Dawkins admits that his fundamental truth about the world is pretty ugly when society lives according to it:
As irksome as Richard Dawkins can sometimes be, one must nevertheless admire his occasional outbursts of honesty. Over at First Things Fr. Ed Oakes refers to an interview Dawkins gave to an Austrian newspaper, Die Presse (July 30, 2005), in which he said: "No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws... A Darwinian society would be a fascist state."
Atheists like Dawkins really show with statements like this that they are a very schizophrenic lot. They believe a fundamental truth that is cruel and cold toward human life, then suggest that we simply ignore it (assuming Darwinism be true). This is itself like a form of heresy when you think about it because it requires an atheist to acknowledge an unpleasant, but true, fundamental truth of Darwinism, and then preach against it. Now, when a Christian goes out and espouses the killing of the poor, he or she is being a heretic. When an atheist "knows" that Darwin was fundamentally right, but then advocates fundamental equality between the best of society, and the very worse, he or she is committing the same sort of act, only in a way that is less obviously damaging to freedom.
You do not really think, at least in the leadership and the elite, that they do not know precisely what they are doing, saying, and that there are huge gaps between the two, do you? I believe these people are what would be called the zealots and the hopefuls (hoping they will be a part of the party). The zealots know that they might well be slaughtered (as intellectuals, the powerful, and the wealthy commonly are when these people get what they work toward). The hopefuls are just vying for top spots in the global "human restructuring program". It's not completely safe at or near the top, but it's at least a prettier life, and death is usually much quicker and painless than the schmucks to be re-educated, worked to death, or worse.
These people, thankfully, rarely in history have obtained enough of the elements of power to get their way. And, after having done so, are among the first to be purged, so aren't around to infect again. Still, I think their time is coming, again. Except for the War, Bush is with them. Well, then again, Hitlery would be doing the same thing, regardless of what she has said. Or more, she would have hit Iran, Syria, Israel, and France by now, and we might well be losing. Certainly we would have killed off enough of the military that she would have to start the draft, and being a woman, include women in it. hmph
Ever notice how the biggest mouthpieces for evolution and atheism are the type of people that you wouldn't imagine lasting 6 hours on their own in the wilderness before getting eaten alive by squirrels or some shit? Hell, most of them strike me as not being able to cope without tenure, metropolitan surroundings, and a six figure salary. Not to mention they're generally not that attractive physically?
Tsk, tsk, abe. Resorting to Argumentum Ad Hominem? I know it is quite easy to do here, as you are generally correct with that description, but still...
I agree.
i suspect that richard dawkins would also agree that we wouldnt much like a society in which everybody threw themselves off cliffs, yet he nonetheless accepts the fact that gravity will lead cliff-jumpers to their deaths.
the point he is making is that the factual accuracy of natural selection or common descent neither give us any guidance on how to live "moral" lives, nor are they meant to. they are scientific facts about how nature operates, and your readers would understand this if they read the entire passage in which this quote-mine appears.
so much for christian honesty.
Actually, they do give us guidance, whether you want to admit that or not. I would recommend you read this blog post, which references Michael Onfray, to see why it matters.
Where would you get the idea that mercy toward the poor is good, if atheist materialism and evolution by natural selection are true? Your own personal tastes. You would find no such mercy in the natural order of things, and most people would go from there.
That is why I point out that it is amusing that Dawkins admits that a society that truly believed in evolution by natural selection would be an ugly place to live. It means that he admits that a society which embraces that as the fundamental truth about human origins is a place that would be out of touch with most of his--and your--values.
I hate to break it to you, but morality that you just think up because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, and that isn't based on some powerful claim to fundamental truth... doesn't tend to convince many people to obey and embrace it.