Added: 5 years ago
From: clifflyon
Views: 5,226
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (29)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • "We can't apply natural laws to gawd" = I'm a fucking moron.

  • HAHAHA Nostradamus lmfao its easy to predict things by using knowledge wording them differently doesn't make it any more complex its just making something basic sound complex which at the end of the day a 5 year old could achieve, I predict that I will probably be alive when I wake up in the morning. I might not but the likeliness that I will be is higher than me being dead

  • Anyway, having been an atheist and a Christian, I can safely say that it's no "decree by fiat." I personally think all you idiots on youtube should just shut the hell up and leave atheism, christianity, and homosexuality alone and start evaluating things from a neutral, well-though-out viewpoint rather than letting an Oxford scholar or an evangelical bastard do it for you.

  • "evaluating things from a neutral, well-though-out viewpoint rather than letting an Oxford scholar or an evangelical bastard do it for you"

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I was an atheist/agnostic long before I knew there was a word for my lack of beliefs. I was pretty young.

  • God is as much an explanation for the creation of the universe as is randomness. I am a Christian. But I might be wrong. I have no idea. It's not a cop-out to say that God is outside of time, and to throw it out as illegitimate, with no explanation other than "Well, that's too easy" is a cop-out. Many things are easy. Darwinism is easy. Dawkins is a very smart man who I think is doing society a whole lot of good, but to say that guy was "pwned" by THAT answer is ignorant.

  • Dude, his argument isn't "that's too easy", his argument is that a "decree by fiat" has no empirical/intellectual value. So God lives outside the natural world? Who says so? Why? WTF? You can't randomly make up attributes of God in order to make her fit to the real world, that's just silly.

  • I didn't make that up. And you're a fucking retard.

  • it was a general 'you', not pointed to you specifically. But I appreciate that your Christian values shine through in how you address me <3

  • Spoken like a true Christian.

  • pwned

  • Everyone already knows what it's like to be dead. We've been dead for billions of years (or longer). It's the state we were in before birth, and when the time for comes that I must return, I won't be afraid. Besides, riciard55, that is a wishful thinking fallacy.

  • watch out dawkins decree by mercadies benz or chrysler

    i`m really concerned about all those high fluental words they really tickle me can you do somethink about my rotten teeth? the Word SomeTHINK is cool

  • YER Lets face it no one wants to die forever do they?

  • It seems to me like Richard dawkins always ends up stopping with the idea that god is just a massive cop-out to all arguments...but there is nothing wrong with that! It may be irritating, but it is nevertheless a simple solution.

  • But that doesn't exactly make it the correct solution, now does it?

  • yeah you're right - i just feel like Dawkins answer to "god is outside of the realm of physics/space & time" being "oh, that's such a cop-out answer!" is not a real argument in itself

  • But it _is_ a cop-out. It makes a bad explanation. In fact, it makes no explanation at all. That is the point; you cannot have an explanation of something without arguments to support it. Any explanation (say, "God created man") without arguments is just as good as any other ("Xwatychylikluklu created man").

  • And notice that Dawkins has not stated "There is most certainly no God", he explicitly maintains that "There is very very likely no God". When he calls the Bible "fiction" he does it because he treats it as any other text with similar credentials. The Lord of the Rings _might_ be true. It _might_, but very very unlikely.

  • You're post is wrong because I declare it to be so.

  • Excuse the grammar fuck-up.

  • What? So you're suggesting that because "god" is a "simple solution" that people shouldn't be called out on their completely bogus arguments?

  • no i've seen the error in my ways, it's definately a non-argument for god's existance

  • Good for you, the difference between science and people of reason from religion and the faithful is that we are willing to admit we are wrong and move on to learn and discover more. Truth is more important to us than dogmatic doctrine.

  • pwned.

  • Requiring evidence in order to be convinced of something IS part of the scientific method, however.

  • "I'm not convinced" is an opinion, not science.

  • Owned.

  • That guy just became Dawkins' bitch.

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