Your angy shit has already been debunked. You have no answer but to post the same angry shit over, again and again and again. You are the archetypal...
So succinctness is the new gay eh? btw:It wouldn't surprise me if you were gay. Lots of gays like you are atheist simply because they got their fweelings hurt by "God" so they rebel. Is that what happened to you stewie? Let's be honest here IF you truly respected science and the scientific method you would declare yourself agnostic vs atheist on the subject of the existence of "god".
Why would any sensible person do any such thing? Are you capable of elaborating without the childish ad-homs.
Jem, buddy, you do this every time you start up another debate. These clips are taken out of context and editorialized, they're pulling statements that seem to fit their arguments. I've already dissected the Dawkins portion for you in a previous thread. The Susskind clips obviously are not the full version as he never got to his main point, as well as the Weinberg clips. Showing these clips in their entirety would add their context and may prove your point (although I doubt it). The funny part is that all of these guys are more or less atheist, and you seem to be interpreting their beliefs for them - beliefs based on decades of evidence and research that they themselves worked on and developed. Here's a better view of Susskind's opinions. Here's a better view of Weinberg's opinions. I'll just wait here for the ad hominem onslaught.