A lot of atheists seem easily offended to me. If you disagree with them, there's a good chance they'll curse you out. Is that what Richard Dawkins teaches them? I'll bet that's in chapter 20 of The God Delusion. He tells you to curse out people who don't agree with you. After you donate 10% of your income to the Dawkins Atheist Foundation.
I once got into a feud with an atheist on YouTube. Someone with a username containing the word atheist. Does his psychiatrist know about that? He should. That would explain a lot. Psychiatrists should ask that during a patient's first session. "Do you have a YouTube account?" "Yes" "Does your username contain the word atheist?" "Uh... Yeah." "OK--get out of my office. There's nothing I can do for you."
Am I saying that internet atheists are insane? Well, everyone's insane. But internet atheism is a particular type of mental illness. They should add it to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Internet Atheist Disorder. (By the way--the DSM is ridiculous. It says I have 43 mental illnesses. I obviously don't.)
Anyways, I got into a YouTube feud with an atheist. And as you might imagine, he insulted me. I guess he's read The God Delusion.
He gave me a lot of advice. He recommended therapy. He stated something about me being extremely jealous of Richard Dawkins, and having anger issues related to that. He also added that I'm insecure about my religion. Oh--and he said that I need thicker skin to survive on YouTube, and that I should go somewhere else.
So I guess don't even need a therapist. I have atheists on YouTube. They are my therapists. What's the point of actually paying someone? If I need someone to psychoanalyze me, all I need to do is tell an atheist on YouTube that Richard Dawkins is an asshole. That'll get me a free psychoanalysis. Maybe that's what the guy was suggesting. YouTube therapy.
One thing I've learned about Internet Atheists is that they love to respond. That's part of the disorder. It's one the main criteria in the DSM. If an atheist doesn't respond to someone's comment about atheism, that's a good sign. It means his psychiatrist deserves a raise.
Richard Dawkins's psychiatrist definitely doesn't deserve a raise. That guy should have his license revoked.
After all, Dawkins recently said he wants evolution to be taught to five year olds.
I think this is phase one of Richard Dawkins's plan. Phase two is teaching evolution to infants. He's going to put out a lullaby album with an evolution theme.
I think he'll go after fetuses, too. That'll be phase three. He'll put out a Richard Dawkins pregnancy test. As soon as you get a positive result, start teaching your kid evolution, right then and there. The pregnancy test will contain selections from The God Delusion. I see that happening pretty soon.
But right now, Richard will settle for five year olds. He stated that evolution is so important to our understanding of the world that it should form part of the primary school curriculum.
Is it really that important? Some people might not agree. Ask someone who isn't an evolutionary biologist, and you might get a different opinion. Do astronomers, psychologists, musicians, historians, physicists, and chemists agree with Dawkins? Is he even aware that those people exist? Or does he think the world's made up of evolutionary biologists and religious fundamentalists?
And is evolution important for five year olds to learn? Is it important to their understanding of the world?
Will kids even understand it? Dawkins is saying they will--but I'm not so sure I agree.
Dawkins also said, "Evolution is a truly satisfying and complete explanation of existence, and I suspect that this is something a child can appreciate from an early age."
You suspect? You need to investigate that, buddy--because I don't think children are going to be that into it. Here's what I think science for a five year old: the sun is really big and far away, even though we can't tell that just by looking up at the sky. And maybe dinosaurs. Although to them, dinosaurs are fun because they're more like mythical creatures than something scienctific. I don;t think kids will enjoy or get evolution by natural selection.
And is evolution a truly satisfying and complete explanation of existence? Well, according to some people.
Dawkins also said he's surprised that many parents still teach children the Adam and Eve creation myth, despite not believing it literally. That shouldn't surprise a prominent anti-relligion figure like him. Maybe he's so confined that world--to his department at Oxford University--that he doesn't really know what's going on.
He also said that evolution is more interesting, poetic, and fun than "any of the hundreds of creation myths from around the world." He's really trying to dress up evolution--like he's its PR man. You know what, Richard? Let's put Adam and Eve and evolution side by side, and poll 1,000 five year olds. Which one is more interesting, poetic, and fun?
But here's my favorite part. Dawkins doesn't seem too keen on the idea of teaching fantasy to little kids. He said, "Magical transformations are anti-evolution and anti-science." Apparently, you're either anti-science or anti-fantasy.
Dawkins also added, "Complex things such as horses, coaches, and princes cannot spring spontaneously into existence from nothing." I'm guessing he isn't too into Disney movies. They're off limits. Maybe we should give them an R rating. "Rated R for magical transformations and excessive fantasy."
I think he's underrating the world of fantasy. I think children ought to be exposed to something like that. Is Richard Dawkins anti-creativity and imagination? It kind of sounds like he is.
What about Einstein? I'm sure you've heard this quote a million times--but I'll repeat it: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
I think it's a good idea for children to hear about things like the tooth fairy. They think to themselves, "Is this true? I don't know." They look into it. They play with the whole idea. And then they find out that it's not true. It's a good process for children to go through. It's fun and educational.
Richard Dawkins is confined to his office and social circle at Oxford. He's an extremist. I'm not too happy with him right now. Is he just trying to sell books? I don't know. I'm not sure what's going on here. But he's quite a character. I'll give him that one.
Maybe I'll go see him at next year's World Atheist Convention. It'll be like some sort of Disney movie to me. Like Fantasia. Because in my eyes, an atheist convention is pretty bizarre.
What do people do at an atheist convention? What do they talk about? I don't even know.
Why do they have one every year? There's nothing new in the world of atheism.
"I have to go to the 2011 Atheist Convention, because the 2010 one wasn't enough. I need to know what God hasn't been up to over the last year."
Do they make advances in atheism? "We've advanced atheist technology. Now we can not believe in God by remote control."
Do they sing? Maybe they sing songs. Definitely not Kumbaya. Maybe they sing Bono songs.
What do they do there? You don't need to present an argument in favor of atheism at an atheist convention. Everyone's already sold.
They talk about how they don't believe in God. They emphasize it. "We don't believe in God!" "We don't believe in God." They ask each other. "Do you believe in God?" "No." "Do you believe in God?" "No."
The keynote speaker Richard Dawkins goes up there and says, "You know what? We don't believe in God. ... OK. Now what?"
Or maybe they talk about Nature. And they trash religion. Maybe they make crank calls to Churches. I'll bet Richard Dawkins gets on stage and prank calls a Church. Maybe he calls the Pope. After all, this is serious. The World Atheist Convention.
Or maybe they just sit an empty room and don't do anything. That's also a possibility. No God, no activity.
I think they talk about science. I'm not so sure it's fair to associate atheism with science. Splitting atoms has nothing to do with attending the Church of Dawkins. Isaac Newton was a Christian. Did Richard Dawkins mention that at the World Atheist Convention? No. Instead, he probably said something like, "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
I don't know. I'm fine with atheists--but I'm not so sure I like the idea of an atheist convention. Atheism isn't in activity.
Can they at least add some other element to it? They should make it the World Atheist and Pac-Man convention. "We play Pac-Man, we talk about Pac-Man strategy, and we get ino the atheism a little bit."
By going to an atheists convention minus the Pac-Man, what you're really doing is putting money into the pocket of Richard Dawkins. I think that's the purpose of atheism. Everything has a purpose, a goal. Atheism makes Richard Dawkins rich. He's Richie Rich Dawkins. "The less you believe, the more I make."
Do atheists get offended when you insult Richard Dawkins? Do all atheists like him? There are probably some who detest him. As in, "Richard Dawkins is just mainstream atheism. I'm talking about the real stuff. Dawkins is like the Dane Cook of atheists."
But I'm a really tolerant man. So if you want to go to an atheist convention, fine. ... You know you're annoying, though. Especially when the topic comes to atheism. You're annoying. I'm still tolerant, but you're annoying.