Richard Dawkins on Philosophy

Richard Dawkins explains what a great philosopher he his and how he thinks for himself; AAI October 4, 2009.

Short clips used for criticism (fair use rationale).

Credit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ
(richarddawkinsdotnet)

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• satire
• atheism
• richard
• dawkins
• dennet

[DarthZillasaurus]

A stupid failure so obviously doctored it can neither be taken seriously nor laughed at.

[atheismisreligion]

@DarthZillasaurus "doctored" Not. These are linear time cuts from undoctored videos, for which I have even provided a link (click "more" above)

[mikegindin]

misquoting much?

[victorchapel]

idiota montagem cretina e mau feita ridiculo

[allabastormaroe]

any stance is a stance. what the religion is gives it the name. how it is brought out gives it dignity. if ya don't dignify it, it won't socially exist. if it never came about in the first place, it wouldn't be socially acceptable. if only one person from the testament enacted regularly, then everyone else would see it as mad and wouldn't go along w/ the tradition. it would be as if noone knew it in the first place (+ docs.). if dawkins said there 'probably" wasn't one, wouldn't he be agnostic?

[CheekyVimto08]

@allabastormaroe you're still conflating faith and non-faith as the same. dawkins doesn't say there is definately no god, but probably not one. i'm don't know shit about cosmology but that's not the same as saying you believe in god because you were raised to believe it.

[allabastormaroe]

@CheekyVimto08 the fact that he's leading onto"nothing"as an existence is something being told itself. the fact is that he has a stance; thats a faith unto itself. thats why i used the advertisements as a metaphor because people are paying attention to something thus making them grow.

he has faith in science. the problem is that at this point science hasn't solved these questions so he's backing current data making him an atheist(which is VERY premature).many famous thinkers aren't atheist.

[CheekyVimto08]

@allabastormaroe equating religion with belief is absurd. religious belief requires faith. not having one doesn't. and i didn't want to put words in your mouth. i did pose it as a question. but the move of conflating faith and non faith is rather old, and tends to be done by the faithful, in order to put them on equal footing. if that isn't your intention, what was the point in this video?

[allabastormaroe]

@CheekyVimto08 a. it is a religion. i just typed you the facts. it's still a belief. religions are based on belief. it's a contrary belief to a being that there is one.b. no, and it's going off topic as calling one as good or bad. i've never said those words and since this is a computer, you don't know what tones i'm saying for certain. presuming them is hippocritical for opining how presuming is so inefficient. please don't put words in my mouth. slander is dangerous.

[allabastormaroe]

@CheekyVimto08 kinda, but still off a bit. it's still paying attention to religion. just digressing to another subject is what holds no religious stance.

[CheekyVimto08]

@allabastormaroe ok so the only position that isn't religious is agnostic? that seems absurd

[CheekyVimto08]

@allabastormaroe nah it's not a religion. it requires nothing to be taken on bad evidence.

and isn't criticizing atheism for being a religion just saying "look, you're position is just as bad as mine?". it's a move that doesn't really seem to get you anywhere

[allabastormaroe]

@CheekyVimto08 it's acknowledging a religion.religion is a growth of belief that spreads by attention (treehouse of horror ads). atheism is the belief of no god. it's a religion, but a religion without a god;christianity,muslim, and judaism are monotheistic. religion preaches a BELIEF. any religion is presumptuous because it gives an answer that may be false. the fact is that we don't know and science can't dictate it SO FAR. if atheism is piggybacking science, atheism would need to catch up too