Great lecture until the last few minutes in which the usual parachute is opened so as not to offend any theists watching. I can imagine the existence of purple dragons. It is a natural concept coming from my understanding of colours and creatures that look like horses or lizards that breathe, and the concept of fire. But that doesn't give credence that they exist. The ability and propensity to see and believe in ghosts is a natural one (as is hyper agency detection) and will probably always be with us, but that does not mean ghosts are real. The anti-religion view does not argue against the perception of or naturalness of a religious cognition (or having a material origin in the brain), it always argues against the existence of an ACTUAL god. Anti-theist arguments have added cognition and psychology as more explanations (in addition to their many other explanations) of why the idea of a god is much more likely as an idea rather than an actuality. The burden of proof of an actual god existing lies with the theist and therefore the default position, (unlike Barrett's assertion that religion should be seen as innocent until proven guilty) should be with atheism.
Expect that in most debates and intellectual exchanges the theist exposes the atheist as a clueless prat. All four of the Horsemen of Atheism have been exposed; Hitchens by both William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'souza, Sam Harris by Craig, Dennett by D'souza (my favourite debate as Dennett is humiliated at his own university); and Dawkins by John Lennox and Rowan Williams. Of course the Oxford Secularists and Atheists asked Dawkins to debate Craig but sadly all Dawkins can do is shit himself and write a pathetic, lying article in the Guardian.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bzivN4KDg-k/mqdefault.jpg)
where is part 2?
More of this please. Force it onto the general public.
Great lecture until the last few minutes in which the usual parachute is opened so as not to offend any theists watching. I can imagine the existence of purple dragons. It is a natural concept coming from my understanding of colours and creatures that look like horses or lizards that breathe, and the concept of fire. But that doesn't give credence that they exist. The ability and propensity to see and believe in ghosts is a natural one (as is hyper agency detection) and will probably always be with us, but that does not mean ghosts are real. The anti-religion view does not argue against the perception of or naturalness of a religious cognition (or having a material origin in the brain), it always argues against the existence of an ACTUAL god. Anti-theist arguments have added cognition and psychology as more explanations (in addition to their many other explanations) of why the idea of a god is much more likely as an idea rather than an actuality. The burden of proof of an actual god existing lies with the theist and therefore the default position, (unlike Barrett's assertion that religion should be seen as innocent until proven guilty) should be with atheism.
Expect that in most debates and intellectual exchanges the theist exposes the atheist as a clueless prat. All four of the Horsemen of Atheism have been exposed; Hitchens by both William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'souza, Sam Harris by Craig, Dennett by D'souza (my favourite debate as Dennett is humiliated at his own university); and Dawkins by John Lennox and Rowan Williams. Of course the Oxford Secularists and Atheists asked Dawkins to debate Craig but sadly all Dawkins can do is shit himself and write a pathetic, lying article in the Guardian.
TBOTSS Bullshit
@@TBOTSS Cope
Imagine a world where we cannot criticize people's delusional religious beliefs because... They have some political influence over us..