This is AWESOME.

You are RIGHT.

When you use close-ups it’s a visually effective means of keeping the viewer’s attention and creating a comic, not too serious attitude, but it becomes apparent you’re reading which is not apparent otherwise. No big deal though.

I’m looking forward to viewing all of your videos. Good work!

To be fair Kant said that questions regarding god might not have accessible answers, but his point wasn’t that we can’t possibly apprehend such facts because of some limitation on us. It might be that your reasoning is more firmly based than it seems, so I invite you to show why we have good reason to believe that we cannot understand these things.

Well, the point I was trying to make is that how can you even attempt to prove something in a rational scientific way (through testing) to take a hypothesis of something existing and with enough evidence promote the hypothesis to a theory when the “something” you are trying to prove doesn’t have any attributes that we as a species can objectivily (or even quasi objectively) measure?

Belief in some higher power or supernatural diety is based on faith more than actually seeing that higher power or supernatural diety in action (and knowing for sure that what you have witnessed is attributable to the higher power or supernatual diety that you believe in), correct? That’s why belief in a god, or gods, or supernatural watchmakers is called faith, because nobody can really give enough proof that any one individual’s hypothesis about the existance of their god or supernatural diety to convince everybody that this one particular “belief” in one particular god or supernatural deity is the correct one.

I’m pretty sure that goes a long way in explaining why there are so many different religions that have lots of strong differences as well as the fragmenting of a particular religion into verious sects and cults, who may share some tradition and doctrine with other’s of the same “religion” but add their own interpretation and rituals. ex. Catholics and Southern Babtists, Christians and Muslims, Taoists and New Age Wiccan’s.

To Fyurien:

While I do not agree with Al on very many points, saying something as brazen as “Atheists are Believers and Believers are Atheists.” doesn’t *actually* make it true. The form and content of your arguments are what make or break them. While I do agree that there is an epistemic gap and a sort of “leap of faith” involved in the positive assertion “There is no god.” I cannot simply assert that the conclusion is wrong, but rather question the methods used to reach that conclusion.

Come on though, calling names and engaging in the same self-righteous abuses that you accuse Al of is at best lowering yourself to what you think is his level as though this would somehow teach him a lesson. I think his, and Dawkin’s, mistakes are far more clever than simple disagreement to you, and an unfamiliarity with your idea of critical debate.

However, I am reminded of Neil deGrasse Tyson chastising Dawkins for his “sharpness of teeth” in his presentation of arguments against god etc. At some level I just have to agree with Tyson, education is an act of persuasion. If you want to pull a Dawkins and try and convince Al through the rhetorical “f&*k off” (like Dawkins uses in the quite famous clip) don’t be surprised when people laugh at you, but end up thinking the other guy was probably right, or at least is more likely someone worth listening to.

With love.

Jolly Sapper…
No offense intended, but what exactly are you trying to say?

Wait no, thats immature and personal. Hey Al, you are wrong. Being an atheist you’ve managed to insult those among us that actually take critical thinking seriously. For all your YouTubing you’ve managed to shoot your self in the foot and in a great way null your argument.

Think for even the slightest moment critically and you will understand one fundamental truth.

Atheists are Believers and Believers are Atheists.

You are no more open minded then religious believers, nor they any less atheist than you are.

Consider for a second that as an atheist you do not believe in god. Actually you “believe” in not god. Believers believe in their own god but are atheist to other gods. Zeus and so on.

People like you “Atheists”, Dawkins included are serious numbnuts and your condescending attitude towards believers at best pisses people off, at worst does more harm to your goals than good.

Get off your YouTube labeled soap box and try out a real critical debate for once. Or at the very least, real critical thinking. Maybe its time to brush up on some Greek love of knowledge.

Sheeeshhhh…

If we can’t answer yes to those questions then “god” can’t be a theory can it? So science seems to fail us in determining whether god exists. We’re left totally alone in the dark wandering aimlessly amid a sea of those who have total faith and those with a total lack of faith in any one particular interpretation of what god may be, in fact, existing in the universe.

Bulverism is bad. Bulverism is when you say “You believe in X, but you have a personal reason or gain in believeing X, therefore your beliefs are false.”

A perfect example is I could say “You believe you are a real person, but that serves your purposes better than your just being a figment of my imagination, therefore you are a figment of my imatination.”

Without further evidence it doesn’t follow that that actually IS the case.

When positing a new hypothesis as to why people believe religion you need to give a good reason that your hypothesis is better. Saying that people are scared of being labled an outsider and heretic is all well and good, but it doesn’t really given an explanation as to why a large percentage of the world’s population believes in some sort of religious experience, just says that they have personal reasons to believe it.

I’m not sure this is your position and if it isn’t feel free to correct me, but getting rid of god in a hypothesis does not patently or magically equal a better hypothes. While it is the current trend of the sciences etc. And I am a personal believer that evidence cannot lead to proof of god etc. This does not mean that any hypothesis other than god(s) is true simply in virtue of the fact that it is not supernatural.

Flame on lil’ buddies, flame on.

Second, its my belief that religion is a system of structured traditions and rituals enforced by hierarchy and passed down through the generations of “followers” while belief is what you do when you make a decision without having all of the facts.

My beliefs can change as I learn more, see more, do more and while it may be hard for me to do so, my main obstacle is myself. Beliefs are internal, possibly influenced by external factors but ultimately it is the decision of the individual to embrace any particular belief(s).

Religions are harder to change as the traditions and rituals come from outside of individual. When an individual decides that some part of their religion no longer fits into their belief system, individuals lacking the ability to change the entire religion (which would be almost everybody who isn’t high up in the hierarchy of the religion) to fit their new beliefs are left with two options: Abandon the religion or suppress their beliefs to keep in conformity with the religion.

Many who follow a religion have a strong social bonds with others who follow the same religion, making the choice so much more difficult. My belief, ;) , is that many decide to stick with religion at the expense of their own beliefs instead of abandoning the religion and loosing the social bonds they have become accustomed to or dealing with the fallout of being a pariah amongst those who they once called friends.