Added: 3 months ago
From: wisdominnature7
Views: 637
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (24)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • In his video Kevin says "Athiests are just playing word games when they say they believe in the possibilty of the existence of god, they don't believe it's even possible". That is total and complete horse shit right there. Dawahfilms video isn't even his own original idea, he ripped it off some other goofballs video on the internet just like VenomFangX did with Kent Hovind, his video isn't really even worth a serious response if you ask me.

  • Very enjoyable response, thanks for the video!

  • The lack of self-awareness in these types of arguments is astounding.

  • For those interested in what might be related philosophical material, DrEvolutionQuest has a video up of a nearly two hour interview with Tyler Wunder called "Why Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology Fails".

    It can be watched at: /watch?v=N2K2DTdo0zI

    It's audio only and they go over Wunder's 2007 PhD dissertation from Boston University where he's critical of Plantinga's theory and application of epistemic warrant. There is a link to the PhD thesis itself in the video description.

  • I can't believe you gave this dude attention, its all in-out group psychology with him...I see a bright future for him in Islamic militancy.

    Any how, always great to see a new video, as usual great content! KEEP POSTING MY FRIEND

  • You have gained a subscriber.

  • Not that your video isn't good, but it won't dissappear from my subbox... Does anyone have any idea what's causing that?

  • @DrEvolutionQuest "Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument?"

    I've not been impressed by Plantinga's arguments:

    watch?v=oSjRRp_3SSI

    watch?v=pZP9zBpkL7w

    "Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument"

    SisyphusRedeemed named a fallacy after that argument:

    watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg

  • @DrEvolutionQuest

    For my views on ontological and cosmological arguments in general, and the versions you cite in particular, see:

    /watch?v=6cGXwT7MLjA

    and

    /watch?v=u7g9QoGFvRo

    Despite the ‘hype’ of the titles, I don’t actually “ignore” them (after all I published those videos); but I don’t think they’re good arguments, and thus I am at liberty to disagree with their conclusions. if someone could fix the faults in those arguments, I would no longer be an atheist.

  • Where is the love button?

  • I actually have a problem with comparing Windows with previous crap.

    Because Windows still uses that old garbage to function.

    Every copy of Windows still uses that piece of crap MS-DOS (though it's circa 2000) for some of its more basic functions.

    Or maybe that strengthens the analogy. Not sure.

  • @gimmethegepgun ugh... your knowledge of current windows versions is rather flawed there buddy. It is true that some early GUI versions of windows used DOS as a base for a number of years - and just had the GUI as a shell layer on top basically. However - that was only done up until windows NT came along. Depending on if you were a business user or private user that was back in 1993 (NT 3.1), or 2000 (win2000) respectively.

    That is 11-18 years ago - basically "forever" in computer terms.

  • @TheStigma Ugh you're right, I thought cmd.exe was actually DOS, but it just mimics it.

    Also I think I was partially thinking of BIOS for some reason.

  • @gimmethegepgun NP, everyone gets to be wrong sometimes :)

    It's easy to get this wrong, because as you say - CMD has been in windows since it was DOS based, and is there still now - so one would easily assume that that system hasn't changed. In reality CMD accessed the real DOS running at the core up until windows ME, but in versions after that DOS was ripped out and just sort of sandboxed on the side for compatibility sake. CMD is now just an interpreter rather than a real command interface.

  • @gimmethegepgun

    Windows hasn't used the MS-DOS code since the merger with NT4 & 5 in Windows XP (5.1).

  • Fcku Windows. I'm running Linux here. ;)

    Subscribed.

  • I really like your videos, have you checked out Professoranton or Conferencereport? They probably have material that would spark your interest, I'd love to see a discussion between yourself and one of them.

  • @DrEvolutionQuest The Kalam argument is unsound as is Plantiga's argument. Even if the arguments may be internally valid (which the second conclusion of Kalams argument is not), the validity of the argument is not properly applicable in our reality since they still are unsound.

  • In regards to Dawahs last part: whats beneficial to someone is irrelevant to whether or not the belief is true. There are lots of beliefs that one can hold that are entirely wrong but still helpful to the individual.

  • Glad you jumped in on this. He's gotten a lot of really good responses. This among them.

    Finally, another good conversation!

  • @DasAmericanAtheist

    I'm afraid I have to hold my hand up and say that mine was not one of the good ones; I was a little irritated by the tone he took in his video, and as such, I was a bit snarly. I also wasn't terribly happy with the fact he tarred atheists with a wide brush on several counts.

    To whit; I'm glad another atheist and philosopher replied to him; It makes his claim that atheists don't concern themselves with philosophy that much more transparent as an opinion.

  • Wonderful response. Glad I found your channel.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more