I decline to watch, but wow, seems like buttons are being pushed.

False reasoning! What a fool!

burden of proof: arguing with someone's unproven claim, for which that person has the burden of proof, does not place the burden of proof on the person pointing out that the claim is unproven. example: me: i can fly! you: you cannot fly. me: prove i cannot fly! nope, sorry, the burden of proof is on ME, for claiming i can fly. your challenging me does not shift the burden onto you.

blind faith: a book written by someone who never met the subject of the book and did not even live in the lifetime of the book (we're ignoring the fact that the book later turned out to be forged anyway) is not "evidence." i may as well cite the hobbit as evidence (feel free to make up something that the hobbit is evidence OF). nor are, for examples he cites, the concept of love or the conscience evidence of the existence of a god, much less of the christian god. this guy is obviously not a lawyer (and doesn't watch tv unless john hagee is on) since he has no clue what circumstantial evidence is. if you're caught standing over the body with the knife in your hand, dripping the victim's blood, and you were heard an hour ago saying "i'm gonna KILL that guy," that's circumstantial evidence. deciding not to murder anyone in your whole lifetime is not circumstantial evidence that there is a good, because people who never heard of the christian god also usually go their whole lives without murdering anyone.

when did an atheist say s/he didn't have a world view? and what is this asshole talking about with "sacredness?" ah okay here it is: "evil disproves god." some atheists, especially recently enlightened ones, grumble something about that, but that is not the basis for atheism.

what is the new atheist movement? and when did it say science disproves god? nothing disproves god (except common logic). no one is trying to disprove god. everyone is too busy trying to disprove the tooth fairy!

and when did we argue that religion doesn't promote scientific advancement? we have lots of arguments against religion. we can even say that religious PEOPLE (not necessarily religion itself, as religion is not all the same -- although this guy seems to think that christianity is the only religion around) sometimes stand in the way of science. but most of our beef with religion is twofold: it's ridiculous because it centers around a nonexistent being and it's invasive and intrusive because for the most part its main interest is self-perpetuation.

as for "who created god?" -- answer the question, lad! don't just go saying christianity has the most logical answer. it most certainly does not.

we should stop saying stupid, brainwashed or indoctrinated people turn out to be theists. sorry, i've seen some atheists claim theists are stupid but i've also argued with those people and most of us don't go around saying that. we may claim religion is stupid but rarely that theists are stupid. but brainwashed? indoctrinated? we're not going to stop saying that because it's TRUE... although there is a difference between a theist and a religionist. theists don't bother me. they do their thing. religionists try to make ME do their thing. meanwhile, iq has nothing to do with anything.

he's begging us to do our own research, and refers us to a biblical account. he also in passing says we hate god, which is stupid, because everyone knows we actually hate the tooth fairy.

g