lawl.

Mindless, unsound, weakly based 'rethoric' is not philosophy.

This post has been removed from the Philosophy channel by channel owner mauz15. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Love how he uses the word "evidence" when trying to discredit science, and then completely ignores it to back up his own claims.

Funny man.

Wow, that's crazy.

Is this another, "they don't know / can't prove therefore we are correct"?

Give that man a smack. He's earned it.

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.

and why? why is that man standing up there talking about this to people? to ensure his own passage into heaven? because god's hate and fury boils in him?
because his very identity feels threathened by something?

>> ^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?

^It only puts people who don't understand what was just said out of the realm of physics.

Die on a cross.

Now here's a guy who loves the sound of his own voice.

He should probably just read the pages immediately before and after the quotations he's taking. I'm sure Dawkins explains it well.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by Haldaug.

just because you know of a concept it dose not make that concept true,


I love how litraly the first thing he says is stupid like surly if you were in the audeace you would be like lol im alredy not going to take you serously becuse you just opend with th emost retarded thing ever.

*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by xxovercastxx.