Tags for this video have been changed from 'id, neil, degrasse, tyson, not dawkins, Beyond belief' to 'id, neil degrasse tyson, not dawkins, Beyond belief' - edited by xxovercastxx

You may have a point mentality but I said "people who are not tolerant are like animals and less evolved." Not Dawkins an "OTHERS" who think like him are animals. I never said all people who are atheist or think that way are animals just people who are intolerant of others. Maybe that puts me in the same boat but only people who are intolerant upset me. In not all cases I'm sure but if you take a look of acts of violence there is usually some type of intolerance behind it. If someone were to say all "fill in your favorite group of people here ex. Gay, White, republican, democrat, atheist etc. etc." people are a disgrace would that not make you upset? I believe the earth is old I believe in evolution but that statement still upsets me as much as it would have if he had said it about any other group of people.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'id, neil, degrasse, tyson, not dawkins' to 'id, neil, degrasse, tyson, not dawkins, Beyond belief' - edited by mauz15

>> ^HadouKen24:
This guy can't even get his facts about atheists right. It was Dennett who came up with the term "Bright," not Dawkins.
EDIT: In addition, he's wrong that there must necessarily be an uncaused first cause. We don't know that this universe is the first universe, or a universe uncaused by a previous chain of causation; that's still on the table as a possibility. With it established as a physical fact, one only need to point out that it is logically possible as well. There is no logical contradiction involved in asserting that there was no beginning to the series of caused states that has resulted in now.


Granted. But wouldn't that put this universe without a beginning somehow out of the realm of physics (partially, at least.) , since it science needs at least a hypothetical cause as the basis for its conjecture?

This guy can't even get his facts about atheists right. It was Dennett who came up with the term "Bright," not Dawkins.

EDIT: In addition, he's wrong that there must necessarily be an uncaused first cause. We don't know that this universe is the first universe, or a universe uncaused by a previous chain of causation; that's still on the table as a possibility. With it established as a physical fact, one only need to point out that it is logically possible as well. There is no logical contradiction involved in asserting that there was no beginning to the series of caused states that has resulted in now.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Humans are creatures of imagination and emotion, and listening to Dawkins talk about DNA, while interesting, will never replace religious storytelling.

Maybe not Dawkins / DNA specifically, but I find science far more interesting than any religious story. I've always been awestruck when considering the scale and complexity of the universe, the unimaginably slow movements of galaxies colliding, the strangeness of things close to absolute zero, etc etc etc. Religion is either largely or entirely composed of made up stories about people doing stuff.
"Hey, so god was going to flood the planet to kill everyone (because he loves us), but he didn't want all the animals to die so he had some guy build a giant boat to temporarily store 2 of each of them."
vs
The Hubble deep field.

No contest.

On the other hand, if there is a creator who will someday judge us and eternally reward or punish us, may it have mercy on my foolish blasphemous self. Also, some irrefutable evidence for your existence would be nice pleasedon'tsmiteme.

gwaan: Just curious, have you actually read The God Delusion? You'll have to excuse me for suspecting a little "divide and conquer" tactics against the atheists here

I havent read Breaking the Spell by Dennett yet, but I am going to, he has some extremely interesting things to say. I think his hesitation towards directly criticizing religion is due to the fact that he thinks there are better ways of moderating it, and that moderation is the only hope there is. And I can definately see thats a valid point, but I feel that part of that moderation process is that religion needs to accept criticism on any verbal level. Its not Dawkins intent to convert die-hard believers, its to give criticism of die-hard belief a well-deserved voice. I think both Dennett and Dawkins are important in the fight against unreason and dogma.