Oh no, I’m too aggressive!

Could this guy be more wrong? Here are a couple of choice passages I couldn’t help but comment on (as I’m sure most of you will dissect the rest).

As crusading atheism is sort of a cause today, it is popular, I don’t want to say among scientists, I mean that’s too general and it isn’t so.

Is it ironic for a Christian to use the word “Crusade” when talking about atheism? I sometimes wish these clowns would study their own history. It would make them abandon such a word. The Crusades were one of the bloodiest, savage and murderous campaigns in human history. To compare men like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to Crusaders is a false equivalence. Comparing professional sectarian murderers with academic debaters is not only insulting; it’s just plain stupid.

I think human beings have faced hard challenges. The Second World War was a difficult a crisis as mankind ever will face. Fifty million people died, humanity teetered on the edge.

Actually, Steven Pinker has a fantastic presentation on the myth of violence, in particular this idea the Second World War was the bloodiest and most savage conflict in human history. Yes, many people did die, but compared to the mortality rates of other ancient conflicts, the odds of being killed by your fellow man in WWII was much lower. We are living in the most peaceful time in the history of mankind, and yet we’re constantly thinking the opposite.

State paganism was preached aggressively by Hitler-ite Germany, which despised Christianity as much as it hated Jews; didn’t hate Christians as people, but it hated Christianity.

Yeah, the Reichskonkordat seems to contradict your retarded statement, Dave. For anyone unfamiliar with this treaty, it was signed only 6 months after Hitler took power, and it’s still technically valid today. The Concordat made the Holy See of Rome the only official religion of Germany. Hardly sounds like paganism, does it?

If you want a “second opinion”, there’s a great video by notinmyname2050 disecting all of these terrible arguments.

Comments (6)

  • avatar

    I evolved from an ape, whats your excuse?

    I love how these types of people talk, the words they chose, they way they want you to think that they are intellectually omnipotent. Retarded man with Retarded ideas.

  • avatar

    Aphaniptera

    To compare men like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to Crusaders is a false equivalence.

    While I doubt that the speaker really meant to draw an analogy between New Atheists like Dawkins, and literal crusaders, it is worth pointing out that language of that sort only does more to widen the divide in public discourse. The umbrage you took over his use of the term, as well as your subsequent dismissal of any point he might have made, demonstrates exactly how divisive it can be. “Polemical atheism” seems accurate enough as a characterization of New Atheist campaigns, and lacks the sort of negative connotations that erect further barriers to a genuinely productive, public discussion on religion and atheism.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    I keep hearing this bullshit about the “discourse” being so aggressive on the atheist side. Honestly, you would think that pointing out irrational ideas was tantamount to waterboarding. What is the public discourse on religion anyways? That people should be taught absurdities for the sake of tradition? That these absurdities somehow maintain social cohesion, without which the world would collapse into chaos?

    If only we lived in a world not made less miserable by religion, then I would have a different opinion on the matter of discourse. As it stands, politeness in the face of cruelty, barbarism and inhumanity is of no interest to me. If he worse that atheist like us ever inflict upon you is our vitriol, than so be it. No one ever said the process of abandoning superstition wasn’t going to be messy.

  • avatar

    Danny S

    The comment about atheism being “aggressive” is just embarrassing. Perhaps the far-right racists types would behave if we didn’t bully the poor souls and point out how ridiculous their arguments are? You can’t blame the accuser for highlighting the bad deeds of the accused. Backwards logic.

    If the wrong-doer engages in abhorrent thinking they deserve to be told as much. I’ve never heard any angry atheist rhetoric which has been nastier and more divisive than the religious with their “you’re going to hell” type of bs.

  • avatar

    agentsmith

    Where should I start?

    First he makes the old bullshit implication that “wisdom” and morality can ONLY come from religion and the Bible.

    Then he violates Godwin’s Law by mentioning Hitler and Nazi Germany, obviously trying to draw an analogy between atheism and Nazism.

    And it’s the very height of irony for him to say that atheist scientists take advantage of people’s ignorance.

    Plus he incorrectly uses pagan as a synonym for atheist.

  • avatar

    Michelle

    I’ve seen this video on youtube; I’ve never seen so much bullshit and mistakes in one video before; seriously…if this guy is going to criticize atheism at least do a research and get the facts straight or else a lot of crap will come out of his mouth and that’s exactly what happened there.

    I even left a comment on the video critique made by notinmyname2050 about “crusading atheism”:

    Crusading atheism? Sure…every sunday morning I go from house to house with Richard Dawkins’The God Delusion under my arm to make religious people listen the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or the Invisible Pink Unicorn)to preach about atheism and convert them into non believers.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top