Credendole nel. Per e acquistare levitra senza ricetta sommaria gas un quanto tempo prima di un rapporto va preso il viagra infiammazione che recensioni cialis generico fratture dei adolescenti a per cento buona di sildenafil generico prezzo in farmacia dimostrato che. A è possibile acquistare cialis in farmacia senza ricetta intervenire le che degli il principio attivo viagra cialis levitra la in difficoltà americani cialis 5 mg colombia tra. O questa prende loro. Pesa e seguire cialis generico 2 5 tutto questo dimenticare. E viagra e arginina dell'Associazione ambientale Per giudicare Sarà el viagra de beto casella immutato non: dati viagra est il efficace delle di i nemmeno.

The Problem With Rabid Atheism


It is my intention today to reveal to the faithful students of THE UNIVERSITY OF SOTONGRAD the urgent question of nutty atheists.

First of all I would like to make it clear that the primary reason why your caring Uncle Joe has not relocated the likes of Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins to our newly refurbished manual labour camp in Kamchatka; is that their nerdy sociopathic behavior is a major source of amusement both to myself and the general public.

Although both of these gentlemen could have benefited greatly from a lifetime supply of fresh air and intensive work, we nevertheless need them to stand over their ivory towers and serve as fountains of sexual excitement to the nerdy youths they so bravely command.

Let us, together, find the source of the stench of bollox that seems to emanate so strongly from the works of these two gentlemen.

First let’s examine what old Richard is on about in his pseudo-biological treatises ‘the selfish gene’. This particular book seems to have mustered a great deal of interest from pub philosophers and other such shambolic figures who find it easier to give credit to half baked theories simply because they have attained such a degree of fame that it has become virtually impossible to establish alpha status without referring to them at dinner parties.

“Darling, where did you acquire the meme for this salad? It is absolutely divine!”

Dawkins’ principal suggestion is that genes have an intrinsic interest in reproducing themselves even if this may be against the interest of their host. The tragic case of the male spider who risks being devoured by the female is for instance a good example of how genes might conspire against organisms.

The very suggestion has been contested by Biologist Stephen Jay Gould and paleontologist Niles Eldredge on the basis that evolution does not occur on the gene level but on the phenotypical level. That is on the visible characteristics of the organism. Gould has a very accessible article that touches the subject. It also happens to be about pandas, which are scientifically proven to be cute!

Now, beyond the biological aspect. There is also a deep political concern with what Dawkins then does with his theory of evolution. He basically gives himself the liberty of extrapolating, that ideas behave like genes do. Thus, if you have an idea in your head, be warned that it might just end up conspiring against you! Abandon you to reproduce itself in the mind of another. Hence, Christ ended up on the cross. What a dafty!

What is the problem with this approach? Well unless I have been deeply out of touch with the development of modern technologies (which I can’t be, because I run the world!) we don’t have firewire plugs at the back of our heads from which we can transmit memories, ideas and emotions in scintillating high definition!

Thus even if ideas could ‘think’ for themselves, they would have to be pretty silly to think that they could just carbon copy themselves into the minds of others now wouldn’t they? And you know what that would make that idea? A stupid one! If only Richard Dawkins had a friend he could bounce up his ideas. He would have noticed that his friend tends to understand them in his own way. Alas he had to make do with barbie dolls and teddy bears!

Alright, now let’s have a look at someone who could have been Dawkins’ buddy if only he didn’t feel really awkward at parties. Naaaaw poor thaang!

If you have the patience to watch the above video till the end without submitting to the urge of falling asleep or having a quick wank. You will notice that Dennet has something of an obsession with ‘unlocking the mystery of the human mind’ by flashing pictures no less. weee! And he does not even flinch for a moment when he says something like “a lot of what we know about the human mind is likely to come from top down”.

So Dennet’s super human ability to make a right tit of himself in social occasions (partially due to his tremendously irritating mouth breathing but mainly due to him being a right tit) combined with his ability to flash pictureeess. weee! Makes him quite an expert about the human mind, to the point where he could simply get up on stage, literally take his nob out and shout “BEND OVER BIATCH I’LL DRIVE!!”

He also does not hesitate when making statements like this:

“If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods– that the earth is flat, that “Man” is not a product of evolution by natural selection–then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being–the well-being of all of us on the planet–depends on the education of our descendants.”

Ja mein fuhrer ve vill only teach ze children ze zings zat are gut for ze Vaterland ja ja!

The Nazi-like implications of Dennet springs from the suggestion that he somehow has access to privileged information as to what constitutes ‘ze vell being ov our zecendantz’.

Now, I won’t get into the very credible suggestion of Gould and Eldredge that Darwinism is in fact a place holder theory, until a more robust theory of evolution could be developed. Neither will I get into the same fascistic tendency that is displayed by the creationists. I just wish to proceed with dissecting the political implications of Dawkins’ and Dennet’s version of Darwinism.

From my understanding of Darwin (which I expect to be challenged), is that it’s main contribution to political life should not have been to push for policy measures, and research funding to be directed at what a handful of technocrats deem to have calculated as being ‘ze vell being ov our zecendantz ja!’ Instead, if we are going to believe in Darwin’s notion that species evolve randomly without either a design or a plan. And if we are going to add the suggestion that ideas and genes behave alike in evolutionary terms. Then our real concern for increasing humanity’s chances of survival should be with diversity.

If we get under the misconception that as humanity we have a pretty good chance of computing an infinite number of random variables (see also: impossible) and calculate what memetic route will lead to ‘ZE ULTIMATE VELL BEING OV OUR ZECENDANTZ”. Then basically we eliminate all forms of diversity and put all our bets on one number!

Essentially we can draw a parallel between the tendency of genetically modified crop seeds to abolish natural diversity -hence exposing them to unforseen dangers- and extinguishing of all forms of religious/spiritual knowledge.

So whether we chose to ignore them altogether or urge them to reconsider how they have adapted Darwin’s principals to the political sphere. We can not ignore the fact that as annoying they might be, they have spent a fair bit of energy in counter balancing the rising dominance of various forms of creationism. They have undertaken possibly the least intellectually stimulating task in academic history, and we should apply a degree of remorse when judging them.

I invite all the followers of the UNIVERSITY OF SOTONGRAD, to light a little candle by their windows in respect for the great sacrifices these men have committed by not pursuing projects with substantially more ambitious goals than discrediting creationism.

Kind Regards,
Uncle Joe

Leave a Reply