences.

yes or no?

If he does it undermines deontology.

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 If you had checked, and also read my replies to you, you would have noted that I said that when he appeled to consequences, he was offering - not a justification - but a *defense* against an objection. So no. Now it's your turn: Rejecting claims about the consequences of your theory is compatible with a deontological theory. Yes or no?

[berettaNZ]

@berettaNZ *appealed.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

lets say its okay to appeal to consequences in a defense...which i disagree w anyway.

What im saying is that WLC justifies the murder of innocent children by appealing to consequences. He is NOT doing so as a response. He believes the bible is innerrent and came up w this justification.

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 Then I think you need to have another look at Bill's argument. His position is that what is right is what God commands - he's quite clear about that. He only ever goes into the "children go to heaven" argument as a response when people bring up what happened as a consequence of God's commands. But he never says that this is what makes it the thing that Israel ought to have done. You're genuinely misconstruing his argument now.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

okay great. you seem to agree that appealing to consequences undermines deontology.

the question now is....why does this friction disappear when defending deontology?

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 "you seem to agree that appealing to consequences undermines deontology." ? You mean apart from when i said that appealing to the consequences DOESN'T undermine deontology? And then the part where you said "lets say its okay to appeal to consequences in a defense"? No. Appealing to the nature of the consequences when someone raises an objection based on consequences does not undermine deontology. Not at all. Let's not repeat this.

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 Bill: "Morality is grounded in divine commands." Richard: "But that has those awful consequences over there!" Bill: Actually it doesn't [this is his appeal to consequences]" You: "HA! You just undermined DCT!" Me: "Fail."

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

Bill: "Morality is grounded in divine commands."

Richard: "killing innocent children because god commanded it, is crazy"

Bill: "no it isn't look at the good consequences"

me: "HA! You just undermined DCT!"

you: "its okay!, he said its grounded in divine commands remember"

me: "jesus christ"

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 But notice what when your character Richard says "it's crazy," he surely MEANS that it is crazy because the outcome is terrible. See, it's what you don't say. There's no doubt at all that Bill holds DCT. He only appeals to the consequences to reply to those who do likewise. No dice.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

Richard: "killing innocent children because god commanded it, is crazy"

what consequences are you referring to?

killing by definition means to cause the death of an organism.

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 I'm talking about the death of children as a consequence of divine commands. Craig responds to *that* objection. If you just refuse to construe his reply as he intends it to be construed, then have fun with that.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

I know he is responding to that objection. The question I'm asking is WHY is appealing to consequences okay when responding to objections?

Don't you have to be consistent?

I've asked that before and you responded w your bill & rich convo and came straight back here

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 It's OK to talk about consequences because the other person has just asked you to. They have said "but there are these really bad consequences." If that is not true in your view than it is perfectly appropriate to say so by explaining that the consequences are not as bad. But at no stage does this make Bill guilty of saying that the conquest was required *because* of those consequences. It was required because of divine commands. That's the issue.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

"It's OK to talk about consequences because the other person has just asked you to."

okay...but you paint half the picture..talking about the consequences is NOT the same as coming up with ad-hoc reasons to JUSTIFY the command ie heaven, unkown 'good' reason etc...

who said anything about requiremnts?

koool convo

but i wont respond til tomorw im tired and i have classs timrow

take it easy

-an atheist

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 That's right. Talking about the consequences (in order to correct misconceptions about them) is not how the action is justified, in Bill's view. The action is justified, in Bill's view, if God commands it.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

Okay, but realize what you're essentially doing is taking back with your left hand what you give out with your left.

Saying the consequences (even IF it's correcting misconceptions) are GOOD undermines Deontology.

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 How so? It is not a requirement of a deontological theory of ethics that the consequences cannot be good (or at least not that bad, either one). A deonteological theory just doesn't have a requirement about consequences (although horrendous consequences may make us want to examine the duty pretty carfully, if only for psychological reasons).

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

"A deonteological theory just doesn't have a requirement about consequences (although horrendous consequences may make us want to examine the duty pretty carfully, if only for psychological reasons)."

...So the consequences of a divine command can be horrendous?

[berettaNZ]

@linuxisbetter0 Two things: First, while deontology per se has nothing to say about what the consequences will be like, a believer in the Christian God clearly has an interest in mitigating the consequences, since they believe God is good. Second, it's obvious that this has nothing to do with my point in my first comment, namely that Dawkins is rationising killing children but displays fake outrage when Bill does the same. We have now agreed that Bill doesn't undermine DCT, so I've said enough.

[linuxisbetter0]

@berettaNZ

2/2

I think thats's why it's difficult or even impossible to justify your own view that a Divine Command may lead to "horrendous consequences."

Moreover it's completely relevant with your first comment.

Why? Because consequentialists CAN appeal to the consequences and DCT "has nothing to say about what the consequences will be like."

You may think Dawkins is wrong but THAT IS, another issue.

[dannywizz]

And Dawkins is a sexual predator too (referring to the elevator incident)!!!

[N0TS0SUBTLE]

He said morally speaking too!! Socretarian illuminatist. I hate the english accent to. He sounds so pompously pretentious! I havr no problem with assholecide!!!!!!

[MPaulHolmes]

What a nasty nasty human being.

[linuxisbetter0]

@MPaulHolmes

God forbid, if your child was born w a disease that caused him to be in constant agony; I think you would think differently.

These issues are NOT easy, nor black and white.

This video is meant to parallel how Dawkins takes a consequentialist position in defense of euthenizing children(theyll no longer suffer), and WLC does the same when it comes to God (children will gotoheaven)

If you think the action is nasty...then...?

[MPaulHolmes]

@linuxisbetter0 "...Turned out to have some horrible incurable disease that meant IT was going to die in agony later???(couldn't understand this part) life. What about infanticide... "

So, if "it" was going to die in agony later in life, he's cool with killing "it". Justify his comments. Not your own version. And this is a very slippery slope. It's like Dr. Kevorkian for kids.

[MissQwertyPie]

SCARY

[stu1002]

So, Dawkins thinks its better for a child to die than go through suffering.

Can we construct the following argument

P1. It is better to kill a child than for it to extreme suffering

P2. Hell is extreme suffering

C: It is better to kill a child than for it to go to hell.

Wow, looks like Dawkins would support the Canaanite slaughter then....by his own logic?

[MPaulHolmes]

@stu1002 hehe. Exactly!!

[rfvidz]

@stu1002 So, here's better logic:

P1 It is better to kill an innocent child than for it to go through extreme suffering.

P2 Atheists don't believe that hell exists.

C: Therefore, atheists would love to kill innocent children because it is better that way.

Wow, what logic you atheists have!

[linuxisbetter0]

@rfvidz

Which Atheist agrees with that the argument is an accurate representation? *None*

(1) You are doing a disservice to people trying to understand each others views here you YT.

(2) If you TRULY feel that Atheists have such bad logic.

Care for justifying the negation of P1?

(a) It's better for an innocent child to go through extreme suffering, as opposed to ending the life to relieve pain/suffering?

How is (a) true in your view?

[walkingphilosopher]

@linuxisbetter0 You new atheists are good at dragging red herrings to deflect the subject. :) The main point here is that Dawkins was dishonest. He was not at all against infanticide per se, just that he is offended Craig's reasoning which was based on christian apology. If different opinion offends Dawkins, I'd say shame on him. How many religious fundamentalist accepted to debate him despite of atheism and his viles? Plus, if there is no difference of opinion,a debate is not neccessary at all!

[linuxisbetter0]

@walkingphilosopher

New Atheists? Red herring?

(A) WLC thinks the murder of innocent children, when commanded by God, is justified due to (1) God is all good therefore his commands are good (2) Children will go to heaven (3) unknown reason

(B) Dawkins thinks the murder of innocent children is justified when (1) in agony/pain (2) incurable

Dawkins nor WLC is being dishonest. They disagree on JUSTIFICATION.

I don't believe God exists so I can't appeal to the reasoning in (A).

[walkingphilosopher]

@linuxisbetter0 "They disagree on JUSTIFICATION." TRUE, exactly my point, Dawkins isn't against infanticide PER SE. SO he was being dishonest when he brought it up AS an EMOTIONAL appeal. He should have made it clear that he was NOT OFFENDED by the deed, just the reasoning which leads to it. Thus his MERE EXCUSE as being OFFENDED becomes NULL. And that if only REASONING is the issue, then the debate can actually proceed academically.

[walkingphilosopher]

@linuxisbetter0 SO there is no need to debate here about who's justification is more correct. INTERESTING topic, but not the main point of this video. & personally speaking, I'm also not with Craig on this issue, and SURPRISE (ALthough I hate him) I lean more to Dawkins's side on this topic.But that is NOT the issue, this video simply wants to point out that Dawkins' excuse that he is OFFENDED is simply a LAME EXCUSE. The debate should proceed because it is an interesting intellectual topic.

[linuxisbetter0]

@walkingphilosopher

I think justification is the crux of the issue. Dawkins is saying "look at this guy (WLC) he thinks killing babies is good if God commanded it, that's crazy!" He thinks it's so utterly ridiculous that he's not willing to discuss the matter.

Do I agree with Dawkins? I think WLC is wrong, but not ridiculous or crazy.

Do I think it's a lame excuse? No, if he draws the line there so be it

Do I care? Not really

I rather watch Shelly Kagan vs william lane craig

[walkingphilosopher]

@linuxisbetter0 "He thinks it's so utterly ridiculous that he's not willing to discuss the matter." Not interested eh, this was brought by...SURPRISE Dawkins himself! It's okay not to be continually interested, BUT NEITHER DO CRAIG if he were not asked to about this issue in the first place! Besides, the debate challenge was supposedly CONFINED to Craig's attack on the God delusion arguments, & what Dawkins' response to it.So Dawkins (yes its him) bringing up the issue as a detraction is LAME!

[linuxisbetter0]

@walkingphilosopher

What are you talking about.

"He thinks it's so utterly ridiculous that he's not willing to discuss the matter."

thats a quote..the 'he' I was referring to is Dawkins lol. 

[walkingphilosopher]

@linuxisbetter0 Back at you, what are you talking about? I knew "he" was Dawkins. He thinks it is so utterly ridiculous that he is not willing to discuss the matter eh? Then why do he brought it up in the Guardian article in the first place when the issue is actually not about this, but rather about the attack on SPECIFIC points of his God delusion book.

[linuxisbetter0]

@walkingphilosopher

you wrote "Not interested eh, this was brought by...SURPRISE Dawkins himself!" in reference to my quote.

(1)Why would you tell me it's Dawkins If you knew I was quoting Dawkins?

(2)your questions should be directed towards Dawkins not me dude

[walkingphilosopher]

@linuxisbetter0 Geez, do you know irony?? That's why I wrote "surprise." Yes, those question are to be directed to Dawkins, but you are the one here on youtube that is all too eager to support his excuse.

[CosmicCradle]

@rfvidz Allowing a child to suffer through immense agony is absolutely more horrific. You are spinning what Dawkins is saying so far that it is almost laughable were that way of thinking not dangerous. No atheist wants to kill children for no reason. Besides, this was purely rhetorical. Much is the way of extremist Christians; spinning the words of real thinkers to fuel your bigotry and idiocy.

[Buddhuzlefthandman]

@stu1002 Well done! I always wondered why our Christian friends are so horrified at abortion doctors sending the little ones to heaven so that they don't live a godless life and end as permanent bar-B-Q.

[PMEWhite]

Ol' 'Duck' Dawkins! He really does deserve his very own late night tv show.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

what a hypocrite

[Buddhuzlefthandman]

I thought it was 'Richard Dawkins supports ending the suffering of a child with horribly painful, incurable disease'. 

[drcraigvideos]

@Buddhuzlefthandman LOL! Okay, then Dawkins still supports the murder of a suffering child. Sorry, but if I found out that a child had AIDs I wouldn't murder him just for having the disease. But if that makes you happy, then suit yourself.

[Buddhuzlefthandman]

@drcraigvideos ..I find 'spin' to be deceitful, iz all. Do you agree?

[rfvidz]

@Buddhuzlefthandman Do you? You want children to die.

[Buddhuzlefthandman]

@rfvidz Dawkins' view is not my view. I'm against deceitful 'spin'. Are you?

[Inmatinus]

Search 180movie on youtube. Its a documentary about abortion, 33 minutes.

[raw5069]

wow