To the part he had about reality and how we perceive it or if we are in it at all. What if instead he said, " If we are going to decide which is more likely to be true, then following history as we know it, the simpler explanation is most likely the correct answer."
It requires a lot more explanation if we are not in reality and in the matrix. SInce nothing is perfect, (again debatable but if we take my premise then for something to be perfect requires an explanation that we have yet to see in our history) wouldn't there be glitches within the matrix? Have we perceived any?
To make the explanation of a matrix for what we are experiencing is just much less likely than that we are in reality now. Not saying it is impossible but very unlikely.
Just like the Schrödinger's cat for Einstein's question on whether the tree was there once you looked away, there is a possibility that the tree is no longer there, but the odds are heavily in favor that the tree is still in fact there and has not instantaneously moved its location while you had turned away.
Going to god, while at first of course only a being beyond our understanding could have created all of this. Well right off the bat we made a big assumption that there is a being, without proof, as opposed to that there is no being who created all of this. Which also has no proof. However by saying there is a god then there is the creation of a being, requiring much more explanation for the same results. By saying that there is no god requires no explanation that is contradicting our physical world as we perceive it, thus requiring less explanation and a greater chance of being correct. The best chances for a god lie in one statement that no religious entity follows, that there is a being and that is it. As soon as you put a code of morality and any idea beyond that requires even further explanation which makes the likelihood of it being correct less and less with each statement made beyond the base that there is a being.

I believe Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration has great value. Toleration is necessary to operate in a world of different perspectives and divergent interests. Is it condescending? I think one must make an assertion that their opinion is superior to another's in a way which belittles the opposition. One must suggest/imply that the person you are in disagreement with is not only wrong but incapable of understanding... IMHO...

Tolerance can be condescending, but don't you think it can also be 'I'm not changing your mind, your not changing mine. Let's agree to disagree and get on with life'?

Not much, actually. Not one of his better rants. Although I did like the "I feeeeel it so it must be reality even if I can't explain it or prove it" bit.

I agree with the main point: tolerance is condescending. But I have no problem being tolerant and I can live with someone else's arrogance.

Penn Jillette has been big with many libertarians and even some Objectivists. His inconsistency costs him some fans, though. I liked his burning of the flag skit. It is a Las Vegas number you can find on YouTube, but it was also in a "West Wing" episode.

One thing though, watch his body language from about 5:00 to about 5:20. Though he says that he gets along well with Fundamentalists, he is shaking his head, no.

His contradictions are his own. The magic acts were always cool.