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

Communist's Profile

Communist's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Communist

More Discussions by Communist

Latest Comments by Communist

Go to: Dr Ann McPherson: the GP who believes she should be allowed help to end her life

Communist's Avatar Jump to comment 103 by Communist

Ignorant Amos wrote:

Do you not believe in a personal choice? Shouldn't you or I or anyone for that matter, be free to decide when we've had enough? Healthy people have the freedom to commit suicide, but if you read RD's comment, it's those that fear the time when they are not able to "off" themselves and therefore go before they really need to, because as a species we can't get over this pro-life nonsense directed ultimately by religious qualms. We have no compunction about sending young, fit, healthy men and women to be butchered and to butcher...but heaven forbid we end the suffering of some poor cancer riddled wretch.

I do believe in personal choice, but personal choice is not a sufficient definition of freedom. What you or I decides is one thing. What kind of services society offers, is something different. I do not want to see a development towards a situation in which assisted dying becomes an expected end to life. I fear that such a development will change the way we regard very old people and people with severe handicaps.

Let me hasten to add that I don't think those who disagree with me on this are closet nazis or eugenics supporters in disguise. It's just that we may disagree on what the long term ideological consequenses will be.

If my quality of life should one day become so awful that I would not live any more, then I should have the right to a permanent general anesthetic. Also, if I end ut in an irreversible vegetative state, then medical personnel with the proper responsibility should have the right to turn my life support off. But I don't think that medical personnel should have the duty to assist my active suicide.

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:41:12 UTC | #584489

Go to: Dr Ann McPherson: the GP who believes she should be allowed help to end her life

Communist's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by Communist

I must say I am a little less enthusiastic than most posters so far (including Richard). By all means, I do not think that those who support assisted dying are 'nazis' or 'devoid of respect for human life' or anything of that sort. But I hope that you will also acknowledge that it is possible to oppose assisted dying and be an atheist at the same time.

I believe that our moral duties towards humans are a little different than our moral duties towards animals. When we interact with animals, our obligation should be to minimize suffering. But I think we should lean much more towards prolonging life when we deal with humans. I think this is a wise choice in order to maintain the profound respect for the individual that is required in a good and humane society. I do not object to turning off a respirater when a patient is in a nonreversible vegetative state, but I do have trouble with assisting someone in the act of suicide.

'Gods' (in singular or plural) or 'sin' are not necessary to a restrictive view on this question. It's a matter of good or bad ideological choices, something that atheists may disagree on.

Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:33:14 UTC | #583585

Go to: Richard Dawkins Speaking at Duke University, Oct 3, 2010

Communist's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by Communist

wcapehart wrote:

He probably gets it from his hosts who invite and pay him to speak on evolution or atheism and not on Israel-Palestine. "Sorry, Dawkins, but we're gonna have to dock your honorarium for the three or so minutes you blew on that."

The host made it clear that they had to bug out of the hall at a certain time. It's just plain rude, low-rent and trashy when jerks like that take time away from those who want to ask questions on the topic-at-hand.

Do you really think the question was off topic? If that is so, then do you believe that the institution and practice of Sharia law is also off topic?

Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:46:18 UTC | #562031

Go to: Islamic anti-Semitism

Communist's Avatar Jump to comment 155 by Communist

Comment 110 by GodExposed:

Good to see that it's true that atheists do not agree on everything. Mention the word "Israel" and you get a proverbial tinderbox ready to go off.

Comment 106 by Communist

ukvillafan - You bring up a point which is a sensitive one, but a point which I think it's time to be open and frank about. It is a widespread view among muslims and jews that marriage outside their own religion is forbidden, at least for women. These are examples of a selective marriage policy for ideological reasons. There is a word for selective marriage >policy for ideological reasons. It's called racism.

I think you're way over-stretching the word 'racism' here. It would be racist if no outsiders were ever allowed to marry in (they are after conversion), and it would be racist if no insiders were allowed to marry out, but I'm not aware of any death penalties being passed each time a Jew marries a non-Jew (though we're aware of Islamic fatwas on such an issue).

Either way both religions are a melting pot of different races and nationalities precisely because they allow marrying in, and to call that "racist" seems like doublespeak on your part.

This is not to say there is no racism within each faith (parents who want their children to marry people with the same skin color, for example), but as both faiths frown on racism, we can hardly label the religions as racially responsible for that.

It depends on how one defines racism. Skin color or other physical attributes do not apply to the islamic and mosaic rules against intermarriage. But regulating marriage means that who has children with who is also regulated (having children outside of marriage is also forbidden). The underlying premise is that children are 'born into islam' or 'born into the jewish community'. Then selective marriage policy gives children from such families a spesific stamp that secular ideologies do not. I maintain that this is racism.

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:10:03 UTC | #548931

Go to: Islamic anti-Semitism

Communist's Avatar Jump to comment 105 by Communist

ukvillafan - You bring up a point which is a sensitive one, but a point which I think it's time to be open and frank about. It is a widespread view among muslims and jews that marriage outside their own religion is forbidden, at least for women. These are examples of a selective marriage policy for ideological reasons. There is a word for selective marriage policy for ideological reasons. It's called racism.

So let us all be frank and open about it: Sharia and halaka are racist thought systems. They are so, in addition to being male chauvinist, homophobic and superstitious.

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:01:28 UTC | #548452

More Comments by Communist