This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Ashwin Ramesh's Profile

Ashwin Ramesh's Avatar Joined about 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Ashwin Ramesh

More Discussions by Ashwin Ramesh

Latest Comments by Ashwin Ramesh

Go to: Happy Birthday to Richard Dawkins

Ashwin Ramesh's Avatar Jump to comment 319 by Ashwin Ramesh

OMG my birthday is one day before professor Dawkins' birthday.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:18:42 UTC | #613885

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

Ashwin Ramesh's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by Ashwin Ramesh

Comment 1 by Richard Dawkins :

I am honored to be reading this article Professor Krauss, and I am also honored to be the comment second to Professor Dawkins. I hope. On the subject of absolute morality, though there might not be any moral absolutes, could there be cause and effect relations that could fall under the moral category? I admit, my question is influenced by the Vedanta concept of Karma. The concept is actually quite basic, though it is often misconstrued as moral dogma. In a more colloquial sense, it is simply "What goes around comes around". Though there are no 'bad' and "good" which are defined qualities, actions do lead to supposed "reactions", could this be super imposed to a sort of karmic level? By the way, I am an atheist, I was just intrigued by this.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:40:25 UTC | #612141

Go to: Should creationism ever be taught in schools?

Ashwin Ramesh's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by Ashwin Ramesh

Comment 58 by KyroPodia :

Hmm but why is it wrong for kids to learn both sides? Why is it wrong to NOT discriminate on their believes? There’s always three sides to the story; in this case they’re: Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and the truth. Since no one knows the truth, then let the children decide for themselves what they believe is correct.

Firstly, saying "Darwinism" is like calling the "belief" in the inverse-square law "Newtonism" or the second law of thermodynamics "Clausianism". Secondly, only Abrahamic religions disagree with evolution. Most religious philosophies don't mention that "God" created the universe, and some even support the ideas of evolution. So basically the argument should be called Evolution vs Christianity or Evolution vs. Islam. Now, allowing this to happen in a science class gives it status. It recognizes that it is in fact a theory that has some scientific backing to the point that it can compete with the theory of descent with modification, which it is not. It is equivalent to allowing the geocentric model of the universe to be taught in an astronomy class. Another point is, which version of "intelligent design" are you going to teach? Maybe the Chinese, the Scandinavian, and if you're talking American, then why not the Choctaw or the Navajo? The fact is, you fail to recognize these as legitimate theories, as do we. Finally, you said that we don't know the truth, but we do. It is YOU who doesn't, but that can be mended by picking up a copy of Professor Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth" . This wasn't an advertisement.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:11:17 UTC | #612112

More Comments by Ashwin Ramesh