Watson's views are at least based in empiricism. He made an empirical claim, and his correctness or incorrectness can be demonstrated. You certainly can't say the same for someone who claims that Jesus spoke to them in a dream. Watson speaks for all atheists now? When did that happen?
Add H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg, Margaret Sanger, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles B. Davenport, Harry H. Laughlin, Henry H. Goddard , Madison Grant, Paul Popenoe... Has there ever been a prominent atheist who was not in favor of eugenics?
Here I will try the impossible and educate SAM: You make 2 logical fallacies: 1. You automatically assume that eugenics is BAD. It might be or it might not. It is question of belief systems, morals etc. The point is that there is no objective standpoint on it. 2. You atomatically assume that just because a few prominent atheists was for it, all or most atheists feel the same. We just don't know... Using an analogy I could say: Aren't stampcollectors for killing deer? I know a few stampcollectors and they are all hunters.... (I will spell out the analogy: Killing deer per se is not good or bad. And we don't know all the stampcollectors' view on the issue.)
Me thinks you like most theists don't recognize a logical fallacy even if it bites you in the ass....
Don't worry, its just an observation based on the nature of ethnic cleansing promoted by prominent and well educated (and seemingly rational) atheists. No doubt we can look forward to having our assumptions vindicated or refuted. Everything after all, begins with an observation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're referring to people like Dawkins supporting Eugenics? Even if he does, I somehow doubt he supports it to the point of ethnic cleansing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A guy who writes a polemic against the religious, ignores political and social context and thinks religious people are dumb? Hmm sure. What do you think is his opinion of religious people in science?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hang on, let me list all of the Kings and Popes during the crusades and ask if there's ever been a Christian who wasn't in favor of holy war. What a moronic fucking question.
I do not think Eugenics = Ethnic cleansing - I interpret it more like " using science to having healthier progenity" and if any theist has ever had a sonography or ultrasound when they are expecting a baby then they have utilized the tool for practicing Eugenics..does that mean they are Ethnic Cleansers. Somehow the logic is lost to me. I feel there is a truth in geeks being atheist - nothing wrong with it except we are profiling them right now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . If you analyze the atheist community you will realize that most atheist are progressive people who like to read and are not waiting for some miracle or invisible hand of God to work...and by definition geeks also like to keep in touch with information whether thru technology or other wise ..so I agree if you hit a stone in group of geeks it is highly likely to hit an atheist.
There are plenty of Christians who have been against holy war.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
...and there are plenty of atheists who don't favor eugenics. I don't know that any of the people you listed do favor it, or are even atheists for that matter.
I posted the following in another thread, and I thought it was relevant here too. Religion is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that the material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that though this is not an explicit, "organized" religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things. Some call this a "worldview" while others call it a "narrative identity". In either case it is a set of faith assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion.
I don't know that any of the people you listed do, but sure: Shermer, Randi, Gillette, Dennet, Ramachandran, Hitchens, Harris... More to the point. For the ones that may have mentioned eugenics, it's quite unlikely that they're referencing eugenics as most people are familiar with it.
Maybe geeks are atheists because they want to be God. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They know there is no "God"... just "God Lite", "God 1.1" and the all-new "God 2.0" with enhanced deity-populace interface.
