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.