• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why The Monotheistic God Is Too Improbable To Believe, Even On Faith

StridentPolemic

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
An annotated video detailing some of the more trenchant Atheistic and secular arguments against monotheism in existence. Some of these arguments are too powerful to ignore. I'm sure a few of these have been belabored in the forum already, but this is rather succinct, and in a short video delivery.



-
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is not a good case for disproving the existence of God.

This video is a makes a good case for proving that Abrahamic-religions were created and written by people no different from you or me; that they probably imagined or created their version of God, rather than scribe honest testimony. The Old Testament God has the personality of the average man living at that time, just as the Qu'ran vision of God has the personality of people living in that time and place.

I'm actually a closer to being a Deist than an Agnostic. I believe proof of an Intelligent Designer can be found in nature itself, and can be seen and examined through science and critical thought. It's absurd to think that illiterate or delusional people living thousands of years ago can tell me more about "God" than simply beholding the world of all Creation with my own eyes.
 
Last edited:

StridentPolemic

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is not a good case for disproving the existence of God.

This video is a makes a good case for proving that Abrahamic-religions were created and written by people no different from you or me; that they probably imagined or created their version of God, rather than scribe honest testimony. The Old Testament God has the personality of the average man living at that time, just as the Qu'ran vision of God has the personality of people living in that time and place.

I'm actually a closer to being a Deist than an Agnostic. I believe proof of an Intelligent Designer can be found in nature itself, and can be seen and examined through science and critical thought. It's absurd to think that illiterate or delusional people living thousands of years ago can tell me more about "God" than simply beholding the world of all Creation with my own eyes.
The aim of the video only claims to show how improbable a monotheistic god (religious god) is, explaining what else you have to believe, in order to accept it, hence the title of the thread and video, so no argument there. We agree that it demolishes the idea that a religious god is probable or plausible.

I'd be curious, however, to learn how you arrived at the belief there is a deist god simply by looking at things, though. Although I'm open to arguments about deism, I have my doubts about it as well. We know nothingness is coming, we know death of our entire planet is one day assured (Andromeda galaxy in collision course with our own, also the sun will inevitably get too close), so that alone casts some doubt on the idea. But if there is a kind of artificer or ultimate creator, I certainly can't imagine it's the Sistine chapel envisioned bearded robed man in the sky. I could easier envision an alien race as our universe's designer.
 
Last edited:

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Usually, deist arguments come off as discomfort over ignorance about the nature of the universe around us. Because some people are uncomfortable not knowing how things work, they insert some form of god into the equation to make it all seem a bit more plausible, but that really has nothing to do with how things actually work and everything to do with making ourselves feel better about it. The whole "look at the trees" mentality really does nothing to understand the true nature of reality, how it came into being, etc. It's a feel-good patch designed to say "aha! I've figured it all out, now I don't have to think about it anymore!" But in reality, doing so simply makes you stop looking for the real answers because in your mind, you've already found them. Imagine how life would be today if medicine had stopped looking for cures to disease by saying "all disease is caused by demons"?
 

Geo Patric

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
not really worth the effort to argue the existence of god... just though i would drop in and point out that 'monotheistic' means believing in one god.

a monotheistic god would be a god that believes in one god. kinda obvious, dontcha think? I mean, he would know. or... did you mean "monotheist's God"?

nemmine,
geo.
 

HBKDXfan

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
29
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
the first commentator in the video made the comment that the Bible doesn't have any mention of DNA, infectious disease, etc. But the Bible does actually give evidence of scientific truth. For example:
-The Bible describes the suspension of Earth in space:
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space. He hangs the Earth on nothing.
-The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical:
Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the Earth And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
-The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure. The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago.
So the Bible actually does have proof of scientific facts, the only holy book to do so. There are many more passages that can be quoted in this instance...
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
The aim of the video only claims to show how improbable a monotheistic god (religious god) is, explaining what else you have to believe, in order to accept it, hence the title of the thread and video, so no argument there. We agree that it demolishes the idea that a religious god is probable or plausible.
Just to clarify the word "monotheistic" means "One Diety," or "One God." So, no... technically a "religious" vision of God and "monotheism" are not necessarily the same thing.

But I can see how we basicaly agree about the faults of religion itself. I'm not arguing that point.
I'd be curious, however, to learn how you arrived at the belief there is a deist god simply by looking at things, though.
The word "deist" means someone who believes in a God, without subscribing to religion.

Many of our Founding Fathers were deists, such as Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. People living in America at that time were escaping religious persecution from the Church of England (as well as the tyranny of the British crown). Deists simply believe in an Intelligent Designer, or Creative Origin, or Mother Nature, or whatever you want to call it. Some intelligent force that set the universe in motion. The "evidence" can be seen in the intelligent decisions made in evolution, in plant and animal eco-systems, in the perfection of mathematics and physics--the 'magic' of thought itself. The seemingly "designed" patterns in the world and beyond. But as I said, I'm also partial to Agnostic beliefs, since the evidence isn't "overwhelming." But it's there.
Although I'm open to arguments about deism, I have my doubts about it as well. We know nothingness is coming, we know death of our entire planet is one day assured (Andromeda galaxy in collision course with our own, also the sun will inevitably get too close)
The death of a star or planet is not "nothing." In the universe, matter is transformed into energy and energy is transformed into matter.

If and when the Andromeda galaxy collides with our own, new possibilities will become available--even if the "earth" itself is transformed into something else.
so that alone casts some doubt on the idea.
Life and death and transformation are simply the laws of nature. I don't think that's "proof" that the system itself was not "designed" by a thinking force. On the contrary.
But if there is a kind of artificer or ultimate creator, I certainly can't imagine it's the Sistine chapel envisioned bearded robed man in the sky. I could easier envision an alien race as our universe's designer.
I agree.

By definition, any "God" in any philosophy would be "alien" to the planet Earth, since it did not originate here. So either way, an "alien" intelligence is behind it all.

Get my drift?
 

HBKDXfan

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
29
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
technically, if alien life created it, it would not be alien because it was created by so called "alien intelligence" so would the "intelligence" not be akin to us? if we were designed by "alien intelligence" would the aliens not be like us? and why would the aliens make us differently? God made us in his image. Easy answer.
 

First Thought

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
6,218
Reaction score
1,859
Location
DFW, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Usually, deist arguments come off as discomfort over ignorance about the nature of the universe around us. Because some people are uncomfortable not knowing how things work, they insert some form of god into the equation to make it all seem a bit more plausible, but that really has nothing to do with how things actually work and everything to do with making ourselves feel better about it.
How did you reach such a conclusion?

The whole "look at the trees" mentality really does nothing to understand the true nature of reality, how it came into being, etc.
Admiring physical reality and life whilst turning off one's thoughts is quite an enlightening experience. Try it sometime.

It's a feel-good patch designed to say "aha! I've figured it all out, now I don't have to think about it anymore!" But in reality, doing so simply makes you stop looking for the real answers because in your mind, you've already found them.
Again, where are you coming up with this? I see little more than assumptions.

Imagine how life would be today if medicine had stopped looking for cures to disease by saying "all disease is caused by demons"?
Imagine what life would be like if people ceased becoming so heavily entrenched in their positionalities.
 
Last edited:

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This doesn't give a decent reason for anything, except of course to say people who think this is a decent reason to believe anything are gullible.

I really love the "atheist countries are better off" strawman. Sure, you know let's just ignore that many of the same countries have higher suicide rates. Japan is primarily atheist and their suicide rate is so high it is by itself higher than the U.S. suicide rate and homicide rate combined, amazingly the fact they have essentially no access to guns whatsoever doesn't stop them.

Also, you should totally ignore any and all deeply religious countries that are right up there with them in rate of development.
 

StridentPolemic

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Just to clarify the word "monotheistic" means "One Diety," or "One God." So, no... technically a "religious" vision of God and "monotheism" are not necessarily the same thing.
"Theism" creates the religious context here. The god goes from being inaccessible (the deist's god), to being a god professed to be known, dictated through theology in theism.

The word "deist" means someone who believes in a God, without subscribing to religion.
I'm quite familiar with the difference between deism and theism. I authored this list: Why There Is No Theistic God

Many of our Founding Fathers were deists, such as Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. People living in America at that time were escaping religious persecution from the Church of England (as well as the tyranny of the British crown). Deists simply believe in an Intelligent Designer, or Creative Origin, or Mother Nature, or whatever you want to call it. Some intelligent force that set the universe in motion. The "evidence" can be seen in the intelligent decisions made in evolution, in plant and animal eco-systems, in the perfection of mathematics and physics--the 'magic' of thought itself. The seemingly "designed" patterns in the world and beyond. But as I said, I'm also partial to Agnostic beliefs, since the evidence isn't "overwhelming." But it's there.
I'm sorry but nothing about this is compelling to sell me on the idea of a creator entity/conscious artificer. It's more of the same as you said before. Because we're accustomed to being able to attribute things to a maker, lights, chairs, cars, etc. the natural impulse is to explain that we got here by design. Because things seem so complex to you personally, or you can't imagine any other way, doesn't make it any more plausible that there is a creator.

You're projecting your subjective perceptions and representations of reality onto a scientific question that doesn't benefit from subjective views, or wish-thinking.

By definition, any "God" in any philosophy would be "alien" to the planet Earth, since it did not originate here. So either way, an "alien" intelligence is behind it all.

Get my drift?
This is a fair point. I would agree here, but have still yet to see more plausibility added to the supposition of a creator. I think if we better defined what a creator was we might find we're talking about the same thing when it comes to creation. It might be more helpful to throw out the word "god" altogether. It carries too much mythological baggage with it than is helpful.
 

StridentPolemic

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This doesn't give a decent reason for anything...
Good. So you're able to answer how god didn't avail himself in the lives of millions spanning 100,000 years or more. Love to hear it.

Also, it seems you've figured out this god's motives for creating a situation where people choose their religions on an accident of where they're born. This should be interesting.

I really love the "atheist countries are better off" strawman.
I think you should forget the straw man claim, and acknowledge the red herring you're introducing here. The two major problems the tenability of monotheism faces that I posed to you above make up the crux of the video.

But indulging your somewhat strange sidestep for a moment, Harris' point was that all relevant factors that concern life are better in Western European countries. They still stand. Not sure why you'd introduce Japan. It isn't in Western Europe. But since we're on suicides by country (per capita) you may want to look here: List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A single person difference on average annually between Norway and the US isn't worth mentioning, especially considering so much more of Norway is rural, isolated, etc. ie: I would have expected more.

The kicker here is even if we were to say all of these suicides were caused by a religion or lack of it, which of course they're not, the top country on the list is a Christian country (80% population is Eastern Orthodox). I can't imagine how you'd see that would help your argument.


-
 

First Thought

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
6,218
Reaction score
1,859
Location
DFW, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Good. So you're able to answer how god didn't avail himself in the lives of millions spanning 100,000 years or more. Love to hear it.
God extends a helping hand for those looking for one. How are you reaching the conclusion that God has ignored us for 100,000 years?

Also, it seems you've figured out this god's motives for creating a situation where people choose their religions on an accident of where they're born. This should be interesting.
Karmic propensities decide where one incarnates.
 
Last edited:

First Thought

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
6,218
Reaction score
1,859
Location
DFW, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I guess you didn't actually watch the video.




-
I'm posting from my phone and it's video streaming ability is disappointing, to say the least.

However, my question was directed at you and how you reached your conclusion.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'm posting from my phone and it's video streaming ability is disappointing, to say the least.

However, my question was directed at you and how you reached your conclusion.
Maybe you ought to get somewhere that you can watch the video before you start asking people things based on it.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
technically, if alien life created it, it would not be alien because it was created by so called "alien intelligence" so would the "intelligence" not be akin to us?
Nope. "Alien" simply means something not originating from here.

People born in Canada are "aliens" when they come to America.
if we were designed by "alien intelligence" would the aliens not be like us? and why would the aliens make us differently? God made us in his image. Easy answer.
You can look like a human and still originate from another planet.

Easy counter-argument. "God" wasn't born on Earth in any religion or belief system.
 

StridentPolemic

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm posting from my phone and it's video streaming ability is disappointing, to say the least.

However, my question was directed at you and how you reached your conclusion.
The Hitchens hypothesis you're unwittingly referring to explains how in order to be a theist (in this instance he's referring to the monotheist's god of Abraham *Any adherent of the "big 3" religions) you have to believe that man, humans, walking upright on the planet for at least 100,000 years before the advent of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, before the Bronze Age, never got a god. In other words, since the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims wasn't around until 2000-4000 years ago (respective each religion), then that god couldn't have availed himself to humans before then, which is at least 100,000 years (likely longer than that even). This is a problem if you want to believe you're dealing with an omniscient, benevolent god, who cares what religions you follow. It makes belief in Judaism, Christianity and Islam ludicrous. In Hitchens' words "It can't be believed by a thinking person."
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
"Theism" creates the religious context here. The god goes from being inaccessible (the deist's god), to being a god professed to be known, dictated through theology in theism.

I'm quite familiar with the difference between deism and theism. I authored this list: Why There Is No Theistic God
Fair enough. I thought there was some confusion about that, my mistake.
I'm sorry but nothing about this is compelling to sell me on the idea of a creator entity/conscious artificer. It's more of the same as you said before. Because we're accustomed to being able to attribute things to a maker, lights, chairs, cars, etc. the natural impulse is to explain that we got here by design. Because things seem so complex to you personally, or you can't imagine any other way, doesn't make it any more plausible that there is a creator.
I don't think you really understand my position on the subject.

I'm not trying to convince you that the universe was designed, I'm not convinced myself. I didn't say there was unquestionable evidence, I said there was some evidence of a design in certain patterns in the universe and seemingly "intelligent" decisions in evolution. You also might want to avoid assuming my thoughts and conclusions if you don't know them, just ask. It makes a poor argument to presume you have a window into my mind, which we all know you do not.

I'm a skeptic, as I made perfectly clear in previous posts in this thread. But also know that nature has a "trial and error" process with evolutionary adaptations and most of them are simply amazing. There is a system in place, of that no one can deny. It's very possible that there is no "entity" behind the intelligent processes, but rather a kind of natural "collective" comprised of every living cell in the world, each cell sharing information through electrical signals that we don't entirely understand.

A butterfly evolved an adaption of a "face" pattern on it's wings. How did the butterflies cells know what a face looked like to make that adaptation? A zebra's stripes break up their silhouette from a distance, but how did a zebra's cells know how to design a pattern that created an optical illusion from a distance? I'm open minded about what the answer to that question is--but it's something beyond what modern science can tell us. Is this some form of cellular telepathy? If we can send invisible radio waves through empty space, I don't see why cells cannot communicate across vast distances.

Maybe this system can exist without any "supervision." Maybe the ecosystem itself is self-governing? I do not presume to understand.
You're projecting your subjective perceptions and representations of reality onto a scientific question that doesn't benefit from subjective views, or wish-thinking.
Again, don't pretend you have a magic window into other peoples thought-process. I'll correct you: what I'm doing is speculating.
This is a fair point. I would agree here, but have still yet to see more plausibility added to the supposition of a creator. I think if we better defined what a creator was we might find we're talking about the same thing when it comes to creation. It might be more helpful to throw out the word "god" altogether. It carries too much mythological baggage with it than is helpful.
Alright with me.

I honestly don't think any living thing could have survived the Big-Bang. Perhaps if there was a creature of the universe, it died in the process.

What I'm concerned about is the process of nature that can be observed and studied here on Earth. To a lesser extent, I'm concerned with the patterns we can observe in the known universe, the Fibonacci sequence in a spiral galaxy, or a whirlpool, a sea-shell or a flower. That's not proof of intelligent design, but it is proof that similar rules are used throughout nature and it's not all entirely random. It's an organized system, comprised of seemingly chaotic elements. The organized elements are not proof if a governing-intellect, but the chaotic elements are not proof that such a premise is impossible. Suffice it to say, you can't prove a negative.

I'd be willing to debate the possibility that either nature is governed by "some kind of intellect" or whether it's a result of chaotic elements that arrived at evolutionary success by chance. If you want to make an argument that there is no sign if intelligence in the processes of nature, I'd be happy to listen and debate against that argument. I'm not sure if that's your position or not, but let me know where you stand.
 
Last edited:

First Thought

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
6,218
Reaction score
1,859
Location
DFW, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe you ought to get somewhere that you can watch the video before you start asking people things based on it.
The question was not based on the video, but rather about a specific individual and how he reached a conclusion.
 

First Thought

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
6,218
Reaction score
1,859
Location
DFW, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Hitchens hypothesis you're unwittingly referring to explains how in order to be a theist (in this instance he's referring to the monotheist's god of Abraham *Any adherent of the "big 3" religions) you have to believe that man, humans, walking upright on the planet for at least 100,000 years before the advent of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, before the Bronze Age, never got a god. In other words, since the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims wasn't around until 2000-4000 years ago (respective each religion), then that god couldn't have availed himself to humans before then, which is at least 100,000 years (likely longer than that even). This is a problem if you want to believe you're dealing with an omniscient, benevolent god, who cares what religions you follow. It makes belief in Judaism, Christianity and Islam ludicrous. In Hitchens' words "It can't be believed by a thinking person."
Or you could use Occam's Razor and deduce that different cultures are trying to explain the same thing in their own words and customs.

It seems we do agree on one thing: I, too, think it silly that some people think God cares what religion you subscribe to.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Good. So you're able to answer how god didn't avail himself in the lives of millions spanning 100,000 years or more. Love to hear it.
How do you know he didn't? I am sure an all-powerful deity who made the universe is fully capable of helping us without our realizing it.

Also, it seems you've figured out this god's motives for creating a situation where people choose their religions on an accident of where they're born. This should be interesting.
If you just tell people what the answers on the test are they'll never learn now will they?

I think you should forget the straw man claim, and acknowledge the red herring you're introducing here. The two major problems the tenability of monotheism faces that I posed to you above make up the crux of the video.
There is no red herring, it is a claim the video makes. Attacking a claim the video explicitly makes is perfectly legitimate, and also serves to challenge the credibility of the work as a whole.

But indulging your somewhat strange sidestep for a moment, Harris' point was that all relevant factors that concern life are better in Western European countries. They still stand. Not sure why you'd introduce Japan. It isn't in Western Europe.
Actually, the point was very explicit that the least religious countries are better off.

But since we're on suicides by country (per capita) you may want to look here: List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A single person difference on average annually between Norway and the US isn't worth mentioning, especially considering so much more of Norway is rural, isolated, etc. ie: I would have expected more.
Funny, I seem to recall him mentioning more countries than Norway.

The kicker here is even if we were to say all of these suicides were caused by a religion or lack of it, which of course they're not, the top country on the list is a Christian country (80% population is Eastern Orthodox). I can't imagine how you'd see that would help your argument.
It has nothing to do with lack of religion causing anything,. The whole point is that claims of religion being a negative thing in society based on cherry-picking countries that fit the claim is a blatant propaganda technique. For instance, three of the top five countries in the human development index are dominantly Christian.
 

HBKDXfan

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
29
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Nope. "Alien" simply means something not originating from here.

People born in Canada are "aliens" when they come to America.

You can look like a human and still originate from another planet.

Easy counter-argument. "God" wasn't born on Earth in any religion or belief system.
Exactly. God was before all. There would not be any planet, universe, galaxy, etc without Him. and why would the aliens "look" like humans if they were not. Find life on another planet and/or find any alien writings to verify this "alien intelligence". I have my Bible (which actually has serious historical and scientific proof backing it up) so with your seemingly easy "counter arguments" try to irrefutably back up you ideals please. Waiting for it =)
 

HBKDXfan

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
29
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And since we are on the subject of being "improbable", why not put up some evidences as to how the thought of the big bang theory are improbable? the thought of two random molecules randomly colliding with each other and randomly (word of the day) producing enough energy to create a WHOLE UNIVERSE is mind boggling in and of itself. (excluding the alien intelligence theory, which is rather frustratingly easily defeated by the question "If the aliens created the universe, who created the aliens?" and if you say the big bang then you say that the aliens are NOT the creators) And many big bang theorists like to ignore the law of cause and effect. But it is of no consequence, my Bible tells me exactly how the universe was created. Advantage: the guy who actually KNOWS what he thinks instead of saying "it's not probable" or "I might accept alien intelligence". me =)
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This doesn't give a decent reason for anything, except of course to say people who think this is a decent reason to believe anything are gullible.

I really love the "atheist countries are better off" strawman. Sure, you know let's just ignore that many of the same countries have higher suicide rates. Japan is primarily atheist and their suicide rate is so high it is by itself higher than the U.S. suicide rate and homicide rate combined, amazingly the fact they have essentially no access to guns whatsoever doesn't stop them.

Also, you should totally ignore any and all deeply religious countries that are right up there with them in rate of development.
i would be interested in what happens to those numbers once you are willing to admit the officially athiestic countries of North Korea, China, and the former Soviet Union into the mix.


as for the movie itself, well, it will have those who want to agree with it shaking their heads in agreement and thinking to themselves how blindingly true it is and how wise and intelligent and scientifically inclined they are for agreeing with it etc.; but it's a pretty poor case.

a couple of notes i jotted while watching:

the main speaker either has no idea what the bible is, or he chooses to decieve his audience on the subject; neither of which is particularly commendatory given that he's attempting to discuss it in a rational/scientific light. the portions of the Bible that were spoken by God are generally printed in red. the rest are (inspired, but still) human authors attempting to explain what they have come into contact with; the text's dependence upon language and it's authors makes it ultimately as limited as they are; so far as i am aware no major Christian sect seriously contends that the Bible was dictated verbatim by God. now, the Muslims do believe that; so he is half-right there, but remains wrong in his characterization of the Christian Bible.
as an add-on to this point, it is worth noting that there are some simply amazing parts of the Bible that seem downright eerie given the current modern scientific understanding of the universe. most creation myths involve anthromorphic solar bodies (the sun and the moon hook up and have a baby earth), or something similarly creative - as i recall the Sumerians thought we were living on the body of a dead god. peruse the creation myths of various cultures if you like, you'll find either similar items or variations of steady state assumptions. the creation account in Genesis is unique in that it parallels the scientific account. Science teaches us that first there was not simply 'nothing' but 'no-thing'; not even the possibility of a thing because there was no time nor space for it to be in; and then there was a massive explosion of energy-light. that then the energy solidified and became stars, that the earth was formed, that it was covered in water for some time, that the landmasses formed, that photosynthentic life formed, followed by animal life, followed by the development of eyesight, followed by an explosion in the number and diversity in water-based life forms (cambrian, as i recall), followed by the development of land animals, followed by the development of man, who lived in a natural state for a period of time before developing what we call civilization. Genesis tells us that first there was nothing. then there was an explosion of light followed by the development of the stars and earth, which was covered in water for a time, developed land masses, saw the introduction of photosynthetic life, followed by the development of animal life, followed by the development of the ability to discern night from day (gee, sounds like developing eyesight), followed by the explosion of water-based lifeforms some of which (the bible tells us and science confirms) were huge, followed by the development of land animals, followed by the development of man, who lived in a natural state for a while beforedeveloping civilization.

now, you expect me to believe that the author of Genesis got lucky? hmmm....

the claim that monotheists aren't open to debate is downright silly, demonstrated first off by the participation in this forum, but also by at least the last two millenia of human history. Christianity was spread in it's origins and is still spread today by sending people forth to give reason for their faith; and Christians are enjoined in the New Testament to stand ready at all times to do just that. a desire not to engage in debate on what one prefers to believe is true is a human trait, not a 'monotheistic' one. go ask Al Gore to debate global warming with you and you will see what i mean.

the notion that any random book in Barnes and Nobles will contain more wisdom than the bible is fairly ludicrous, as demonstrated if nothing else by the fact that the vast majority of humanity simply doesn't find it so; but demonstrated also by the fact that the average book in Barnes and Nobles is a spin-off of Star Wars.

for that matter, it's illuminating how they claim to be attacking monotheism; but instead must attack the Bible.... as though the two were one and the same. not that it's as much their fault for making the error (it's the same one i've seen most athiests make), as it is for refusing to follow up and correct - Christians, so far as I have witnessed in my short two and a half decades among them, generally do not believe in God because the Bible tells us to, we read the Bible because God tells us to.

as for the "what about before Jesus came" etc. argument about humanity before Judeo-Christianity; Paul handles this: before they came into contact with the Law, they had the Law imprinted on their hearts. we, all of us, have a concience. we recognize on some level Right and Wrong, and this recognition is seperate from our competing instincts, it is seperate from even all of our social upbringing (thought it is heavily tied to it). who get's into Heaven and who does not - do not concern yourself with these things, but work for the Kingdom here on Earth in love.

the "who created God" bit is itself a fallacy; yes, something can be a cause of other things without being a cause itself if it exists outside of time; this would be what we would call "self-existant", what the Bible (whose authors had no clue as to Einstein's theory that space, matter, and time are connected) described as the "I Am". indeed, if anything were to be a First Cause it would by definition have to be self-existant and uncaused because it existed without time, which did not exist until the Big Bang.

for that matter, the entire video seems to be an exercise in begging the question and creating strawmen fallacy. but, again, it will serve it's real purpose, which is to speak to those with whom it is already in agreement.
 
Top Bottom