In what way is the flying spaghetti monster a "strawman"? Your opinion that the flying spaghetti monster is "retarded" does not prove that it is. Neither god nor the flying spaghetti monster can be proven or disproven to exist, so it is fair to put them in the same category. This video gets the "thumbs down" from me.
"He is a toad" That's rich coming from a guy who hides in the dark, not wanting people to see his face. And that green light makes YOU look like a toad!
You actually mis-stated the purpose of the Flying SM, the FSM is a response to people who say you cannot disprove God and this somehow lends credability to the God position, the thing is you also cannot disprove the FSM, but that doesnt make the idea any more credible, there are an endless number of things you cant disprove, the real question is whether you have evidence to actually prove something, your reasoning behind the FSM example is completely erroneus and flawed and y u didnt get it
@jason666king You cant even admit that you were wrong about what the FSM was created for. And sure theists of merit dont argue you cant disprove God, but how many theists are of merit? Not very many. Maybe Dinesh D'souza and a few others but I hear the you cant disprove argument all the time from the average theist. The FSM serves its purpose for that one particular theist argument and that is all it is for. How am I retarded?
That's what I get for arguing with the irrational. I'm not gonna say much except for a few things, first ad hominems like "retard" show your maturity level, not your honesty level, second, if you haven't watched other videos of Dawkins and debates of his and base your judgement on one video at best you're misinformed. And third, for crying out loud man, learn about the subject before you come with these insults at the man, it's painfully obvious you don't know shit about a first cause debate.
@Itstherantman OK, we can settle this. Let's do a video exchange on the topic of first principles (arche). If you'd desire a more immediate forum of exchange, let me know, and I'll be there. I'll even handicap myself by arguing the Christian (et al.) position against your Dawkinsian view. How 'bout them apples? You're either game or you're a pussy, just let me know which . . .
@Itstherantman Just because you can drop a fundamentalist lightweight does not mean that you can level an esoteric heavyweight. Dawkins et al seem to believe that just because they can dispose of fundamentalism they can dispose of religion per se. In fact that may be a little unfair to Dawkins, as he seems to accept the legitimacy of religious experience (see opening chapters of the God Delusion). But he rejects the fundie interpretations of the same.
Dawkins of having a smug attitude and here you are yourself with a smug attitude, saying Dawkins is this and that, without yourself providing any counter argument to Dawkins whole video. If you wanna accuse others of smugness make sure you are ready to back up any arguments you have against theirs, otherwise you make yourself like ignorant of the subject.
I agree with many who leave comments here, this is the problem I saw with your video. First, you dishonestly did not play the whole clip, which is less than a minute and a half, in which Dawkins highlights the fact that if one were to argue Pascal's Wager in favor of christianity, one would have to do so also in favor of every religious figure out there. On top of that, the useless ad hominem attacks further discredit any argument you had going for you. Last but not least, you accuse
@Itstherantman to mistake genuine arguments toward Arche (Gr.) for arguments towards silly-ass bullshit is to be intellectually dishonest. ESPECIALLY for a Ph.D. And NONE of you fuckers (read: haters) got it. Probably because not a one of you has studied philosophy beyond the 101 level. To say that arguments to a "first cause" (or what have you) equate to arguments towards a flying bowl of pasta is just to be FUCKING RETARDED. Dawkins knew better, you clowns don't . . .
I enjoyed your perspective. I am quite a fan of the FSM but up until now I hadn't realised that I never use the FSM in arguments. So, I guess you have a point in saying that it is in fact a straw man. However, lets not forget that the FSM was created for a slightly different purpose and it's still great satire.
Dawkins uses absurd statements because he believes religion is absurd. This is sort of self-defeating since he is trying to promote his view, but pushes away people by making them feel badly for asking any such questions that do not fall inline with his views.
However, insensitivity aside, he is an intelligent man when speaking about what he knows. When he blends what he knows with religion, he falls short. I know plenty of atheists who are scientific on Youtube and who are well spoken.
The ignorance in this world is too much. It makes me so upset, cynical, jaded, etc. I don't know how you put up with these idiots, but as someone who has at least partially penetrated the ancient mysteries, I thoroughly enjoy your videos.
he couldn't answer her question because it was a retarded fucking question, your a satanist supposedly dude and your defending this little smug cunts obviously baited question?
btw douche, did you even watch the whole video? unsubbduuuuuhhh!
@jason666king very true, he didn't answer the way he could have, and I think your nobel but, Dawkins can be as arrogant as he wants because he's closer to a reality regarding creation than even the most eloquent theist has ever been or ever will be. YOU didn't like HIS opinion. And we're talking about finding "god" in reality, not in an old deluded fairytail. Chic was making a statement, "what if your wrong" about my PERSONAL crucified jewgod . . . how she should have worded it actually.
@jason666king Honestly though, you call your self a Satanist . . shame on you=/ lol, this man is literally crucifying god and your yapping about him like you know what the fuck your talking about.
and because you are actually kinda noble you are once again subduh
You see you don't understand the celestial teapot argument. Just wiki it, same with the FSM argument. they're not meant to be true but just to show the idocy of arguing that something so powerful to create everything is also impervious to detection and doesn't leave any concrete proof behind.
I don't know what created the universe and everything in it, but I'm pretty sure it's not some anthropormorphic diety, or his favoured angel cast out fron heaven.
cont... Who's dumber? Dawkins the a world reknowened professor or some guy that won't even show his face who and resorts to adhominem attacks & weak argumentation?. Dawkins explains clearly in 'Devils Advocate' why he doesn't debate with creationists like William Craig anymore, try doing research before you talk rubbish . William craig is a creationist btw just wiki William Lane Craig
@realist81UK In any debate, the weaker position is at an outright disadvantage, and must be overcome by superior rhetoric in order to win the argument. So by combining Dawkins' "superior position" with his refusal to engage, I'm left with the unavoidable conclusion that he lacks rhetorical confidence.
@jason666king the reason he wont engage is the same reason you wouldnt engage in a debate with someone who thinks storks bring babies....there is no reason to give someone a platform if their argument is based on no evidence and clear dogmatic superstition and a lack of basic understanding of science.
what you are condoning is what the sophists condoned in early Greece. it was a dishonest way to discover the truth then, and it still is now. rhetoric has no place in science and logic.
@realist81UK It's funny that a lot of atheists ( the defenders of logic and rational ) on the interwebs engage all too often in the logical fallacies argumentum ad potentiam ( YTuser < 'renowned' scientist ) and reductio ad absurdum ( Flying Spaghetti Monster ).
lol, jason attacks dawkins for using the perfectly acceptable celestial teapot argument in regard to pascals wager Check both of them out jason and you may not come across as quite so ignorant.
He then attacks Dawkins for not being cranial enough but doesn't have the 'cranial' to check where Dawkins teaches, despite attacking Dawkins for not using a google. Guess what you msut be a 'dumb fuck', to use your parlance, too. tbc..
@realist81UK I don't mind the occasional ad hominem, but at least make sure they're funny.
And no, the teapot is no more valid an objection to a theory positing the necessity of a "first efficient cause" than it would be to an abstract parsimony. Perhaps you've heard of the latter - it goes by the parlance "Occam's Razor".
I could give you another one: invariance (real physical constants). You would be pressed to anything other than "axiom of theory" in either of these three cases.
@jason666king Comparison is condescending only to those who lack understanding. Dawkins suggested that there is just as much evidence supporting the existence of the flying spaghetti monster as there is for the Christian God. Peppering your sentences with a variety obscure words does not qualify you to speak. Try watching the ENTIRE video. Better yet, try READING some of his BOOKS. We are unimpressed by your pseudo-intelligence. LaVey would laughing his ass off. Might I recommend you join WCSL?
I quite like what Dawkins is doing. He`s trying to actively and publicly attack stupidity, however he conducts himself with the feverish zeal of a religious fanatic and it is here that he fails. He gets angry, childish and as you said condescending, but also from seeing a lot of interviews with him (we see more of him here in england) I think part of his attitude is out of sheer despair.
He needs to get a sense of humour about it all. Such as /watch?v=0zdyJkKA5L4
you talk about taking the higher road and you go and call him names, tsk tsk tsk, i agree with you by the way. Hitch would have handled that question better.
Personally I think when you get to name calling to try and discredit someone your credibility ship has already left the dock, why not focus on your strengths in the arena which you know, how many copies has God Delusion sold compared to PostModern Satanism? So you see my point.
@michael616joaquin Have you people forgotten who JK is? You act like I never use ad hominems - I use them all the time. And while I agree this is far from my best video, I think solid points were ignored due to who and what I was attacking. Dawkins (and many atheists) operate under the assumption that everything lacking physical evidence is equally absurd. Unfortunately, such a stance would neuter the very science they are so hard pressed to defend.
@jason666king not at all and tbh Jason what you're saying is valid and holds credibility the only thing which I didn't enjoy was the fact you were using playground tactics - name calling, you're better than him intellectually so why lower your own high standards??
The fact you think the American health system is the best in world makes me laugh. Come on Jason, your videos are normally excellent, this one tho, I thought was pointless. Plus your talking about linking q.mechanics with relative theory, it's called Universal Field Theory, plus you're saying he looks like a toad, how is this relevant?
@michael616joaquin Read what I wrote again. Best *infrastructure*. The reason we don't have the best *system* is because we use the insurance model for underwriting costs. And those nations who are ahead of use on the quality of care index all have single payer.
@jason666king And back in the 60's before Medicare/Medicaid, we were beating out all of these socialized countries in healthcare unbelievably. Back then, we TRULY DID have the best healthcare in the world. And back then, our healthcare system was totally free market, with charity work being carried out by private institutions of their own free will.
History proves that Free-Market Healthcare is better than Government Healthcare. Period.
I see both sides to this argument. On the one hand, yeah...The FSM was a fast way out (not that I mind the "low road" he took), yet on the other hand, he WAS taking questions from people in the audience. The issue was that of time, and how long it would have taken to answer the girl's question. Even I have to admit that the girl asked a loaded question.
On the other hand, I would love to see the theist you mentioned (William Kraig?) debate Dawkins without the use of the FSM.
@DarkF00L I could have answered the question better in just as little time. In fact, I already have in my "A Satanist answers Veritas" video. The underlying point of this video (which most people missed) is that Dawkins is not interested in a genuine exchange of ideas because he thinks he is better than those "deluded masses" who believe in a god or gods. That makes him a fucking toad, imho.
@jason666king "The god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it. A petty unjust unforgiving control freak. A vindictive blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser. A misogynistic homophobic racist infanticidal genocidal filicidal pestilential megalomaniacal sadomasochistic capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
So he's a proud smug mofo. So is VFX. Can you blame him? So he uses shock methods to wake people up rather than exchange.
@DarkF00L the religious opposition isn't exactly "rational." Sometimes, they need a good kick in the ass to wake up a realize how ridicules their position is.
@DarkF00L Richard Dawkins, as one of the vanguard of intellectual atheism, carries a heavier burden than the girl he mocked. And yet, when that very burden is pressed (as, for example, by W.L. Craig), he buckles. THIS is what I'm criticizing in the video.
@jason666king Then why not show a clip of that (or a screen cap of the text in which he actually is denying Mr. W.L. Craig's existence) rather than a 20 second clip of him bringing up The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exposing chickenhawks! :)
@jason666king Curses! You win this round, King! Seriously though remember when you exposed fuzzygoddess? You broke all of her arguments down and provided her own clips as reference. My only gripe is that you didn't include clips like the one you just linked in with this video (not even in the description). Other than that, I gotta say well played. I'll shut my mouth now.
I support the theory that the old testament outlines two different creations by two different creators, the Lord God being the biblical Satan and the creator of mankind.
Why else would something created in a God's image be inherently sinful?
@nosferotica1 There are two creation stories, but the latter (Yahwist/"Lord God") account (2:4-3:24) could never have been Satan. For multiple reasons.
@DarkF00L You see Darkfool my friend that is why I love Him.I hate to lose and I see the side of "God" or in my case the ADVERSARY to thee ADVERSARY as the winning side.I do not hide the fact that I am a mercenary and I went to the one that offered the most.Satan offers nothing compared to my life now.Food for thought.
Tim: "I went to the one that offered the most.Satan offers nothing compared to my life now.Food for thought."
It is one thing to offer, and yet another to deliver. Satan has offered (in your scripture) exactly two things: knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:5) and rulership of the world (Mt 4:9) The first, he offered to the first Woman in the first book of the OT. The second, he offered to the New Adam in the first book of the NT. He has delivered on both. (cont'd)
God (according to Christians) also offers two things: abundant life (Jn 10:10) and eternal life (Heb 5:9, et al.). Both promises fail to deliver. The first is only good for the parasites (e.g. those who get rich off of other peoples' ignorance a la Creflo Dollar). The second is a good motivator (to be sure), but hasn't had the verification we should expect if it were the case. Remember, there is no theological reason prohibiting such knowledge, so it should be commonplace.
@jason666king And yet our Knowledge of good and evil(ie: rational self interest) has taken us where??? and as far as ruler ship of the world goes that is up for interpretation is it not? Abundant life as you well know is not a material thing and eternal life is well not unproven/proven is a mindset/philosophy of life.
That's a really funny question, considering we are a world with laws and morality; since we now have this huge gray area with seemingly amoral things going on between two consenting adults, I suppose we've gotten nowhere, eh?
@nosferotica1 It's not what you have my friend,but what you do with it that matters "Eternally". In other words just because we can does not mean we should.
Oh no, it's what we have. That's why the Lord God "cursed the earth," along with everything else in between because we were equal in accordance to his wisdom, and expelled from the garden so we couldn't eat from the tree of life, and be an actual equal.
And sure, it's what we do with it that matters. He said "thou shalt not kill" and punished damn near every theological offense with death.
@jason666king Sorry for this added late response but..... You forgot that there was a stipulation to that "ruler ship of the world" promise. Satan knew that Jesus had come to take back what was lost so in order to not lose it ALL he offered it to Jesus in exchange for Jesus to worship him..HUH(???) So Satan wanted somebody to worship him, Funny I thought you said that was ludicrous.
@timishardcore cont... And as far as delivering goes I would agree with an old friend of ours when he said that it seems that Creflo Dollar's God has given more to his servant than Satan has to any YT Satanist. Not that I am a big prosperity message kinda guy myself.
where X is: Thor, Yaweh, fairies, intergalactic teapots and anything else he personally sees no evidence for (which includes infinitely many things, among which is of course the monster of spaghetti).
I'm genuinely curious what interest there is in the question: "What if you're wrong?" Does it not just answer itself?...
If Richard's wrong, then one or more of those infinitely many things exist.
mediteight: "and anything else he personally sees no evidence for"
I'd be curious as to what evidence he sees for discounting the 5-minute hypothesis. Or for an invariable speed of light. Or memes, for that matter.
When Ricky paints with such a broad brush, it becomes hard to distance his mockeries from the naive beliefs of an audience member who asked a simple question. The natural answer to such a vague question is, "about what?"
I agree - the natural answer is definitely "about what?" - which is why I've assumed the questioner meant, "what if you're wrong about saying X very probably does not exist" where X is any of the infinitely many things you see no evidence for. Still, can't see anything wrong (or even unpleasant) about his answer tho' - could you explain..?
As one of infinitely many mutually exclusive hypotheses - if there is no evidence for the 5 minute hypothesis - its probability must be vanishingly small.
Am I one of the few that get Mr. Dawkings, as douchey as he is, evoked the FSM in the very manner he was created (albeit to ridicule, but in an enlightening manner)? I suppose I didn't get the memo that the FSM was no longer an acceptable source to cite, either.
I also concur that what we saw was only the prelude, not the argument itself.
What if I'm wrong, we could all be wrong. God may very well be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I don´t think you really understand the monster argument either. It is not the same as saying "well, you are just stupid", which is your interpretation. The purpose is to show that there are countless hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and that no one of them are more probable. Furthermore, he is a biologist, so obviously he is (were) interested in debating creationists. You come across as seriously stupid in this video, talking about his appearance and stuff. Grow up.
Nope, now you are wrong Jason. Christianity is really that retarded. Flying, suicidal zombie-jew in a land of giants and unicorns. The teapot and the spaghetti monster are only silly because they are new and nobody believes them = nobody gets offended when people laugh. Furthermore, Dawkins is very confrontational, which is something that should suit your views...
Actually he *did* answer the question, but he did so after you cut off the video. His answer was that the girl already knew what it meant to possibly be wrong, she just had to reflect about what it would be like for her if another pantheon than hers was the reality.
So his mention of the FSM wasn't the whole of the answer. Okay, it was a bit of en passant ridicule, but ridicule wasn't his whole argument.
They still haven't got past newton yet.Its SPACE ! its programmable its conscious it fucking thinks and its scarier than the spaghetti monster.It cant be bargained with it cant be stopped it just wants to try everything its already nothing so what else is there for it to do.Anything it says i'll try it.
yes a stupid response...what "if" - so to be ignorant or highly intelligent could be a fine line ... he should say then what "if then we are wrong "....or he could stand by his science or beliefs and say "Thats not possible based on science and evidence".. His repose sucks based on that bit ..have to watch the lecture .....he is a highly intelligent thats a fact. The fuckers smarter than most but pompous like a mutha fucker ....
The point was parsimony and what we can and can't know. To assume a humanoid god (and savior, born of a virgin, who's essentially a sacrifice to take away some ephemeral original sin) and extrapolate from there is the ultimate in entia sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Dawkins' response pointed that out well, no matter what the questioner's preconceptions.
I have always thought Richard Dawkins was a bit of a scare mongering asshole myself. When he answered that girls question, he was obviously trying to mock her. He didn't even stop to think that she may have even been an atheist, who had the balls to question him. Kudos to her! He assumed she was a Christian and mocked her. His main problem is that he makes incorrect assumptions, that people who are theists are blow average intelligence idiots. He lowered himself to arrogant level.
@chorizo1337 Generally the term "socialized medicine" is misunderstood and polemicized, so I don't use it. My position is that the medical infrastructure (hospitals, doctors, technology) we have is the best in the world, and should not be altered. However the insurance model of reimbursement of costs is ridiculous and should be completely scrapped. It creates waste, fraud, and denial of care due to corporate greed. Not to mention debilitating debt for those who get seriously sick.
@jason666king oh for sure, im an anarcho capitalist, and I dont like government or insurance healthcare. Both are wasteful inefficient systems. I would like people to get free voluntary healthcare, just not government, or paid for by taxation (because taxation is violence)
@nosferotica1 healthcare is not a right, nor is education. When you violate someone elses right to their property, the so called "rights" are no longer rights, they are just stolen goods like every other the way the government is funded. You dont have a right to have someone else point a gun at me to pay for your kids healthcare or schooling
I love the "point a gun" comment, as though it's what actually goes on in this world.
I also love the "taxes are stealing" argument also, considering they've been in place since the dawn of this country. Once upon a time people understood the concept of taxes and their role in the world and didn't mind paying them, as long as it went to those who represented them (BTP).
You are one of the children who fail to understand, I see. And this is coming from a fellow Libertarian.
@nosferotica1 Your a libertarian and dont realize the government is a violent organization? What don't you get about my point? Try not paying your taxes this year. I still believe in paying for services that I use, but theres plenty of things I do not approve of. Like blowing people up in the middle east. Sadly libertarians/anarchists dont take their views seriously and want to move somewhere else, but everywhere else is just another "farm"
I thought we were talking about whether or not education or access to medical care was a right or a privilege, not whether or not the Government is a violent organization or the wars were just or not?
@TheManiacalSatanist6 So what. The Constitution doesn't mention the right to life either - that would be the Declaration of Independence. But I digress. You should know by now that I am of the opinion that the Constitution is hopelessly flawed, and also that I don't believe in "rights" per se. To me, this is more an issue of organic efficiency.
@jason666king Well, any product of Humans is going to be flawed, but to think that the Government can effectively run healthcare is fucking retarded. And to think that they are going to pay for healthcare without trying to run it is REALLY fucking stupid.
Governments can run health care. We are one of only 5 countries out of hundreds that don't have some form of socialized medicine.
I don't remember disagreeing that the American Government couldn't do it. Aside from that, I'd want it to be a state-power sort of deal, not a federal one.
My thoughts exactly. I know JK's a Satanist and all, but seriously use common sense and pick a worthier time to play the Devil's advocate, i.e. when the question asked is actually poignant, and not thinly-veiled fear-mongering. Honestly I think Dawkins, like many atheists, has likely been asked this question so many times he gets fed up instantly and smashes it down. This girl could've answered herself with a 5 second Youtube search and left other people time for better questions.
I tend to agree with you Jason. Richard Dawkins is one of the weakest links in the "four horsemen" of Atheism. The term itself is quite annoying. I have met many Atheists who are idiots, also many Satanist and Theists. So in my opinion stupidity knows no bounds or limits. It's just funny to see elitism and stupidity blend together, those types are the easiest to take down.
Ask and Atheist if logic can be used against itself and he will hear a zen riddle.
science is leaving atheists behind and they act like they don't notice, i never respected their "empirical" facade because they only like the facts that reinforce their worldview, materialism is dying
In what way is the flying spaghetti monster a "strawman"? Your opinion that the flying spaghetti monster is "retarded" does not prove that it is. Neither god nor the flying spaghetti monster can be proven or disproven to exist, so it is fair to put them in the same category. This video gets the "thumbs down" from me.
"He is a toad" That's rich coming from a guy who hides in the dark, not wanting people to see his face. And that green light makes YOU look like a toad!
This guy is a j0:00ke! LOL
DoctorSynthetic 2 weeks ago 2
You actually mis-stated the purpose of the Flying SM, the FSM is a response to people who say you cannot disprove God and this somehow lends credability to the God position, the thing is you also cannot disprove the FSM, but that doesnt make the idea any more credible, there are an endless number of things you cant disprove, the real question is whether you have evidence to actually prove something, your reasoning behind the FSM example is completely erroneus and flawed and y u didnt get it
tuberofyou1 4 months ago
@tuberofyou1 another retarded atheist. Theists of merit never argue "you can't disprove it," and so FSM is some garbage.
jason666king 4 months ago
@jason666king You cant even admit that you were wrong about what the FSM was created for. And sure theists of merit dont argue you cant disprove God, but how many theists are of merit? Not very many. Maybe Dinesh D'souza and a few others but I hear the you cant disprove argument all the time from the average theist. The FSM serves its purpose for that one particular theist argument and that is all it is for. How am I retarded?
tuberofyou1 4 months ago 3
What does Richard Dawkins' appearance have to do with what he said?
SebbeSucksBawlz 7 months ago
To deal with the evolution of science; there's a great short essay by DR.ASIMOV asserting 'the earth is not round but pear shaped at least slightly
RzaChess 7 months ago
Have you ever read Against Method by Paul Feyerabend?
TheAnonymousAnomie 8 months ago
That's what I get for arguing with the irrational. I'm not gonna say much except for a few things, first ad hominems like "retard" show your maturity level, not your honesty level, second, if you haven't watched other videos of Dawkins and debates of his and base your judgement on one video at best you're misinformed. And third, for crying out loud man, learn about the subject before you come with these insults at the man, it's painfully obvious you don't know shit about a first cause debate.
Itstherantman 8 months ago
@Itstherantman OK, we can settle this. Let's do a video exchange on the topic of first principles (arche). If you'd desire a more immediate forum of exchange, let me know, and I'll be there. I'll even handicap myself by arguing the Christian (et al.) position against your Dawkinsian view. How 'bout them apples? You're either game or you're a pussy, just let me know which . . .
jason666king 8 months ago
@Itstherantman Just because you can drop a fundamentalist lightweight does not mean that you can level an esoteric heavyweight. Dawkins et al seem to believe that just because they can dispose of fundamentalism they can dispose of religion per se. In fact that may be a little unfair to Dawkins, as he seems to accept the legitimacy of religious experience (see opening chapters of the God Delusion). But he rejects the fundie interpretations of the same.
02Blackbeard 8 months ago
Dawkins of having a smug attitude and here you are yourself with a smug attitude, saying Dawkins is this and that, without yourself providing any counter argument to Dawkins whole video. If you wanna accuse others of smugness make sure you are ready to back up any arguments you have against theirs, otherwise you make yourself like ignorant of the subject.
Itstherantman 8 months ago
I agree with many who leave comments here, this is the problem I saw with your video. First, you dishonestly did not play the whole clip, which is less than a minute and a half, in which Dawkins highlights the fact that if one were to argue Pascal's Wager in favor of christianity, one would have to do so also in favor of every religious figure out there. On top of that, the useless ad hominem attacks further discredit any argument you had going for you. Last but not least, you accuse
Itstherantman 8 months ago
@Itstherantman to mistake genuine arguments toward Arche (Gr.) for arguments towards silly-ass bullshit is to be intellectually dishonest. ESPECIALLY for a Ph.D. And NONE of you fuckers (read: haters) got it. Probably because not a one of you has studied philosophy beyond the 101 level. To say that arguments to a "first cause" (or what have you) equate to arguments towards a flying bowl of pasta is just to be FUCKING RETARDED. Dawkins knew better, you clowns don't . . .
jason666king 8 months ago
Well said
MichaelJT123 9 months ago
I enjoyed your perspective. I am quite a fan of the FSM but up until now I hadn't realised that I never use the FSM in arguments. So, I guess you have a point in saying that it is in fact a straw man. However, lets not forget that the FSM was created for a slightly different purpose and it's still great satire.
brickmastertube 10 months ago
@brickmastertube
Nope it is just lame ass up there with the pink unicorns and show lack of creative and indiviual thoughts.
Rangegrrl 1 month ago
Dawkins uses absurd statements because he believes religion is absurd. This is sort of self-defeating since he is trying to promote his view, but pushes away people by making them feel badly for asking any such questions that do not fall inline with his views.
However, insensitivity aside, he is an intelligent man when speaking about what he knows. When he blends what he knows with religion, he falls short. I know plenty of atheists who are scientific on Youtube and who are well spoken.
OCPRS 10 months ago
@OCPRS
Truth is he doesn't know, the direct honest answer from a scientific perspective would be
yes, i might be wrong..but it is highly unlikely. enough said.
Rangegrrl 1 month ago
He is too keen to employ intellectual arrogance instead of maintain his position, agreed.
michael616joaquin 1 year ago
The ignorance in this world is too much. It makes me so upset, cynical, jaded, etc. I don't know how you put up with these idiots, but as someone who has at least partially penetrated the ancient mysteries, I thoroughly enjoy your videos.
aneeley 1 year ago
he couldn't answer her question because it was a retarded fucking question, your a satanist supposedly dude and your defending this little smug cunts obviously baited question?
btw douche, did you even watch the whole video? unsubbduuuuuhhh!
ActionBastard85 1 year ago
@ActionBastard85 If you only seek to listen to those who reinforce your own opinion, you are no better than those you mock.
jason666king 1 year ago 2
@jason666king very true, he didn't answer the way he could have, and I think your nobel but, Dawkins can be as arrogant as he wants because he's closer to a reality regarding creation than even the most eloquent theist has ever been or ever will be. YOU didn't like HIS opinion. And we're talking about finding "god" in reality, not in an old deluded fairytail. Chic was making a statement, "what if your wrong" about my PERSONAL crucified jewgod . . . how she should have worded it actually.
ActionBastard85 1 year ago
@jason666king Honestly though, you call your self a Satanist . . shame on you=/ lol, this man is literally crucifying god and your yapping about him like you know what the fuck your talking about.
and because you are actually kinda noble you are once again subduh
ActionBastard85 1 year ago
"You should know that these philosophers whose wisdom you so much extol have their heads where we place our feet". Isaac of Acre.
Nuff said?
01blackpete1 1 year ago
Satan i love this guy
Wyteass 1 year ago
You see you don't understand the celestial teapot argument. Just wiki it, same with the FSM argument. they're not meant to be true but just to show the idocy of arguing that something so powerful to create everything is also impervious to detection and doesn't leave any concrete proof behind.
I don't know what created the universe and everything in it, but I'm pretty sure it's not some anthropormorphic diety, or his favoured angel cast out fron heaven.
Your arguments here are utter 'phail'.
realist81UK 1 year ago
@realist81UK it seems you failed to watch the latter 2/3 of the video. Get back to me when you finish watching before presenting an argument.
jason666king 1 year ago
cont... Who's dumber? Dawkins the a world reknowened professor or some guy that won't even show his face who and resorts to adhominem attacks & weak argumentation?. Dawkins explains clearly in 'Devils Advocate' why he doesn't debate with creationists like William Craig anymore, try doing research before you talk rubbish . William craig is a creationist btw just wiki William Lane Craig
Google could have explained that to you ya know.
realist81UK 1 year ago
@realist81UK In any debate, the weaker position is at an outright disadvantage, and must be overcome by superior rhetoric in order to win the argument. So by combining Dawkins' "superior position" with his refusal to engage, I'm left with the unavoidable conclusion that he lacks rhetorical confidence.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king the reason he wont engage is the same reason you wouldnt engage in a debate with someone who thinks storks bring babies....there is no reason to give someone a platform if their argument is based on no evidence and clear dogmatic superstition and a lack of basic understanding of science.
what you are condoning is what the sophists condoned in early Greece. it was a dishonest way to discover the truth then, and it still is now. rhetoric has no place in science and logic.
skitzoLSD 1 year ago
@realist81UK It's funny that a lot of atheists ( the defenders of logic and rational ) on the interwebs engage all too often in the logical fallacies argumentum ad potentiam ( YTuser < 'renowned' scientist ) and reductio ad absurdum ( Flying Spaghetti Monster ).
Kali23Yuga 10 months ago
lol, jason attacks dawkins for using the perfectly acceptable celestial teapot argument in regard to pascals wager Check both of them out jason and you may not come across as quite so ignorant.
He then attacks Dawkins for not being cranial enough but doesn't have the 'cranial' to check where Dawkins teaches, despite attacking Dawkins for not using a google. Guess what you msut be a 'dumb fuck', to use your parlance, too. tbc..
realist81UK 1 year ago
@realist81UK I don't mind the occasional ad hominem, but at least make sure they're funny.
And no, the teapot is no more valid an objection to a theory positing the necessity of a "first efficient cause" than it would be to an abstract parsimony. Perhaps you've heard of the latter - it goes by the parlance "Occam's Razor".
I could give you another one: invariance (real physical constants). You would be pressed to anything other than "axiom of theory" in either of these three cases.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king last part should read: "pressed to demonstrate anything other than "axiom of theory" in either of these three cases
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king Comparison is condescending only to those who lack understanding. Dawkins suggested that there is just as much evidence supporting the existence of the flying spaghetti monster as there is for the Christian God. Peppering your sentences with a variety obscure words does not qualify you to speak. Try watching the ENTIRE video. Better yet, try READING some of his BOOKS. We are unimpressed by your pseudo-intelligence. LaVey would laughing his ass off. Might I recommend you join WCSL?
MaestroMan999 1 year ago
sho enough! I refreshed this video 3 times and now it has a 1000 views! sho enough.
satanicinternational 1 year ago
All hail to the Flying Spaguetti Monster!
TheEngarPresence 1 year ago
I quite like what Dawkins is doing. He`s trying to actively and publicly attack stupidity, however he conducts himself with the feverish zeal of a religious fanatic and it is here that he fails. He gets angry, childish and as you said condescending, but also from seeing a lot of interviews with him (we see more of him here in england) I think part of his attitude is out of sheer despair.
He needs to get a sense of humour about it all. Such as /watch?v=0zdyJkKA5L4
SingularityMedia 1 year ago
agree with this!! thumps up
BearWindAppleyard 1 year ago
cool fukun vid man
TrppyTV 1 year ago
richard dawkins should read postmodern satanism
LeonVonWolfstein 1 year ago
you talk about taking the higher road and you go and call him names, tsk tsk tsk, i agree with you by the way. Hitch would have handled that question better.
JovianTV 1 year ago
Personally I think when you get to name calling to try and discredit someone your credibility ship has already left the dock, why not focus on your strengths in the arena which you know, how many copies has God Delusion sold compared to PostModern Satanism? So you see my point.
michael616joaquin 1 year ago
@michael616joaquin Have you people forgotten who JK is? You act like I never use ad hominems - I use them all the time. And while I agree this is far from my best video, I think solid points were ignored due to who and what I was attacking. Dawkins (and many atheists) operate under the assumption that everything lacking physical evidence is equally absurd. Unfortunately, such a stance would neuter the very science they are so hard pressed to defend.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king not at all and tbh Jason what you're saying is valid and holds credibility the only thing which I didn't enjoy was the fact you were using playground tactics - name calling, you're better than him intellectually so why lower your own high standards??
michael616joaquin 1 year ago
The fact you think the American health system is the best in world makes me laugh. Come on Jason, your videos are normally excellent, this one tho, I thought was pointless. Plus your talking about linking q.mechanics with relative theory, it's called Universal Field Theory, plus you're saying he looks like a toad, how is this relevant?
michael616joaquin 1 year ago
@michael616joaquin Read what I wrote again. Best *infrastructure*. The reason we don't have the best *system* is because we use the insurance model for underwriting costs. And those nations who are ahead of use on the quality of care index all have single payer.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king And back in the 60's before Medicare/Medicaid, we were beating out all of these socialized countries in healthcare unbelievably. Back then, we TRULY DID have the best healthcare in the world. And back then, our healthcare system was totally free market, with charity work being carried out by private institutions of their own free will.
History proves that Free-Market Healthcare is better than Government Healthcare. Period.
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 year ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 Back then, there were no true stats, so you're using an invalid argument. I won't even comment on soundness in that case.
BTW, free market healthcare would mean YOU would have NONE. Get it?
jason666king 1 year ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6
No 1) France - Socialized Medicine
No 2) Italy - Socialized Medicine.
You can get better health care in Columbia and Saudi Arabia than in the United States.
Perhaps you can explain the glory of going broke because you don't have insurance, or spending thousands of dollars because you got sick?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
I see both sides to this argument. On the one hand, yeah...The FSM was a fast way out (not that I mind the "low road" he took), yet on the other hand, he WAS taking questions from people in the audience. The issue was that of time, and how long it would have taken to answer the girl's question. Even I have to admit that the girl asked a loaded question.
On the other hand, I would love to see the theist you mentioned (William Kraig?) debate Dawkins without the use of the FSM.
DarkF00L 1 year ago
@DarkF00L I could have answered the question better in just as little time. In fact, I already have in my "A Satanist answers Veritas" video. The underlying point of this video (which most people missed) is that Dawkins is not interested in a genuine exchange of ideas because he thinks he is better than those "deluded masses" who believe in a god or gods. That makes him a fucking toad, imho.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king "The god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it. A petty unjust unforgiving control freak. A vindictive blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser. A misogynistic homophobic racist infanticidal genocidal filicidal pestilential megalomaniacal sadomasochistic capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
So he's a proud smug mofo. So is VFX. Can you blame him? So he uses shock methods to wake people up rather than exchange.
DarkF00L 1 year ago
@DarkF00L the religious opposition isn't exactly "rational." Sometimes, they need a good kick in the ass to wake up a realize how ridicules their position is.
DarkF00L 1 year ago
@DarkF00L *ridiculous. Scuse me. lol
DarkF00L 1 year ago
@DarkF00L Richard Dawkins, as one of the vanguard of intellectual atheism, carries a heavier burden than the girl he mocked. And yet, when that very burden is pressed (as, for example, by W.L. Craig), he buckles. THIS is what I'm criticizing in the video.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king Then why not show a clip of that (or a screen cap of the text in which he actually is denying Mr. W.L. Craig's existence) rather than a 20 second clip of him bringing up The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exposing chickenhawks! :)
DarkF00L 1 year ago
@DarkF00L
watch?v=SlnVe934u38&feature=related
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king Curses! You win this round, King! Seriously though remember when you exposed fuzzygoddess? You broke all of her arguments down and provided her own clips as reference. My only gripe is that you didn't include clips like the one you just linked in with this video (not even in the description). Other than that, I gotta say well played. I'll shut my mouth now.
DarkF00L 1 year ago
@DarkF00L
I support the theory that the old testament outlines two different creations by two different creators, the Lord God being the biblical Satan and the creator of mankind.
Why else would something created in a God's image be inherently sinful?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 There are two creation stories, but the latter (Yahwist/"Lord God") account (2:4-3:24) could never have been Satan. For multiple reasons.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king
I'd like to hear your insight on that.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@DarkF00L You see Darkfool my friend that is why I love Him.I hate to lose and I see the side of "God" or in my case the ADVERSARY to thee ADVERSARY as the winning side.I do not hide the fact that I am a mercenary and I went to the one that offered the most.Satan offers nothing compared to my life now.Food for thought.
timishardcore 1 year ago
Tim: "I went to the one that offered the most.Satan offers nothing compared to my life now.Food for thought."
It is one thing to offer, and yet another to deliver. Satan has offered (in your scripture) exactly two things: knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:5) and rulership of the world (Mt 4:9) The first, he offered to the first Woman in the first book of the OT. The second, he offered to the New Adam in the first book of the NT. He has delivered on both. (cont'd)
jason666king 1 year ago
God (according to Christians) also offers two things: abundant life (Jn 10:10) and eternal life (Heb 5:9, et al.). Both promises fail to deliver. The first is only good for the parasites (e.g. those who get rich off of other peoples' ignorance a la Creflo Dollar). The second is a good motivator (to be sure), but hasn't had the verification we should expect if it were the case. Remember, there is no theological reason prohibiting such knowledge, so it should be commonplace.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king And yet our Knowledge of good and evil(ie: rational self interest) has taken us where??? and as far as ruler ship of the world goes that is up for interpretation is it not? Abundant life as you well know is not a material thing and eternal life is well not unproven/proven is a mindset/philosophy of life.
timishardcore 1 year ago
@timishardcore
Knowledge of Good and evil has taken us where?
That's a really funny question, considering we are a world with laws and morality; since we now have this huge gray area with seemingly amoral things going on between two consenting adults, I suppose we've gotten nowhere, eh?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 I agree but remember it was Satan that wanted that to begin with.
timishardcore 1 year ago
@timishardcore
We are on par with God in accordance to his wisdom, but for whatever reason it's a fall from grace when we have it?
That's something I'll never understand.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 It's not what you have my friend,but what you do with it that matters "Eternally". In other words just because we can does not mean we should.
timishardcore 1 year ago
@timishardcore
Oh no, it's what we have. That's why the Lord God "cursed the earth," along with everything else in between because we were equal in accordance to his wisdom, and expelled from the garden so we couldn't eat from the tree of life, and be an actual equal.
And sure, it's what we do with it that matters. He said "thou shalt not kill" and punished damn near every theological offense with death.
But I guess it's good to be the Lord, right?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 Yes we have as the bible says "partakers of his divine wisdom"(nothing new there).
timishardcore 1 year ago
@timishardcore
You know that's not what I meant, and as far as "partakers of his divine wisdom" goes, I doubt it refers to the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@jason666king Sorry for this added late response but..... You forgot that there was a stipulation to that "ruler ship of the world" promise. Satan knew that Jesus had come to take back what was lost so in order to not lose it ALL he offered it to Jesus in exchange for Jesus to worship him..HUH(???) So Satan wanted somebody to worship him, Funny I thought you said that was ludicrous.
timishardcore 1 year ago
@timishardcore cont... And as far as delivering goes I would agree with an old friend of ours when he said that it seems that Creflo Dollar's God has given more to his servant than Satan has to any YT Satanist. Not that I am a big prosperity message kinda guy myself.
timishardcore 1 year ago
@timishardcore On the contrary, Dollar's manipulative schemes place him clearly in the Master's camp. Wolves in sheep's clothing and all that.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king True to a degree.So that makes CD a better Satanist HUH???
timishardcore 1 year ago
@timishardcore Your story, not mine.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king You brought it up...... nuff said.
timishardcore 1 year ago
Richard says X very probably does not exist
where X is: Thor, Yaweh, fairies, intergalactic teapots and anything else he personally sees no evidence for (which includes infinitely many things, among which is of course the monster of spaghetti).
I'm genuinely curious what interest there is in the question: "What if you're wrong?" Does it not just answer itself?...
If Richard's wrong, then one or more of those infinitely many things exist.
So what?
Thanks in advance,
paul
mediteight 1 year ago
mediteight: "and anything else he personally sees no evidence for"
I'd be curious as to what evidence he sees for discounting the 5-minute hypothesis. Or for an invariable speed of light. Or memes, for that matter.
When Ricky paints with such a broad brush, it becomes hard to distance his mockeries from the naive beliefs of an audience member who asked a simple question. The natural answer to such a vague question is, "about what?"
jason666king 1 year ago
I agree - the natural answer is definitely "about what?" - which is why I've assumed the questioner meant, "what if you're wrong about saying X very probably does not exist" where X is any of the infinitely many things you see no evidence for. Still, can't see anything wrong (or even unpleasant) about his answer tho' - could you explain..?
As one of infinitely many mutually exclusive hypotheses - if there is no evidence for the 5 minute hypothesis - its probability must be vanishingly small.
mediteight 1 year ago
Am I one of the few that get Mr. Dawkings, as douchey as he is, evoked the FSM in the very manner he was created (albeit to ridicule, but in an enlightening manner)? I suppose I didn't get the memo that the FSM was no longer an acceptable source to cite, either.
I also concur that what we saw was only the prelude, not the argument itself.
What if I'm wrong, we could all be wrong. God may very well be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
I don´t think you really understand the monster argument either. It is not the same as saying "well, you are just stupid", which is your interpretation. The purpose is to show that there are countless hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and that no one of them are more probable. Furthermore, he is a biologist, so obviously he is (were) interested in debating creationists. You come across as seriously stupid in this video, talking about his appearance and stuff. Grow up.
Vinterfader 1 year ago
@Vinterfader glad I could touch a nerve, V.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king No more than Richard touched yours, for sure.
Vinterfader 1 year ago
Nope, now you are wrong Jason. Christianity is really that retarded. Flying, suicidal zombie-jew in a land of giants and unicorns. The teapot and the spaghetti monster are only silly because they are new and nobody believes them = nobody gets offended when people laugh. Furthermore, Dawkins is very confrontational, which is something that should suit your views...
Vinterfader 1 year ago
Actually he *did* answer the question, but he did so after you cut off the video. His answer was that the girl already knew what it meant to possibly be wrong, she just had to reflect about what it would be like for her if another pantheon than hers was the reality.
So his mention of the FSM wasn't the whole of the answer. Okay, it was a bit of en passant ridicule, but ridicule wasn't his whole argument.
garouHH 1 year ago
They still haven't got past newton yet.Its SPACE ! its programmable its conscious it fucking thinks and its scarier than the spaghetti monster.It cant be bargained with it cant be stopped it just wants to try everything its already nothing so what else is there for it to do.Anything it says i'll try it.
hartejoseph 1 year ago
yes a stupid response...what "if" - so to be ignorant or highly intelligent could be a fine line ... he should say then what "if then we are wrong "....or he could stand by his science or beliefs and say "Thats not possible based on science and evidence".. His repose sucks based on that bit ..have to watch the lecture .....he is a highly intelligent thats a fact. The fuckers smarter than most but pompous like a mutha fucker ....
211for11 1 year ago
@211for11
The point was parsimony and what we can and can't know. To assume a humanoid god (and savior, born of a virgin, who's essentially a sacrifice to take away some ephemeral original sin) and extrapolate from there is the ultimate in entia sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Dawkins' response pointed that out well, no matter what the questioner's preconceptions.
MsCoralline 1 year ago
Jason, you arrogant fool.
FSM is Lord.
Know ye not that his meaty balls can crushest thou in an instant?
May you be cast into the bottomless lake of Marinara for your blashphemy, Jason.
Be touched by His noodly appedendage, or be destroyed by it.
R'amen.
lol!
TheBiggestWolf 1 year ago
@TheBiggestWolf
FSM?
I got two words for you: RAPTOR JESUS.
Your false idols will only damn your soul. Mind you only the one who went extinct for your sins.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
HERETIC! PAGAN!
TheBiggestWolf 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheBiggestWolf 1 year ago
I like Richard Dawkins, but pulling out the "Spaghetti Monster" card is just the cheap way out.
TheBiggestWolf 1 year ago
I have always thought Richard Dawkins was a bit of a scare mongering asshole myself. When he answered that girls question, he was obviously trying to mock her. He didn't even stop to think that she may have even been an atheist, who had the balls to question him. Kudos to her! He assumed she was a Christian and mocked her. His main problem is that he makes incorrect assumptions, that people who are theists are blow average intelligence idiots. He lowered himself to arrogant level.
TheDarkVII 1 year ago
Wait, you believe in socialized medicine?
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@chorizo1337 Generally the term "socialized medicine" is misunderstood and polemicized, so I don't use it. My position is that the medical infrastructure (hospitals, doctors, technology) we have is the best in the world, and should not be altered. However the insurance model of reimbursement of costs is ridiculous and should be completely scrapped. It creates waste, fraud, and denial of care due to corporate greed. Not to mention debilitating debt for those who get seriously sick.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king oh for sure, im an anarcho capitalist, and I dont like government or insurance healthcare. Both are wasteful inefficient systems. I would like people to get free voluntary healthcare, just not government, or paid for by taxation (because taxation is violence)
chorizo1337 1 year ago
I have to bear in mind that this is coming from a person who thinks that Government should pay for Healthcare and Education.
You probably believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too. LOL!!
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 year ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6
Health care and education are rights, not privileges.
However, some governments shouldn't do it, like ours. A government that has no interest in functioning properly isn't going to do anything properly.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 healthcare is not a right, nor is education. When you violate someone elses right to their property, the so called "rights" are no longer rights, they are just stolen goods like every other the way the government is funded. You dont have a right to have someone else point a gun at me to pay for your kids healthcare or schooling
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@chorizo1337
I love the "point a gun" comment, as though it's what actually goes on in this world.
I also love the "taxes are stealing" argument also, considering they've been in place since the dawn of this country. Once upon a time people understood the concept of taxes and their role in the world and didn't mind paying them, as long as it went to those who represented them (BTP).
You are one of the children who fail to understand, I see. And this is coming from a fellow Libertarian.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 Your a libertarian and dont realize the government is a violent organization? What don't you get about my point? Try not paying your taxes this year. I still believe in paying for services that I use, but theres plenty of things I do not approve of. Like blowing people up in the middle east. Sadly libertarians/anarchists dont take their views seriously and want to move somewhere else, but everywhere else is just another "farm"
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@chorizo1337
I thought we were talking about whether or not education or access to medical care was a right or a privilege, not whether or not the Government is a violent organization or the wars were just or not?
What are we talking about exactly?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 "Health care and education are rights"
GEEE!!!! No they're not!!!!! Nowhere in the fucking constitution does it say anything about either one of those.
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 year ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6
Maybe because back in the day there was no insurance racket and public schooling was the norm, so there was no need to define that shit.
What a concept, eh?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 So what. The Constitution doesn't mention the right to life either - that would be the Declaration of Independence. But I digress. You should know by now that I am of the opinion that the Constitution is hopelessly flawed, and also that I don't believe in "rights" per se. To me, this is more an issue of organic efficiency.
jason666king 1 year ago
@jason666king Well, any product of Humans is going to be flawed, but to think that the Government can effectively run healthcare is fucking retarded. And to think that they are going to pay for healthcare without trying to run it is REALLY fucking stupid.
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 year ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6
Governments can run health care. We are one of only 5 countries out of hundreds that don't have some form of socialized medicine.
I don't remember disagreeing that the American Government couldn't do it. Aside from that, I'd want it to be a state-power sort of deal, not a federal one.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
You know as well as I do, mate, he's simply comparing it to a silly notion of a flying pasta being.
Don't play dumb when you're not.
e3hammer 1 year ago
@e3hammer
My thoughts exactly. I know JK's a Satanist and all, but seriously use common sense and pick a worthier time to play the Devil's advocate, i.e. when the question asked is actually poignant, and not thinly-veiled fear-mongering. Honestly I think Dawkins, like many atheists, has likely been asked this question so many times he gets fed up instantly and smashes it down. This girl could've answered herself with a 5 second Youtube search and left other people time for better questions.
XelhosTallyn 1 year ago
I tend to agree with you Jason. Richard Dawkins is one of the weakest links in the "four horsemen" of Atheism. The term itself is quite annoying. I have met many Atheists who are idiots, also many Satanist and Theists. So in my opinion stupidity knows no bounds or limits. It's just funny to see elitism and stupidity blend together, those types are the easiest to take down.
Ask and Atheist if logic can be used against itself and he will hear a zen riddle.
Thetruthinall 1 year ago
science is leaving atheists behind and they act like they don't notice, i never respected their "empirical" facade because they only like the facts that reinforce their worldview, materialism is dying
RadicalSyndicate 1 year ago
@RadicalSyndicate
“It must have a natural cause!”
“It must have a supernatural cause!”
Let these two asses be set to grind corn!
garouHH 1 year ago
FSM = fail
LeonVonWolfstein 1 year ago
My answer to the little girl would've been, "If it can be shown that I'm wrong, then I will have to accept that."
leeheeman420 1 year ago