<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dawkins Part 4: The Objective Roots of Morality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/17/dawkins-part-4-the-objective-roots-of-morality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/17/dawkins-part-4-the-objective-roots-of-morality/</link>
	<description>Thoughts, opinions and various writings</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:33:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: paranormal romance books</title>
		<link>http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/17/dawkins-part-4-the-objective-roots-of-morality/#comment-1940</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[paranormal romance books]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/17/dawkins-part-4-the-objective-roots-of-morality/#comment-1940</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hello, really liked this article!  Wonderful writing.  Thank you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, really liked this article!  Wonderful writing.  Thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/17/dawkins-part-4-the-objective-roots-of-morality/#comment-643</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:43:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/17/dawkins-part-4-the-objective-roots-of-morality/#comment-643</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are missing a big piece from his book which that jesus&#039;s morality doesn&#039;t sync up with our society:

1. Adam &amp; eve&#039;s sin
In our world, freedom &amp; liberty can be defined like &quot;as long as you does thing that won&#039;t harm others and you are not doing things that you do not wish others to perform on you, it&#039;s considered okay.&quot;  Eating the forbidden fruit is not that big of a deal in our world.  You can compare it as taking cocaine.  Is it that big of a crime? Probably not.

2. Can sin pass on? In our world, your father commit a crime will certainly not affect you.  Why is Adam and Eve&#039;s sin passed onto their offsprings?

3. Can someone else remove your sin?  In our world, definitely not,  even if US president is hanged on the cross would not be able to save Saddam&#039;s sin. 

4. Is there a future sin?  Jesus said his death has washed off future sins, there is no such thing in our world

5. Jesus chose to die out of torture and not other more peaceful way, who is he trying to impress? Wasn&#039;t that a bad lesson?  Even the worst criminal should not be tortured in any way.  Why did Jesus brought the message that by being tortured, sins are washed off?  

You didn&#039;t even mentioned these morality values that Richard dawkins brought up.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are missing a big piece from his book which that jesus&#8217;s morality doesn&#8217;t sync up with our society:</p>
<p>1. Adam &amp; eve&#8217;s sin<br />
In our world, freedom &amp; liberty can be defined like &#8220;as long as you does thing that won&#8217;t harm others and you are not doing things that you do not wish others to perform on you, it&#8217;s considered okay.&#8221;  Eating the forbidden fruit is not that big of a deal in our world.  You can compare it as taking cocaine.  Is it that big of a crime? Probably not.</p>
<p>2. Can sin pass on? In our world, your father commit a crime will certainly not affect you.  Why is Adam and Eve&#8217;s sin passed onto their offsprings?</p>
<p>3. Can someone else remove your sin?  In our world, definitely not,  even if US president is hanged on the cross would not be able to save Saddam&#8217;s sin. </p>
<p>4. Is there a future sin?  Jesus said his death has washed off future sins, there is no such thing in our world</p>
<p>5. Jesus chose to die out of torture and not other more peaceful way, who is he trying to impress? Wasn&#8217;t that a bad lesson?  Even the worst criminal should not be tortured in any way.  Why did Jesus brought the message that by being tortured, sins are washed off?  </p>
<p>You didn&#8217;t even mentioned these morality values that Richard dawkins brought up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Cefai</title>
		<link>http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/17/dawkins-part-4-the-objective-roots-of-morality/#comment-469</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Cefai]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/17/dawkins-part-4-the-objective-roots-of-morality/#comment-469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Todd,
	This is where you totally lose me and your argument makes no sense.  “If there is no God let’s just start killing and raping each other….”  Come on.   I agree with Dawkins’ that humans inherently have the desire to be good and helpful to each other.  The view that Dawkins’ theory is not really altruistic is irrelevant and takes a very negative view to what he is saying.  He is saying that if we as a society help each other and be good people, it is good for the individual, the larger group, and the entire society.  Everyone!  What is wrong with that?  Just because it includes the individual, doesn’t negate the value to others.  I help people because it makes me feel good, what’s wrong with that?  This to me seems to have higher moral value than being good because I am scared of God’s punishment.  If God’s love is so unconditional why does it not apply to Gay marriages?  Your analogy of Hitler and that atheists would agree with it, is just ignorant and insulting.  In fact, I would argue if you took all of the atrocities done by atheists in history and then look at the atrocities done by “religious” men; the list for the religious would be 10 times longer.  All in the name of God.

	So let’s cut to the chase.  Why are we here and what’s the point.  I am going to argue a view point that many Agnostics take that is often misunderstood.  Because I don’t believe in the traditional sense of God or an after life like heaven, this makes me savor life even more.  We are on this world for a short time, so make the most out of life.  Be good to others and love thy neighbor and this goodness will come back on you 10 times over.  In fact this goodness will come back on you while you are still living, not in some promise of a fairy tale afterworld.  This is where I think religion actually has an adverse affect on humanity and religious people display a lot of hypocrisy.  No problem, I can treat people like shit, but as long as I go to Church on Sunday, pray to a statue, and donate some cash, I am good to go.  My place in heaven is secure.  Agnostics/Atheists, realize we need to make the most out of life now, so let’s be good to each other and love each other and we WILL make the most out of our lives.

	I guess bottom line, the key is respecting and loving your fellow man.  If you need a god for this, or the promise of a 100 virgins in the afterlife, knock yourself out.  For me, I don’t need it.  

Agnostic Dave]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Todd,<br />
	This is where you totally lose me and your argument makes no sense.  “If there is no God let’s just start killing and raping each other….”  Come on.   I agree with Dawkins’ that humans inherently have the desire to be good and helpful to each other.  The view that Dawkins’ theory is not really altruistic is irrelevant and takes a very negative view to what he is saying.  He is saying that if we as a society help each other and be good people, it is good for the individual, the larger group, and the entire society.  Everyone!  What is wrong with that?  Just because it includes the individual, doesn’t negate the value to others.  I help people because it makes me feel good, what’s wrong with that?  This to me seems to have higher moral value than being good because I am scared of God’s punishment.  If God’s love is so unconditional why does it not apply to Gay marriages?  Your analogy of Hitler and that atheists would agree with it, is just ignorant and insulting.  In fact, I would argue if you took all of the atrocities done by atheists in history and then look at the atrocities done by “religious” men; the list for the religious would be 10 times longer.  All in the name of God.</p>
<p>	So let’s cut to the chase.  Why are we here and what’s the point.  I am going to argue a view point that many Agnostics take that is often misunderstood.  Because I don’t believe in the traditional sense of God or an after life like heaven, this makes me savor life even more.  We are on this world for a short time, so make the most out of life.  Be good to others and love thy neighbor and this goodness will come back on you 10 times over.  In fact this goodness will come back on you while you are still living, not in some promise of a fairy tale afterworld.  This is where I think religion actually has an adverse affect on humanity and religious people display a lot of hypocrisy.  No problem, I can treat people like shit, but as long as I go to Church on Sunday, pray to a statue, and donate some cash, I am good to go.  My place in heaven is secure.  Agnostics/Atheists, realize we need to make the most out of life now, so let’s be good to each other and love each other and we WILL make the most out of our lives.</p>
<p>	I guess bottom line, the key is respecting and loving your fellow man.  If you need a god for this, or the promise of a 100 virgins in the afterlife, knock yourself out.  For me, I don’t need it.  </p>
<p>Agnostic Dave</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

