If atheists treated Christians like many Christians treat atheists...

[orangebox21]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0A_iF1B3k0

I found this great gem as well, by my favorite YouTuber.

Kudos on the stereotypes, they were pretty spot on. The Baptist was more of a Southern Baptist but other than that pretty funny mockery. Honorable mention to the guy going to hell for 'cutting me off in traffic', the 'say what' response to the scientologist as a segway to the Pentecostal speaking in tongues, and 'put the fighter jet down'. Funny stuff.

---

Three lines of thought. The first is at 0:44 when the theist says, "We can't all be wrong." This is a fallacious argument and if atheists think this is an accurate representation, then they are either not very well read or intending to set up a straw man. At 3:56 the atheist responds to this assertion. The atheist asserts that God's message should be clear. This assertion implies that because there is no such clarity, God does not exist. This argument is akin to the theist claiming 'we can't all be wrong'. Both are equally fallacious.

---

Secondly at 2:40 the atheist asserts that each theist's beliefs were shaped precisely by the culture in which he/she was raised. He contradicts his own argument by saying there are exceptions. But for the sake of argument let's accept that the theist only believes what he/she does because of the culture in which he/she was raised. I'll quote, slightly modified: "Suppose we concede that if I had been born of Muslim parents in Morocco rather than Christian parents in Michigan, my beliefs would have been quite different. But the same goes for the atheist...If the atheist had been born in Morocco he probably wouldn't be an atheist. Does it follow that.... his atheist beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process?" If the criteria for determining our beliefs is dependent upon the culture we were raised in, then the theist and the atheist have both come to their conclusions by the cultures they were raised in. The atheist has no better reason with which to make his/her assertion than the theist does. Both beliefs are pre-determined.

---

Thirdly, at 3:12 the atheist makes the assertion that 'the truth' does not behave the way religion does (generally remaining within cultural borders). He says that 2+2=4 everywhere as an example of a universal truth claim. Three lines of thought here. First, I think the atheist has drawn a false analogy. Certainly 2+2=4 in every country. It is equally true that the words written on the pages of the Bible do not change because the book crosses cultural boundaries. The problem isn't with the universal truth claim, it is with the interpreter. Secondly, given that:

1. Numbers are universal.
2. Numbers are abstractions.
3. Abstractions exist only within a mind.
Therefore a universal mind exists.

To what universal mind is the atheist appealing to in order to make the truth claim that 2+2=4?

Lastly, at 3:56 the atheist asserts that God's message should not be left to be spread by corruptible and fallible men. The entire message of the atheist, including the message that 2+2=4, is delivered by a corruptible and fallible man. This argument is self refuting.

---

To respond to question before the pause at 4:22. The initially created being did have it right in the beginning. But sin entered the world, and having been given entry, changed man to be corruptible and fallible.

So why doesn't God correct everyone's mistakes and set the record straight? It's a fair question. I can speculate, but ultimately I don't know. But certainly our mistakes and/or perceived divisions wouldn't be proof of His nonexistence. If you really need an answer, I would suggest asking Him.