Bill Maher v. Youtuber

The second video feature a fairly "together" Christian, but he brings up several issues that have always interested me. First, is basically the name-calling he both criticizes and engages in. He refers to the word "condescending" but you will often here the word "arrogant" used to describe an atheist. Now, I can see how someone might be confused into seeing both people as arrogant, especially many non-religious people. However, there is a critical difference between the kind of the things Atheists say that are termed condescending or arrogant and the things that religious people say that are termed arrogant. An atheist might say something like "Religion is silly." The thing that makes this NOT name-calling is that it is an accurate description of reality, that can be backed up with logical argument. It is not name-calling to call someone a Nazi if they hate Jews and their favorite book is Mein Kampf. It is name-calling to call someone a Nazi simply because you disagree with them. If you ask an atheist why they believe religion is silly, they might say something like, "Well if you believe in an invisible being that sometimes talks to you in your head and sometimes performs magic, none of which you have ever witnessed, just calling him God doesn't make that not silly." A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, and silly by any other name is just as nonsensical. I'm not saying religious people are always wrong, but I am saying that just because a person tacks on "that's my belief" to the end of a statement doesn't make it immune from criticism. When someone says God is one and God is three (as in the holy trinity), the fact that it is their "belief" doesn't make it any more coherent. One dog cannot be three dogs at the same time, in fact nothing in the known universe can be both one and three things. Now the obvious response to this is that God is different. Yes, that might be true, but the more nonsensical the statement, the higher the burden of proof, and yet they refuse to meet even the lowest burden.

If you listen to the end of the second video, the youtuber explains why he is not being condescending, and from experience, this is a fairly typical response. His answer is essentially that he is not being condescending, because he is right. People who do not "know" Jesus (What is Jesus' favorite color? What's his favorite Christian rock band? Or does he like alternative or rap instead because despite God having their back Christian rock universally stinks) are, in fact lost. And many people want us to say, "Well that's his belief, let him have it." And many of the same people say, "Well the atheist shouldn't be so outspoken." But in the end the religious person is only saying, "I'm right because I say so," while the atheist (or non-religious person) is saying, "I'm right because reason and logic which I can demonstrate to you (so long as you don't metaphorically cup your hands over your ears and scream "la-la-la-la") why I'm right. And yet many people want us to reward the former? They might as well be telling us to shoot ourselves in the head. They might as well tell us to kick our reason to the curb. Magic is silly, reason is enlightened, anything else is an abortion of sense.