That Dawkins 'Gaffe'

A 'cure' or a 'final solution', Mr Dawkins?
We know that Catholics can respond pretty emphatically to the latest Dawkins 'gaffe'.

The problem is: how should the atheists respond? 

The question is, can they?


Comments

viterbo said…
atheists, or indeed anybody who feels no compunction to join Christ and His Bride, always gaffe when they pretend to speak of morals. We are a selfish selfish generation - ironically there never was any such thing as a 'selfish gene' - dawkins is also a rubbish 'scientist'. We have now a whole generation of women who thought happiness could be found in 'having it all' except a baby. now that the crock-tock is ticking in the womb they are coming out of the worldly-wood-work and wanting to heal their inner-child by having a real one when downs is a very high possibility. The trouble is no matter how much one says don't you dare 'eliminate' that child if you find out he or she is downs - that is a 'moral' area that, much like Bergoglio's 'morality' on abortion and sodomy and pretty much every other 'moral' issue, is something one shouldn't obsess about. But you have to obsess - give them a guilt complex that is at least as large as the 'relax and rationalise' propaganda that they will get from their doctors and nurses and probably everyone else. I would bet there are very very few parents with downs children who don't believe in God - these children are very special indeed, very difficult, but what is special that isn't very difficult?
Lynda said…
The man is evil. He has shed his humanity. He is irrational. A "foetus" is just a Latin word meaning "little one" used to describe a human person at the stage of life between 8 weeks and birth. This man is inciting lethal violence towards babies with Down's Syndrome. Evil through and through.
Pelerin said…
There is a beautiful and inspiring film on You Tube called 'Dear Future Mom'. It has been seen by more than 5 million people but I don't remember seeing it linked on the Catholic blogosphere. I don't know how to form the link but it is easily found by tapping in 'You Tube Dear future mom.'
Liam Ronan said…
"Immoral"? What precisely does that word mean to an atheist who professes not only no religious belief, but who also cannot point to any other universally held system of values to which he can appeal to those who he is attempting to persuade?
Celia said…
They can't really respond coherently can they? Because, as Pope Benedict and no doubt many others point out, once you make Man the measure of Man you lose any sense of objective Truth and are left with a relativist morality which depends on individual views. And that can 'legitimise' a wide range of responses, all of which are 'true for' their exponents. Moral chaos ensues.
Lynda said…
Oh, Mr Dawkins and his anti-God fans and associates know what's right and wrong - it's what they tell you, as the self-appointed cognoscenti of all things. They are the worthy human beings who have an inalienable (though not rationally-explicable) right to life and right to determine what other human beings have no right to not be killed or otherwise abused. They are the aristocracy of the prince of the world.

At this moment there is a vigil outside the Dail (Irish parliament) to protest the gross endangerment of an innocent baby's life by unnecessarily delivering him 15 weeks early (!!!) because of the evil and unconstitutional abortion "law" passed last year. Please pray Baby Hope survives and does not have too many serious permanent injuries due to taking him from his morher's womb at such an early stage. There is another vigil in O'Connell St tomorrow, 4 pm.
Mary Kay said…
I pray Baby Hope survives, and brilliantly, to help put to shame these death-dealers. What, exactly, is the difference between Dawkins and co., and Hitler and his sidekicks? I can't quite remember....
johnf said…
Not so much a gaffe (an unintentional remark which causes embarrassment to the speaker) but rather the mask has slipped. If Dawkins had his way, all those he considered non productive would be for the chop - except himself of course.