"If it's not enough that belief in a divine being is improbable, but it's actually laughable."
The idea that an all-loving being who did nothing for 100,000 years while humans suffered from war, famine, disease, birth, childbirth, teeth growing in, etc and then decided to intervene in the Middle East about 2000 years ago by offering his son as a human sacrifice and calling it love is ridiculous. People who believe that God sends miracles on the sides of sauce containers are laughable (There, happy? I'll make fun of them).
Do you say that the existence of leprechauns is improbable? Do you say that Thor's existance is improbable? Do you say that it's improbable that Elvis is back from the dead? There are all supernatural claims that should be put in the same ark with Jesus and God. We should reject all of these claims because no good evidence, argument, or reason has been put forth by the people making the claims.
Why should religion get a special spot on the discussion table where we can't question and poke fun at it?
"It's the same when you speak to a fervent believer...they're right and you're wrong!" and more on "arrogance"
Again, we're not believers. Anyway, our reasons for claiming that "you're wrong" are much different than those of believers. First, the burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate God's existence since he/she is making the claim. If you're talking with a "fervent believer," this isn't the case unless the believer claims that his/her god exists. What are we right about, anyway, other than our position in not accepting theistic claims? We aren't even arguing that our position is right, but rather are countering the claims of theists.
Again, why should religion have any different rules for discussion? If we're having a discussion about the members of the Village People, you claim that there was a disco dancer, and I ask you to tell me why you believe this, why am I considered arrogant or "fervent?" If you don't provide good reasons to back up your claim, you simply "lost" the discussion at hand. I may tell you that I'm very confident that there's no disco dancer because I've listened to their music, was a big fan of the group, and know that the members are comprised of a cowboy, electrician, police officer, Native American, biker, military man, and construction worker.
Am I considered arrogant for this?
"Fundamentalist Atheists"
I already discussed this with the "dogmatic" claim.
"Science...the only tool for understanding...the way, the truth, the light"
Science doesn't claim this at all. It is, though, the best tool for understanding about our physical universe. Why cast doubt on science, anyway? It's our most reliable method for testing and finding out information about our universe. Science, unlike religion, is self-correcting.
"Science may not be as far from religion as you imagine"
The core of science is a demand for solid evidence, intellectual discussion, peer review, and honesty. Science puts hypotheses to rigorous tests in the scientific method and represents our best way of knowing things about the world we live in. Can religion do this for us? All or most religious ideas simply stop at a hypothesis and claim “you have to have faith.” Why should we have faith? Why should we believe things on no or insufficient evidence? Why is this considered noble to do so? If we don't have evidence to support something, the rational response is either “this is not true” or “I don't know.” Science immediately discredits hypotheses that are either wrong or backed by no evidence, yet religion embraces and says that belief without evidence is virtuous.
"Temple to Science"
Here's more trying to compare science to religion.
"Which option you take, god is no god, is a matter of choice because there's no scientific evidence either way."
Wow. This might be the worst comment in the video yet. Belief in a god isn't simply a matter of "choice." You don't "choose" to believe or not believe, but rather (I hope) examine the claims and make a decision...not because "there is no evidence either way." Unfortunatly, the belief is forced onto many people in childhood, but that's a story for another day. The lack of evidence for God actually favors the position of the atheist.
Many theists feel that science cannot “test” religion and that science can not “disprove” God. Science can certainly test religious claims through its own methods. Science can't not disprove God – and no one can disprove anything – because it is impossible to do so. An infinite amount of possibilities such as unicorns, trolls, celestial teapots, Santa Claus, and faeries can't be disproven, but do we say that science can not disprove them and continue to believe? Do we say that because they can be possible that we should not cease belief? Do we say that we need to or should have faith in the celestial teapot? We do not believe in faeries because there is no evidence of faeries and the arguments put forth by fairy believers are insufficient.
"Theoretical Physicist...now a priest...god stands apart from the world"
Argument from authority. The author uses this person's position to cast doubt...but what does the priest say...something very, very unscientific "the non-existence of God would be scientific and knowable." He also makes terrible arguments from complexity. Couldn't they get a priest who actually understands the arguments against God?
"Scientists who believe in God are dualists ... I don't see that as a contradiction."
Another ignorant comment about science and religion.
Religious ideas and scientific ideas are clearly in conflict because both systems of knowledge make overlapping claims. If religion proposes specific claims about our universe (virgin births, resurrections, miracles, prayers can work, or that the world was created by an intelligent designer), these claims can be tested by science. Any claim about our natural and physical world, according to the definition of science, ought to be subjected to scientific examination. For example, the mere idea that humans were created in their present forms less than 10,000 years ago is a claim that directly opposes what we know about cosmology, physics, geology, biology, anthropology, and archeology. If this claim were true, all of what we know about the world through the lens of science would be demonstrably false and we would have to revise everything. Fortunately, this is not the case. Fossils and radioactive dating show that the earth is significantly older than six thousand years. Science has shown that intelligent design and creationism are false and has found no sufficient evidence to attest to the claims of prayer, virgin births, resurrections, or miracles.
"You can't live by cold logic alone."
Appeal to emotions and a false claim...also notice the weasel word "cold."
Atheists don't live by "cold logic alone," but rather use logic, rational thinking, and skepticism to find out about reality.
"I can't be a 100% atheist."
The author quote mines Dawkins here. Dawkins explains that he can't be totally sure about God because the claim would be ridiculous to make for him. He explains that he's the same way with God and faeries - no evidence, no belief. The author fails to explain the missed parts. He's trying to cast doubt on atheists and make them look like we not sure. We're sure; we don't accept the claims of theists. If we were not sure, we wouldn't be atheists.