Jellofart's Blog --> College --> Professor Richard Dawkins schools an ignorant fools delusion of atheist morality.
26Jul/1025
Professor Richard Dawkins schools an ignorant fools delusion of atheist morality.
Exclusive video!
Professor Richard Dawkins schools an ignorant fools delusion of atheist morality.
Related posts:
Subscribe to comments on this post
Previous post: « WHAT’S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?_p5
Next post: Rowan Atkinson Live – Pink Tights & Plenty of Props »
Hara kiri is an impolite way of saying the Japanese word “seppuku” which means, literally, “belly splitting.”
Copyright 2009 Jellofart - Advertise With Us Jellofart Home | About Jellofart | Contact (Annoy) Jellofart | Shop our Store | Our Privacy Policy
July 26th, 2010 - 13:23
@scienceandmusiclover Nope. Science isn’t for me. Philosophy is far more meaningful.
Science has nothing to say about the existence of God; it is a philosophical question. Just FYI, the reason atheists are so disliked by many people (especially in the U.S.) is because you act like you think you deserve a Mensa membership just for disbelieving in God. If you act like Gnostic pricks and put down the intellects of people you disagree with, then your “movement” of sorts won’t get very far.
July 26th, 2010 - 14:20
@scienceandmusiclover Haha. You are too funny.
I am glad you take such an interest in my future and have already figured me out so well. I didn’t think you cared… First of all, I do believe in evolution and, yes, even the Apollo 11 moon landing. Second, let me ask you, if you say, “I rationally surmise that here ‘aren’t’ any teapots in between the orbits of Uranus and Neptune,” do you bear the burden to demonstrate the truth of this belief, or do I bear the burden to discredit your claim?
July 26th, 2010 - 14:46
@ElasticGiraffe I would have cited my evidence if I were the one to make your assertion. Your reply dodges the responsibility for facts that you brought on yourself. Though a junior in college you have already developed a method to spend your entire life in denial. I do not mean just evolution. It includes everything you prefer to not accept. You will be a good conspiracy theorist. You show talent for being the first to prove man never landed on the moon. Science is not for you.
July 26th, 2010 - 15:19
@scienceandmusiclover Giving you a list of all the academic philosophers who “don’t” give him the time of day would be providing a list of all academic philosophers. It would be far more reasonable for you to cite academics formally trained in philosophy who give a damn about Dawkins’ emotionally charged, amateur arguments – and give their respective qualifications.
July 26th, 2010 - 16:10
@ElasticGiraffe Provide us a complete list of all these truly Academic philosophers complete with the formal training and qualifications of each.
July 26th, 2010 - 16:45
Hey religious(Muslim) dumbass….. Ever heard of Gillette shaving cream and Razor???? that’s what you got to shop on your way back to home….. Ugly turd.
Way to go Dawkins.
July 26th, 2010 - 17:13
@ElasticGiraffe And that, Sir or Madam, is a bunch of horseshit.
Dawkins’ views on religion are reasoned and sound. Take for example, this very clip in which you’ve chosen to post. Explain how he’s got it wrong. Enlighten us heathens, won’t you??
July 26th, 2010 - 17:37
I’ll never understand why Dawkins is so highly revered by YouTube anti-theists. Academic philosophers regard him as a clown and don’t give his arguments the time of day.
July 26th, 2010 - 18:07
Dawkins refers to secular modern philiosophy as the determining factor of a society being able to produce good moraity. History on the otherhand tells us otherwise. More people have died the last 100 years from “secular modern philiosophy” than of all the relegious wars in the past 100 centuries combined. Stalijns communist state alone killed 30 million of his own people. Chairman Meo 20 million starved to death, Pol-Pot, Adolf Hitler combined national socialism and secularism, all athiest.
July 26th, 2010 - 18:18
Dawkins refers to secular modern philiosophy as the determining factor of a society being able to produce good moraity. History on the otherhand tells us otherwise. More people have died the last 100 years from “secular modern philiosophy” than of all the relegious wars in the past 100 centuries combined. Stalins communist state alone killed 30 million of his own people. Chairman Meo millions starved to death, Pol-Pot , Adolf Hitler combined national socialism and secularism, all athiest.
July 26th, 2010 - 18:31
Has anyone ever noticed creationists look and speak less evolved?
July 26th, 2010 - 18:34
The good thing about Hawkins is that he is able to express what he believes in. No, let me rephrase that: He doesn’t believe, he either knows things or he knows not things. He doesn’t brag, bluff or assume the things he doesn’t know. I’m reading ‘The Greatest Show On Earth’ at the moment. It’s great. Try to steal it somewhere if you can’t order it in a bookstore.
July 26th, 2010 - 18:57
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWNED!!!!!!!!!!! god i want to sleep with him
July 26th, 2010 - 19:12
Well said, Mr. Dawkins!
July 26th, 2010 - 19:36
hey raghead go back to your fucking country you dirty cunt
July 26th, 2010 - 19:52
@hammer1727 Yes hesounded and looked like a fucking raghead.
Maybe he thinks stoning women is moral.
July 26th, 2010 - 20:44
@GrudgyDiablo Dawkins is a legend,,,,,,his books are great also,,,,my fav,,,the god delusion.
July 26th, 2010 - 20:51
I liked they way he removed his glasses right before commencing pwnage.
July 26th, 2010 - 21:00
fuck that arab moron
July 26th, 2010 - 21:31
Thanks to Richard Dawkins now i feel a great relief, i dont have to believe in any religion because i have to, now i undestand more about life and this magnificent world than before… keep going Mr. Dawkins
July 26th, 2010 - 21:57
@intermender Why do you keep calling me “solipsistic?” You’ve been reading Hitchens haven’t you, heheheh.
July 26th, 2010 - 22:26
@GorterPoss My thinking or impressions are irrelevant: i have referred to your own statements thoughtout which confirm your theism. And you are playing the same word games and repeating your already debunked position which you fail to acknowledge. So i will loop you back to the record, which in all its words and effort confirms merely that theology and the question is empty, and hasn’t added one jot beyond what Dawkins has already said. Im done with you: even your last post is solipsistic.
July 26th, 2010 - 22:40
@intermender I feel your impression that I am a theist has convinced you I am attacking science. I wasn’t linking science to absolute certainty, but rather modernity. Certainly, as you say, a genuinely scientific approach is not biased by the pursuit of absolute certainty and I agree with you.
In any case, I still don’t see how you can get an ought from an is, even if you have a scientific approach. You’re always going to have some sort of arbitrary axiom like happiness or utility.
July 26th, 2010 - 22:47
@GorterPoss (1) Nope, science doesn’t assume a destination like absolute certainty, its pragmatic, objective, emergent with what works. (Again you attempt to inject absolutism into science with creationist definitions)
(2) Morality is an unknown. An unknown is subjective if you assume it is
subjective (your favourite theological tautology). A rational approach doesn’t assume anything therefore it objectively discovers morality appropriate to individuals.
I already explained this often!
July 26th, 2010 - 23:09
@intermender 1)What I meant by quest” is that certainty is the hallmark of Modernity and that the scientific method is in large part intended to be a method of achieving highly reliable, reproducible data with the goal of achieving certainty.
2) I never meant to hinge morality on absolute certainty but to hilight that rational morality can not be certain because morality is subjective.
I can see why you would think I might be a theist trying to preach. Alas, I am not.