Does Richard Dawkins advocate burning synagogues?

[PotemkinBob]

Guilt by association! Way to go.

Also, depiction of something in art does not necessarily imply that the artist is advocating the things depicted. Otherwise, the Bible advocates genocide, incest, rape, murder, slavery... actually, that's a bad analogy -- the Bible does explicitly advocate those things. Never mind.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@PotemkinBob

Ask yourself if atheists would be seeing it that way if it was Bill Craig talking immediately after them and then you'll know why the video is here. By the way, unlike the slurs the atheist videos would make - I didn't actually make any! I simply asked a question - that's all. You can only be guilty of 'guilt by association' if you're claiming someone is guilty. I never made that claim. You should watch more closely!

[MisterKauffman]

Bizarre and unwarranted assumptions? Guilt-by-assocition fallacies? Ad hominems? Above all, dodging valid criticisms and questions in the comments section?

Must be time for another CartesianTheist video. ;]

[TheCartesianTheist]

@MisterKauffman

Actually - had you watched o the end - the video asks a question rather than jumping to the conclusions you suggest it does. Fail.

Also when you get over your "creative block" and start making some videos I would like to see you keep up with all comments made when you have over 30 videos up and running. I actuaally interact with people a lot more than the well known atheists on YT who hardly ever get on their own threads.

Good luck getting creative soon!

[MisterKauffman]

@TheCartesianTheist You don't ask questions; that's the entire point. You ask snarky little rhetorical questions where you know that you've already reached your answers.

Oh? But look at the comment sections on any of your videos! You always have some snide response to certain comments. Specifically, comments where you're given some sort of wriggle room so that you can weasel your way out of addressing valid criticism.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@MisterKauffman

All of those points are incredibly ironic given the fact that you've made at least 5 criticisms and have yet to offer evidence for even one of them? Here's a question for you. Are you just here to waste my time?

[MisterKauffman]

@TheCartesianTheist Actually, it's because I've followed your videos a bit, and you seem intelligent enough to be above these troll tactics. I'm not saying that you need to respond to every argument in the comments, that would be silly, but I'm citing your tendency to dance around or ignore valid counter-arguments when they're presented to you, then claim yourself the victor.

I can only do so much with a 500-character limit, so I might have to make another comment here, to cite an example:

[MisterKauffman]

In your recent 'Reason the Bible is true' video (this may have been how I found you), people pointed out that you were making an assumption that because the Bible is historically and archaeologically accurate, its supernatural claims must also be true.

Someone asked if because the "Spider-Man" comics depicted NYC accurately, then this was evidence that Spider-Man existed. You called their argument stupid, but you didn't explain why it was a poor analogy. That's called a hit-and-run tactic.

[MisterKauffman]

On that note, not that it really matters, but I made the same analogy without seeing the other comment, so that was a failure of originality on my part.

[MrDrakkus]

Also, if you listen to the song, they're obviously not saying that Jews should love having their synagogues torched, or that anyone should love having their holy books burned. It's more of a commentary on how the religious "love" those who believe different than themselves, by burning synagogues and other holy books.

You claim this to be a threat to Christendom, but that claim is demonstrably wrong. This song is commentary, in no way could it possibly be a call to arms.

[wolffmagic72]

Dawkins, the most arrogant of stupidity. I am glad he takes pride in his 'know it all attitude', he will not succeed in human-mind development. Kinda sad isn't it? They have Dawkins/Hitchens and we have Kepler and Newton. Sucks to be you man! Ha!

[TheFaithHunter]

Dawkins has become the face of Atheist Fundamentalists

[PhilosoBot]

I read the lyrics. Yes, it is an anti-religion/anti-faith song. But no, they are not advocating burning synagogues or holy books at all. Just the opposite, actually. Just read the lyrics.

[5555miles]

Nah, this is a cheap shot. Quote something Dawkins has said himself.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Re: "You claim that they are not. Care to support your assertion?"

I made no such claim or assertion. I made a suggestion, namely, that everyone should read the lyrics themselves. But your *assumption* is correct, so I'll *now* assert that these lyrics aren't celebrating atrocities. I would've drawn that if I were in grade school and read these lyrics. I find it frankly astonishing that you, TheCartesianTheist, Fox "News", and thus I guess many others can't understand what they read.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

When you read a lyric like "Hate let us all disseminate - A message to your herd" (meaning sending a message to "Hate's herd"), do you think that message will be "Go Team Hate! Hate For The Win!".

After the 1st 4 lines about atrocities against religious people, it continues: "Faith holding outright criminals safe. This is just the world we live in. Can you justify the pain? The death of fiction will save us all." The point obviously being that those atrocities are caused by "Faith".

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

@EnlightenedReader Aiden has stated that the promotion of church burning was not their intentions for the song, but rather the hysteria seen in fundamentalists of all faiths.

Feel any more enlightened?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Love how you didn't bother to try to understand what those lyrics meant.

According to wikipedia, your gripe is parroting a Fox "News" story. Surprise, surpise...

Anyone interested can google it (Aiden lyrics Hysteria) and decide for themselves if the song is advocating harm to religious people & places of worship - or is complaining that religious hysteria causes those harms. I encourage everyone to read the lyrics themselves - it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they mean.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

Theres nothing wrong with hating relgion. Hating a religious person, is another matter.

A false belief, deserves no respect, and a real human being deserves all respect, regardless of the ideas in their head.

You have confused hating a belief and hating a person.

[philosophizer149]

@TheSelfishAltruist so what if I hate atheism?

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 Thats your right, even though its like hating a TV the hair style 'bald', cause atheism has no content.

[philosophizer149]

@TheSelfishAltruist Really so when you call yourself an atheist you say nothing about yourself? Interesting, so why call yourself an atheist? Of course atheism contains content, it makes a truth claim, that God does not exist, calling atheism just a lack of belief in God is like calling theism merely the presence of belief in God. Most atheists like to claim the former but not the latter.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 I also claim that we don't live in the Matrix.

This is a truth claim, and therefore Amatrixism has content.

I also claim Leprechauns don't exist.

Does my Aleprauchaunism have content based on the truth claim I have made?

I also don't believe in star signs, does my Astrologism have content as I made a truth claim?

I do not believe in Mermaids. Does my Aarielism have content as I have made a truth claim?

Think about it please.

[philosophizer149]

@TheSelfishAltruist yes actually it does, unless you are defining content differently than I am.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 So my belief there are no invisible leprechauns living in my garden is a belief system and I should defend it to you?

Are you claiming that the rejection of a belief is a belief? If so, then you are in very very problematic territory, because there is literally (and I mean literally) a infinite number of things that are NOT true.

If you define belief that way, you need to start thinking more carefully about what a belief actually entails.

[philosophizer149]

@TheSelfishAltruist well yes you should defend those positions. For example the idea that there are invisible leprechauns in your garden you could say is absurd because we would have detected their movements by now, we would have seen their foot prints. The only reason we don't bother pointing that our is because everyone agrees that there are no invisible leprechauns. And yes the rejection of a belief is a belief...

[philosophizer149]

@philosophizer149 ...You reject the belief that there are invisible leprechauns in your garden, thus you believe that your garden is leprechaun free.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 So now you are saying beliefs are based on 'everyone' agreeing.

In North Korea everybody agrees that the supreme leader destroyed the USA in a bloody war. Agreement of a truth claim does not make it true or false, the evidence decides

And maybe the leprechauns cannot be detected using our instruments, Maybe they are sneaking in the lab and changing the results... maybe a infinite number of possibilities.

Lack of belief, is not a belief... and I think I've made my point now.

[philosophizer149]

@TheSelfishAltruist No, I'm saying that nobody debates whether or not there are invisible leprechauns is because nobody believes in them. Thats generally because we have good reasons to say they aren't there and no reasons to believe they are. And yes invisible leprechauns could be wiping our memories whenever we see them, but these excuses eliminate any explanative power of invisible leprechauns leaving the idea very ad hoc, and therefore unlikely based on the evidence...

[philosophizer149]

@philosophizer149 ...You are equating lack of belief with the rejection of a belief, they aren't the same thing. Rejecting the belief that God exists would mean that you believe God is a non-existent entity, lacking belief in God would be to merely claim ignorance about the issue. So do you reject the belief that God exists or do you merely lack it?

[MyContext]

@philosophizer149 I make the distinction of claiming that a thing does not exist versus having no basis for a viable claim. I will claim that the Abrahamic god claims are fictional as such I will claim the Abrahamic god DOES NOT EXIST. Given generic notions of god, there many well be something that could fit such an amorphous notion. However, given specifics those claims may become a declaration of none existence as opposed to simple disbelief.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 The leprechauns and god share something: no evidence.

Maybe now you understand where atheists are coming from.

[philosophizer149]

@TheSelfishAltruist gee I couldn't have guessed you would say that. Again we need to distinguish between having merely a lack of evidence which would leave the probability of a proposition at about 50% and having an argument like if such and such a proposition were true we would expect to have more evidence of it, or the proposition is so ad-hoc there is no possibility of finding evidence for it. These arguments would lower the probability of the proposition being true...

[philosophizer149]

@philosophizer149 ...Now is there no evidence for God? Well I don't think that the atheist can say that up front, because there are various arguments for God's existence, which, if sound, would make the probability of God's existence virtually 100%. So atheists like yourself need to analyze arguments like the Kalam, Ontological, moral or argument from contingency refute them then demonstrate and defend your own arguments for your position.

[MyContext]

@philosophizer149 Arguments cannot be claimed to be evidence without something that is presented to allow substantiation of the argument. The case against the Abrahamic god claims are such that I will call it fiction. If whatever claim of god lacks support, it is effectively an empty claim. I have had the displeasure of reviewing the claims all of which are vacuous for the same reason - no support.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 You cant argue things into existence, and its actually beginning to piss me off that people think they can.

The Kalam argument is ridiculous... completely stupid. It says that the universe started (which is flipping obvious as we live in it) so god exists. I to this day just cant see the logic in this claim at all. Maybe im stupid, maybe I dont have philosophical training, but I know if I was in a court and wanted to prove something to the jury, they would want evidence.

[MyContext]

@philosophizer149 I suggest you study probability. If you have an unknown, you can't say that it is 50%, since, you have no basis for a probability claim. Arguments do NOT give any basis for probability of anything that one would wish to claim to be real WITHOUT something real as a basis for the statical claim. Your assertion is totally unfounded.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 Are yo kidding me?

A lack of evidence makes something 50% likely?

Are you sure about that. So is the chance of the leprechauns who have magical powers and cant be detected by humans 50% likely?

Its getting difficult to respect your viewpoint now, as its heading into absurdities now.

I already showed you why lack of belief is not a belief (this is just common sense, as well as being a factual statement) and now you say any possible infinite proposition is 50% likely.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 you: 'No, I'm saying that nobody debates whether or not there are invisible leprechauns is because nobody believes in them' - so truth is derived from people simply agreeing on it, without any bearing on evidence?

no offence, but you would be a terrible scientist.

[philosophizer149]

@TheSelfishAltruist no again you misunderstand what I'm saying. If something is debated, that means there is a difference in opinion, so if there is no difference in opinion, then that something isn't going to be debated. Whether or not the opinion is true is irrelevant in this case.

[MyContext]

@philosophizer149 It is ABSURD to make a truth claim of anything wherein there is NO support for the claim. We don't bother because there is NO basis for such vacuous claims. The only reason the question of god requires redress is simply due to the number of people who believe the fantasy and want to affect/effect others with their fiction. I wonder how many claim belief for the purpose of milking the gullible.

[philosophizer149]

@MyContext Really so what evidence do we have that the external world is real? If you don't want to do the hard intellectual work of researching arguments and defending your position fine, but don't resort to merely asserting that belief in God is a fantasy and a delusion.

[MyContext]

@philosophizer149 I guess we could call the REALITY that we experience delusional. However, given that this reality is the only thing that we actually know (however poorly that may be), any suggestion of ANYTHING beyond this must be a complete fantasy. Since, we have nothing by which to make a claim of ANYTHING else - now do we? If you have indeed studied philosophy you are aware that vacuous arguments are easy to construct.

[MyContext]

@MyContext In case you missed it...our interaction is proof of something existent. Unless, you believe I am a figment of your imagination? NOTE: I am not saying there is nothing to your question, however, I am pointing out that your question creates a bigger challenge to claims that have NO support.

[ninetailschris]

@MyContext

" any suggestion of ANYTHING beyond this must be a complete fantasy" Wait what?You do realize that there are thermos that there could be world beyond this world?Metaphysics? Quantum Physics? Do these ring a bell? Why are making statements in which directly conflict with science unless your a expert at physics? You are just giving your personal opinion right now.

[MyContext]

@ninetailschris The comment was in reference to reality. Any suggestion of ANYTHING beyond this reality must be a complete fantasy, if one is questioning the reality in which we live - in spite of the limits of our senses and understanding. Or put another way: What basis do we have to claim anything, if we question the reality that we have as to whether it is existent or not.

[GOOdGuyGreg1]

@MyContext well said

[GOOdGuyGreg1]

@philosophizer149 no the rejection of a belief is not a belief. saying 'we would have seen footprints' is just stupid. you are the one making the claim that there is the god. we are simply saying provide evidence. none has been provided. therefore i have no reason to believe. im not saying there is no god. im saying there s no reason to believe. because i dont deny that a god could exist means that it is not a belief.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@philosophizer149 the TV word got in there by mistake.

[GOOdGuyGreg1]

@philosophizer149 because your hate towards atheism is unjust, just like i dont hate christians even though the large majority of them are retarded. atheism isnt against any religion, it is the rejection of religious beliefs. people are entitled to their views of the world yet you d go as far to say as you hate them?

[philosophizer149]

@GOOdGuyGreg1 notice I said atheism, not atheists. I'll put it like this we should hate lies right? So if I believe that theism is the truth, then I will in turn believe that atheism is a lie. Thus if I hate lies I'll hate atheism, plain and simple, I would expect that every atheist hate theism as well. But of course that doesn't mean we hate each other. And I'd like to see the evidence that most Christians are retarded.

[GOOdGuyGreg1]

@philosophizer149 when i say retarded im speaking figuratively obviously. a lot of them are shocking at arguing but i dont just assume when i meet a christian that they are going to be similar. and studies have been done showing a direct correlation between atheists and IQ being above the norm. there was also a test in america that shows that atheists know more (on average) about the christian religion than actual christians. and 60% of americans interpret the bible literally which is stupid.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@GOOdGuyGreg1 Im against religion, but my atheism is actually irrelevant to that fact.

Yes, Atheists tend to be against religion in various forms, but its not inevitable.

Jesus was against religion... for example.

[Appletree34]

your music is getting heavier and heavier. what happened to the sweeping ambient chords and sampled classical motifs of your previous vids?

[AdversusHaereses]

This is why I stick with classic music...

[M3PanoS]

Lol, the question at the end was classic...just pure classic.

[turquoiseguy]

What a load of crap! What do you expect him to do, read through the lyrics or research the views of any band or anyone he shares a stage with to be absolutely certain there is not something he would want to distance himself from? The fact that the band uses that line doesn't even mean they support the act, but regardless, that doesn't mean only bands or people with the same views should share a stage with them. Unless Richard Dawkins ever said that he supported it, your point is baseless.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@turquoiseguy

BS. If you share a stage with someone you need to make it clear you are distancing yourself from them. The band should also make their position clear prior to this event. If a Christian shared a stage with a racist are you telling me you would be just as generous in your reading of the event? Of course not - so don't BS us with such hypocrisy.

[turquoiseguy]

@TheCartesianTheist If someone shared a stage with, for example, a political activist group that endorsed such acts, then I would expect them to distance themselves from the views of the group of face scrutiny. However, the band is about music not the lyrics, that it completely different, and I would not scrutinize them for it. The band may be anti-religion, and Richard Dawkins is too, they are in agreement there. He shouldn't have to knit-pick lyrics they use.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@turquoiseguy

The whole event is making a political, cultural and philosophical point - duh!

"...I would not scrutinize them for it."

Of course not! Because you're not thinking carefully enough.

[turquoiseguy]

@TheCartesianTheist Pardon me if I am wrong, but I am assuming the point of the event was some kind of promotion of atheism. It probably never dealt with the idea of burning synagogues once. That just happened to be something written by the band who opened it, its irrelevant to the even and Richard Dawkins. I myself support plenty of bands with violent or extremist anti-religious messages, but that doesn't mean I support the messages themselves.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@turquoiseguy

I think you're failing to see that Richard is speaking immediately after the band he's sharing a stage with. Most public people with reputations to protect would not put themselves in this situation and send out confusing messages by implication. Which is exactly why he ought to distance himself from them before sharing a stage with them at an event which clearly is sending some sort of atheist message.

[turquoiseguy]

@TheCartesianTheist If someone is to judge him on this, not for what he may have said in his speech, but because he spoke after a band that has a line about burning synagogues in one of their songs, they are being unfair and unreasonable. Moreover, its not like the band has some explicit message to burn synagogues and holy books, that is just one line that you knit-picked from a song of their's. If they explicitly advocated such acts, I would see you point more.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@turquoiseguy

I completely disagree with you. I think if atheists like him want to be taken seriously they ought to avoid sharing stages with people who have a reputation for inciting religious hatred. Any self-respecting politician would be smart enough to.

[TheAwesomeMaths]

@TheCartesianTheist Hi CT, I was wondering what is your view on Dan Barker, because I saw that he is very popular with the atheists on Youtube.

[BoethianAcolyte]

I think this is testament to the plunge Dawkins has taken. Could you imagine William Lane Craig going to speak before a Demon Hunter conference, what the atheist reaction would be? It's basically a worldview masturbatory fest.

[cguevara12]

These eMo bad boys that want to burn synagogues should hit the road jack and don't come back no more, no more, no more, no more.

[DCDUO]

Funny how the bandwagon is going currently! Even other atheists are trying to distance themselves from Dawkins and Hitchens to make themselves seem more legitimate when they themselves would be something of a mirror image in a set debate.

[jfrontier1]

I find it interesting how I as a Christian am supposed to denounce any call to arms against any atheist line of (non)thought yet will Dawkins call for this band to stop calling for the burning of Holy Books. If I compare what this group does to what Stalin and Hitler did (with words, not deeds) would I be called out for it? And yet They can say and do whatever they wish? I as a Christian am just supposed to put up with this crap. Typical atheists nonsense.

[SPR4GOD]

@jfrontier1 I agree. I would suggest David Hart, as 'the atheist delusion' is written in such a way that makes good use of rhetoric without being outright profane.

[jfrontier1]

@SPR4GOD The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Fesser is also a good read. Thanks for the suggestion. Blessings to you.

[GOOdGuyGreg1]

@jfrontier1 richard dawkins doesnt support burning books, nor does any atheist. i want to make that clear. that is not an atheist, that is an antitheist. there is a big difference. his 'call to arms' simply relates to problems such as government endorsement of a particluar religion or public displays of religious beliefs whilst forbidding atheistic public displays. richard dawkins would not condone book burning/persecution of any religion at all.

[philosophizer149]

@GOOdGuyGreg1 Well Richard Dawkins is about as antitheistic as you can get, he says belief in God is a delusion, a disease of society that must be purged.

[GOOdGuyGreg1]

@philosophizer149 and i completely agree with richard dawkins. if you look at it statistically, (assuming one is correct), 99% of all religions of the world or even 100% are all wrong. and when you look at all the evil that has come from it (in my opinion drastically outweighing the good), you ll see how evil it really is. but i dont go around trying to ban religion because i respect peoples rights to believe what they want. i think what they believe is stupid though.

[jfrontier1]

@GOOdGuyGreg1 Atheist and antitheist different? Not according to the email I get. Atheists send me the most vile emails and they claim they are atheists, not antitheists.

The point is not if dawkins would burn books but if he would call out those who would speak of it.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@GOOdGuyGreg1 How can you speak for all atheists. i guarantee some atheists want to burn books, as well some non astrologers... I think people really need to thinnk a bit more about what an 'atheist' actually is.

The label only exists because religion exists. Being an atheist does not assume anything, unlike e.g. being a Christian (e.g. praying, and believing in Jesus's resurrection)

I personalyl dont like the label, but accept I need to use it to explain my position.

[GOOdGuyGreg1]

@TheSelfishAltruist no, the majority of atheists that arent retarded extremists dont want to burn books. christopher hitchens himself said 'if i had the chance to abolish religion, i wouldnt. not as long as people are still afraid of death, afraid of the unknown, afraid of the dark and afraid of each other'. i know what atheism is. i speak for many (not all). the book burners are extremists. all groups have extremists.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@GOOdGuyGreg1 Stalin was an atheist and burnt a lot of books.

My point is that atheism is not a thing, and you shouldn't get dragged into a debate where people claim it is, because it confirms it for them, and they say things like 'how can you prove atheism is correct' - which is a non sensical statement.

[GOOdGuyGreg1]

@TheSelfishAltruist hitler was a roman catholic. whats your point? stalin burnt books in order to continue his dictatorship? it had nothing to do with his atheism and his atheism didnt have anything to do with the deaths of all those people. and i dont think you understand what an atheist is. how can you say its not a thing? its a view that, since there is no evidence at all of gods existence, then theres no reason to believe in one, or that it would make itself present to us.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@GOOdGuyGreg1 I do understand what atheism is, because I am one.

[Labetolol45]

Dawkins is such a hypocrite, and so are his minnions. There are intelligent and respectful atheists out there but they do not belong to the Dawkins camp.

[nymphrenic]

You should include the full text of the lyrics, because I looked them up and I really can't tell if the song is giving a call to burn synagogues and holy books, or if it's just attributing these events to religious conflict. I kind of suspect the latter, since the rest of the song seems to be the same old boring atheist tune about how religion is the cause of all ills.

[nymphrenic]

@nymphrenic If the song's intent is not clear, and it's not to me, then the full text of the lyrics could give people the opportunity to decide what they think the song is trying to say. Just a suggestion. :-)

[ahfa53]

As is the case with "free thinkers" and liberals...this is simply metaphoric speech or a hyperbole and freedom of speech or thought. But, when it is a theist, conservative or libertarian it is "hate speech", zealousness, racism and dangerous!

[TheAtheologian]

@ahfa53 I suspect you might be referring to my comment, and honestly I disagree. I have never held any theist to any different standards than any atheist on the topic of freedom of speech, but if I ever have it is skewed to the other side. It is only ever dangerous when Imams tell people to murder, or when WBC genuinely hates homosexuals. Otherwise I simply view theists comments, when based on god, as absurd and often humorous.

[ahfa53]

@TheAtheologian I was not referring to any comments, sorry if I posted in the middle of a discussion. I was simply replying to CT's video. Your view on theists as absurd and humorous is exactly how I view atheists and liberals view when they want to discus morality..."absurd and humorous".

[TheAtheologian]

@ahfa53 Oh, I'm not trying to take that away from you, in fact, I wholly suspect and endorse being viewed as completely insane by people who disagree with a topic so encompassing as this. In fact, I am often called insane for topics less encompassing than this.

And sorry for assuming your comment was related, it simply seemed to mirror my statement that this was a metahorical text all to perfectly.

[TimelessApologist]

@TheAtheologian

You said "Actually in the documentary "Faith School menace" he says the exact opposite, namely that he likes religious education in that it teaches us a vital part of the heritage of our country."

Perhaps you should stop being so gullible and put more emphasis on "actions" rather than "words". Dawkins will play nice when he has to, but his actions show otherwise. You remind me of a WWE fan...

[TheAtheologian]

@TimelessApologist That wasn't actually a portion of my argument, it was more a support for CT for expecting him to distance himself.

However, I would posit that he never actually demonstrates any desire for destruction of religion in a literal "burn Bibles" way. His actions always make him an ardent antitheist, but not at all a violent one, or even a physical one.

So no, his actions support the hypothesis, as CT also noted.

I am not familiar enough with WWE to see the similarities unfortunately

[TimelessApologist]

Dawkins is a cult leader, liar, promotes hate, layman philosopher, bad husband, overrated scientist, devotes his life to anti-theism to offset his meaningless existence, propagandist, biased, bigot, and last but not least a Coward.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

Keep up the Good work. Check out Pillar "frontline" for our anthem;)

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Well this was a pointless video.

[Randomicity912]

Well, Dawkins wrote in the God Delusion that he doesn't believe any atheist would bulldoze Mecca or destroy Buddhist temples (despite the fact that atheist states routinely destroyed religious buildings), so obviously it can't be meant literally otherwise they're not "real atheists" (whatever that is supposed to mean.) I also find it funny how they picked Aiden. I could think of better atheist/anti-Christian bands. What's the matter, are Dimmu Borgir busy?

[TheAtheologian]

@Randomicity912 Tbh, the real atheists comment is one that I hear soooo much, albeit reversed, from my christian friend xP (I have two really good friends, and I don't really care what my other firends believe, I'm not that isolated I only have one Christian friend)

Atheist states is something I woul be wary of using if I were you. Were I a lesser person (I am, I'm just currently lazy) I would've leapt at that comment and had a little rant.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

@Randomicity912 I think you are confusing atheism and communism on your first paragraph. Not to mention that there is such a thing as christian communism. I also doubt that'd want to use a band that promotes satanism, as some religious people already try to shoehorn that in with communism as well.

[TheAwesomeMaths]

@Requiemxtoxinnocence I hope you are kiding when when mention 'christian communism' because no country had such a thing. All the communist contries, who wanted to destroy religion, where atheistic.

[LouGojira2]

Whatever happened to Dawkins supposedly being "busy"? Sure seems like he has a lot of free time to me.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@LouGojira2 EPIC!

[TheAtheologian]

Actually in the documentary "Faith School menace" he says the exact opposite, namely that he likes religious education in that it teaches us a vital part of the heritage of our country.

In this case I think it should be mentioned that you probably should hold these "Atheist emos" to the same standard as you did Tim Minchin. They function as entertainers, and as such their lyrics will be metaphorical, in that they advocate the destruction of religion, and therein the symbolism is quite accurate.

[Randomicity912]

@TheAtheologian I could think of better atheist entertainers, such as Stewart Lee. Stewart Lee is my favourite comedian, and I'm not even an atheist. Music wise, they definitely could have done better, such as Otep, Arch Enemy, et al.

[TheAtheologian]

@Randomicity912 I'm not saying they're good, even I don't like that kind of music, but they are not being overly absurd, and therefore nor is Dawkins.

Also, I have somehow, without any intention, found that almost all my favourite comedians are atheists xP

[nymphrenic]

@TheAtheologian Like who? The only atheist comedians I know of are Henry Rollins and Carrot Top.

[TheAtheologian]

@nymphrenic George Carlin, Dara O'Briain, Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr and Tim Minchin to name a few. Those being some of my favourites, at least at the time of writing, though Carlin and Dara have been for a long time.

[nymphrenic]

@TheAtheologian Yeah, I forgot Carlin, he was pretty funny sometimes. The other names don't ring a bell, though.

Most of my favorite comedians are theists or at least affiliate themselves to theism of some sort, like Jewish or Catholic. The only comedian I'm certain believes the religion he identifies with is Colbert. But people like Denis Leary, Bill Murray, Jon Stewart, Conan...no idea if they believe their religions they identify with or not.

[TheAtheologian]

@nymphrenic Actually it should be noted that almost all of my favourite comedians are British, which might explain why they don't ring a bell. For example I could list Hugh Laurie, but I suspect he is more recognized in House, rather than A Bit of Fry and Laurie (Stephen Fry, another favourite). Ricky Gervais is on the list too, most people know him, and alot of other obscure Brits.

[nymphrenic]

@TheAtheologian I didn't know Hugh Laurie was a comedian, I knew he was pretty frickin' dreamy, though. That man ranks among the most good-looking men I've ever seen. I used to be addicted to House back when it was a good show, but then it devolved into a lame soap opera, I quit watching because it got so soapy it really ticked me off.