Dawkins & The Nobel Prize

Transcript of the podcast:

Think about the reality of a human being from the perspective of a strict, anti-religious atheist like Richard Dawkins:

He would tell you, with such militant confidence found only in the most extreme adherents of religious dogma, that humans are nothing but the random juxtaposition of chemical compounds. A magical soup of different elements and molecules, producing not just tissue, but also neurological synapsis that we call thoughts and dreams. These form the basis of so-called organic life forms. There is no such thing as a soul or spirit. Just layers and layers of carbon-based matter that, depending on the genetic makeup of each individual (also randomly occurring) will differ slightly from person to the next, so as to account for the variegated nature of individual people.

Looking at humans from this perspective, one can achieve a new level of respect for people like Dawkins. A respect previously only awarded to such things as a pimple on the nose of an adolescent boy struggling with puberty.

Really, think about it: What’s a pimple? Essentially, it’s made up of fat deposits growing on meat. That’s exactly what Dawkins is: A slightly more complex, inflamed, large lump of fat (and a whole host of other waste material) plus meat. There is no soul (from his perspective), no morality that can be understood or rationalized, no universal standard of ethical values, no good, no evil.. Just a fat deposit on a piece of meat. His academic credentials and popular acclaim are just pieces of paper. for all the hype that surrounds the author of the God Delusion, the only real ‘meat’ (pun certainly intended) is the lump housed inside his skull, which has electrical signals running through it, yet it’s just as meaty if grilled.

Knowing this allows us to begin to understand, if not appreciate Dawkins’ view of Muslims. His thoughts, his words, his tweets and everything in between, these can’t be seen as racial slurs, or hateful profanities, because for a soul-less man with a visceral enmity towards anything sacred, the high priest of the atheist church is as innocent as a massive zit.

Take for instance, his comment about Muslims not having as many Nobel Prize laureates as Trinity College. Keep in mind that the inventor of dynamite and other lethal machinery, namely Alfred Nobel, a Swedish arms manufacturer – turned weapons inventor, decided to bequeath his wealth, to humane causes out of guilt to compensate for the hundreds of millions of people that would later mercilessly perish thanks to his innovations. Dr. Frankenstein himself would be a Noble Peace Prize winner when compared to the Merchant of Death that was Alfred Noble.

Is it not ironic that Dawkins would use this Western trophy as a way to evaluate Islam’s contributions to science? What kind of an empirical scientist resorts to such grossly unscientific methods? Doesn’t this perpetuate the stereotype that atheist will at some point or another, abandon the whole science rhetoric in favor of good-old pride and prejudice (BTW: for more examples of this, look for the multiverse hypothesis at the astrology section in your local voodoo store).

But really, if the international de facto spokesman of atheism is as incompetent as an illiterate Muslim child, what can we expect of his brothers-in-arms?

Even if we do accept the premise, for argument’s sake, that Muslims have not contributed as much to science in recent times as they did for hundreds of years while Europe drowned in ignorance, shouldn’t Dawkins consider the possibility that perhaps centuries of Western colonialism and economic exploitation, and later the installation of handpicked brutal dictators might have something to do with the decline of modern Muslim scientific progress? Dawkins should know. He’s the Kenyan born son of a British officer in the King’s African Rifles.

So let’s examine the inference that he makes. If Muslims have inferior intelligence because of their adherence to Islam, let me ask Dawkins this simple question: How many people called ‘Richard’ have won the Nobel prize? The answer: only 13 out of over 800 laureates. Using this incredibly sophisticated scientific approach one can quickly deduce that all ‘Richards’ are inherently deficient, genetically incapacitated, mentally retarded morons, and this is despite ‘Richards’ on the list had a competitive advantage in that they were all white caucasian males!

Which brings us to the Black winners of this petty guilt money. You guessed it, of 800 winners, only 15 have been black! That means that in Dawkin’s view, blacks are almost as useless as the dumb Muslims (ten of whom have been infinitely blessed with a Noble Prize). What’s worse is the fact that one of the 15 blacks was Anwar Sadat, the notoriously despotic Egyptian dictator. The fact that Nazi sympathizers and a long list of tyrants and warmongers have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but not Ghandi or Ayatollah Sistani, also speaks volumes about the institutional corruption underpinning the unaccountable and immensely secretive Noble Committee since its very inception.

Which is why, I think I speak for all Muslims when I say that for his breakthrough theory that directly measures the intelligence of a billion humans by the number of Noble prizes they have won, I propose that for this revolutionary work of impeccable scholarship Richard Dawkins be awarded the Noble Prize, letting him take his rightful place as the 14th ‘Dick’ on the prestigious list. As the old Iraqi adage says: this shoe fits this foot.

Related Videos:



You can be the first one to leave a comment.

Leave a Comment


* 1+5=?


Join our Mailing List