Flakey New Age "Liberal" Atheists

If you believe wholeheartedly the teachings of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Brian Sapian and other such "scholarly" atheists and if you sincerely believe that their ideas will create a new age of tolerance and a better place to live I really ask atheists to reread their texts and ask yourself this question over and over again. Is this tolerant? Is this truly open-minded?

And is this whole notion of political correctness really making the world a better safer place to live in?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheist
• Atheism
• Religion

[hamlit00]

Because MLK was not an Atheist we must conclude black civil rights are wrong??? explain yourself...

[NeuroCross]

@hamlit00 My point is to satrically point out to the niche of atheists on youtube that subscribe to the mental health model that if theists are crazy then the obvious conclusion is that the reasoning of all theists are flawed. The fact that MLK was a theist, then atheists who believe theists are mentally retarded and can't come up with anything of merit must disbelieve what he stands for to be consistent in their reasoning in this case black civil rights.

[cfotoole]

Yikes, I don't really have enough room to address all the nonsense in this video. Who are you arguing against here? Because you don't address any of the arguments Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins make in their books. It sounds like you read the back cover of each, and maybe a review right before making this video. You look really foolish to anyone who's read the whole things. There are arguments to be made against them, but these are not those arguments.

[NeuroCross]

It's a satire. The point of my video is simple. Don't let your atheism contradict itself or the morals you stand for. That's an illogical belief system. Don't hate Christians for being Christians and don't lump all religions or religious individuals in one basket. It is hate not religion that is the basis of irrational thhought.

[breligion]

Dude, you are starting this entire video with a strawman argument. You are not speaking on behalf of atheists, you are making generalized "atheist" arguments which not even Dawkins has said. There is a big difference between MLK and Christian missionaries. One was to end racism in a democratic nation. The other has the goal of converting people, using food as a bribe. And had you ever read Dawkins, you would know he explains why altruism happens and it does fit evolution.

[Pope2501]

God on Trial.

[Vegetoacs]

@NeuroCross Are you sure this is satire dude? You seemed pretty serious with other user's comments. Also, much of Dawkin's argument against religion deals with the uncompromising way it asserts itself over others, and claims to be fact without evidence, yet flatly denies actual fact that contradicts it's teachings, to the point where the vehemently oppose scientific progress that marginalizes the realm of "God" with each new discovery. He's also quite against indoctrination of children.

[08ablenku]

good job

[pernch]

Wonderful

[NeuroCross]

By his standards of reasoning and evidence. I'm sorry but as circular reasoning is the fallacy Christians tend to committ, atheists tend to commit and not reconcile the if by whisky fallacy whereby their though is rendered illogical.

[scoglan]

I've read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. How is he dogmatic? He goes out of his way to say that some of his assertions cannot be definite where there is not enough evidence -- and instead examines probabilities instead for these cases (again based on evidence). As for intolerance -- he only shows intolerance for those ideas that can't be defended using reason and evidence.