Let’s say that there really is a god. Whether it’s the Christian god, which frankly it cannot be anymore, we can’t prove that there is no god but we can prove that it’s not that one, the one from the Bible, that one does not exist, we know that for certain. If this god were a reality you would want to know, regardless if it was the Christian god or some other higher version of a god, perhaps one that men have not conjured up yet or maybe it’s a Hindu god, we don’t know, it doesn’t really matter. If there is a real god and it’s a thing, it is reality; I would want to know that. I as a rationally thinking person meet a believer and that believer comes to me and brings evidence, and if it’s real he would have it, if it’s real it would not require faith. The fact that belief does require faith more or less proves that it’s not real, but let’s imagine for the sake of argument that it is. This believer comes to me and brings reasons and the reasons that he gives are compelling, now these are not going to be subjective reasons, these reasons would be things that they would be able to share and convince me also. If they were to bring me these reasons and I realized that I was wrong I would change my mind because rationally minded people are open to idea that they are wrong. As a matter of fact I have to assume at the onset that I have to be wrong about something, somewhere and the only way to improve my perspective is to find the flaws in my current perception and correct them.

Meanwhile, religion insists that its perspective is the absolute and infallible truth, engrained by divine guidance on a first impression, psychically somehow. Religions have oaths and creeds of one sort or another, statements of faith wherein they admit that they will reject any and all evidence that stands against them even if it is evidence that they have never heard of or hasn’t yet been discovered, they have already rejected it without consideration.

AronRa is an atheist vlogger and activist. His videos focus on biology, with an emphasis on countering creationist claims, and advocating rationalism in science education. He also posts written material on his blog.

A caller presents a moral argument for the existence of a god and Matt completely breaks down the flaw in such arguments.

 

Matt Dillahunty (born March 31, 1969) is a public speaker, internet personality and the president of the Atheist Community of Austin. He hosts the live internet radio show Non-Prophets Radio and the Austin-based public-access television show The Atheist Experience.  This entire episode can be watched from their archives.

Anti Atheist wrote:

explain to you . you must be kidding. it is a matter of faith and as we all know you do not believe in that
let me ask you a qustion. if you were standing at the bedside of your critically ill son whose life hangs in the balance who do you turn to?
i think we have answered your question

I would turn to the trained medical professionals who have spent years being educated in the science of medicine. They would be the only "who" to whom I could turn because imaginary invisible beings, being ethereal, do not qualify as a “who”.

Assuming I were in your position and believed in an all knowing god.  Logically, that god would already know if my son were going to live or die. That god would have already decided if it were going to intervene and save my son, regardless of my how much I asked that god to intervene. Praying to that god is therefore pointless.

Assuming my son were ill and assuming that I worshiped a god which actually existed, why would that being allow my son to become critically ill in the first place? Assuming that god created everything that exists, why would he have created pathogens that are constantly try to kill us or given us bodies capable of forming terminal cancers? Is god just a child with an ant farm? Does he toy with us and place us in circumstances to see if we will turn to him as you do?

Is God willing to prevent my sons suffering, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then why is my son suffering? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why would I call him God?

When you assert an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present god that created everything in existence it makes no sense whatsoever to turn to that being for things like critical illness.  That being is ultimately responsible for creating the problem in the first place.  That being knew when created everything that the person for whom you are praying would be in that very position and apparently decided to do nothing to prevent it.

Now, there is no doubt a psychological effect which may reduce the stress of dealing with a loved one the verge of death.  It may make you feel better to convince yourself that a magic sky wizard can intercede on your behalf and save your loved one from dying.  However just because something makes you feel better does not make it true.  In fact I would argue that it could possibly make things worse because you will inevitably have cases where the loved one dies in spite of dozens of people praying that they live.  How do you explain that?  Did god not care? Was he busy?  The most common answer I have heard is that the death was just part of gods plan. Well if that’s true and god is going to do whatever the hell he wants to do anyways, then why the fuck even bother praying in the first place?

Humans get sick, some die, it’s a fact of life. It wasn’t until a few centuries ago that science began give us the tools needed to do something to prevent some of those deaths. So you can do what our ignorant superstitious ancestors did before the advent of medical science if you like and you think it makes you feel better, but make no mistake. The only thing that will actually do anything meaningful to save the life of a sick or injured family member are the actions of well trained men and women who have attained enough knowledge to diagnose the problem and set about fixing it with the tools of science.

Anti Atheist wrote:

at first i thought i might apologize but since you constantly have to insult the side that believes in faith i wont. sorry ass christain aren’t i

What you mean to says is that at first thought you might apologize but since your religiously motivated hatred for those who refuse to accept your claims is so strong you will not.
You still cannot distinguish ridicule of the belief from ridicule of the person. You might avoid feeling so falsely insulted if you could start to manage that.
Don’t let your conscious bother you to much.  I know your angst is motivated by your religious indoctrination, it doesn’t bother me.

Cyclist wrote:

I have met several atheists over the years and the one common theme is they all are convinced that they are the smartest ones in the room. In reality, some are intelligent but for the most part, most are not that intelligent, they just spout someone else’s ideas and thoughts.

johnheadPlease let me clear up this misunderstanding of yours and explain why your conclusion is flawed. I’ll admit that in a room full of religious people it’s hard not to feel like the smartest person in the room but smarts, whereby I mean intelligence, is not the problem. I have said over and over again and I’ll say it once more, I AM NOT CONVINCED AND DO NOT THINK THAT I AM SMARTER THAN YOU.(I do think I am smarter than Anti-Atheist but he went out of his way to proved that)Intelligence is not measured by someone’s ability to construct original thoughts and idea, if that were remotely true then every single religious person would be disqualified. All they spout are the ideas and thoughts of 2000 year old biblical authors.

Cyclist wrote:

As I said some that I’ve come across are very intelligent. You seem to be someone I would put in that group. However, most that I have come across are very condescending and dismissive of people who are believers. As if those who believe are somehow less intelligent or gullible.

A good rule of thumb for me…if one has to try and prove how smart they are or if one feels the need to use ridicule as a part of their argument, they are probably not that intelligent.

johnheadYou’re half way correct. Condescending and dismissive are apt terms but those terms apply to the belief itself, not the believer. This is one of the biggest hurdles I’ve come to face in debating this issue over the years. Believers like you find it nearly impossible to separate yourself from your belief.I responded with condescension toward your belief in the supernatural because science and reason is superior to superstition and wish thinking. I respond dismissively toward your belief because in the absence of good evidence or logical argument there is no reason to take your belief seriously.

I respond as much as possible to YOU with understanding and concern because I use to be in your shoes. I use to regurgitate all the lame and debunked creationist clap-trap about intelligent design this and random chance that. I wanted to believe what my parents and grand-parents and preachers told me was true because why would they lie. Then I realized that they were not intentionally lying about anything, there were simply passing on what they were taught as children. They were never taught to think critically but rather to simply believe it without question on authority alone.

Nobody is trying prove anything about how smart they are to you or anyone else. You do not even know my real name so what the hell good does it do me to convince you I’m some sort of genius, I mean just think about what you’re saying. I don’t give a damn how intelligent you think I am. I am trying to give you the simple tools to think critically. You don’t have to subject yourself to an imaginary being, you can be good on your own accord and not be afraid to live your own life and think your own thoughts free from the tyranny of an invisible celestial dictator.