Answering The Friendly Atheist: 22 Reasons To Stop Believing In God?

As a growing apologist, directly answering the opponents of Christianity is something we defenders are required to do. Hemant Mehta’s 22 reasons to stop believing in God has convinced many to begin questioning their religious beliefs. Although skepticism is healthy, I’ve found it can often lead to some head-scratching conclusions.

If the first thought to come to you is “Why is he holding a banana?” you’d be right if your next thought is that this video really isn’t meant to be taken seriously. However, many do, so we’ll see how strong these reasons are before casting judgment.

1. If God knows everything we’re going to do in the future, we don’t have free will. But we do. If God doesn’t know everything we’re going to do in the future, He’s not really omniscient.

The first reason Mehta gives is a supposed contradiction in Christian theology. However, the assumption behind this is based on a false premise. I don’t believe we possess free will in and of ourselves, rather it is a gift from God that allows us to break free from sinful chains into the freedom of salvation. With this established, knowing if the person will receive the gift or not hardly effects the act of offering it. Thus the second point is mute.

2. God couldn’t stop a murder when there were only 4 people on Earth!

Obviously, this dives into the argument of evil, which I don’t get too much into as it has been addressed many times over. One thing I would say is that no obligation exists for God to stop any and every murder that takes place at any given moment. It also assumes a modern view of love rather than Biblical love, which I address here. In addition, I will direct readers to this article by Glenn Miller in regards to God’s intervening on our behalf.

3. If we’re supposed to be God’s special creatures, then the universe is full of a lot of wasted space.

I’m not quite sure I understand what Hemant is implying with this one. For one, it seems strongly inconsistent with other arguments Hemant has used against religion. If a religious person says he has all the answers and a scientist humbly says “I don’t know” if he doesn’t yet know the answers (according to Hemant), why is he portraying absolute knowledge that the universe is “wasted space”? It could very well be serving a vital purpose science hasn’t yet discovered and we should give it time to find it out before making assumptions. Strange how arguments can change based on agenda….

4. The myth of a great flood and a virgin birth were around long before Jesus. Maybe those elements just make for a good story?

Before I answer this I’d like to point out this video is just under 2 years old at the time of writing this rebuttal. This argument is hugely ignorant and has been shown as such many times over throughout the last decade. A little research into the supposed “pagan influences” is enough to refute this. The comparisons are hardly identical as this exhaustive list shows. None come close.

5. Virgins can’t get pregnant. Not without modern medicine, anyway.

This argument misses the mark simply because it argues against the virginal conception, a one-time miraculous event never to be repeated. In addition, it’s validity is tied into many historical truth claims and proofs  (i.e. the Resurrection).

6. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin? Christian. Barney Frank? Not a Christian.

I’m not one for politics so I’m not too aware of who these folks are. Anyhow, this objection is pretty dumb. Many acts by Christians are hardly representative of the Christian doctrine itself. It’s simply a lazy cop-out from doing the legwork to see what Christianity itself says.

7. Isn’t it weird that God seems to agree with you about everything? And isn’t it weirder that God seems to agree with Christians who disagree with you about everything?

This is just another wording of the argument of Christian disunity, which I’ve already tackled here.

8. If you ever wrote a book with that many contradictions in it, your publishers would have to pull it from the shelves.

This is the argument of Biblical errancy. I’m not an advocate for inerrancy myself, but I do believe the Bible is true and historical. I’ve yet to find a contradiction that can’t be harmonized with a little exegesis and scholarly research. If Hemant believes there are unsolvable contradictions, he needs to provide the evidence, which he hasn’t done. In addition, I’ve dealt with a few contradictions myself, and I have many more on my list to address.

9. If God made us in His image, why do we have vestigial body parts and organs that often fail?

This goes back to that strange inconsistency in Hemant’s reasoning. Just because we don’t know how something works hardly means it doesn’t serve a purpose. I’m more than certain if there is a body part we are unsure of, science will find the answer. I’m honestly not sure why Hemant is undermining the very thing he advocates apart from satisfying an anti-religious agenda. Also, the fact that our bodies disintegrate over time hardly means we weren’t made in God’s image. Hemant is implying that that verse tells us we are God’s physical mirror. That is false. The phrase “Made in God’s image,” simply means we are representatives of His work. Its says nothing of physical condition but of action.

10. 99.9% of all the species God created are extinct. How many do-overs does God need?

Somehow I doubt that percentage is accurate. The Genesis flood wasn’t a “do-over” but a revelation of sin’s end consequence. If it was simply a do-over I wouldn’t think God would wait two hundred years in order to save possibly everyone on earth.

11. God doesn’t exist because I said so. What, you don’t like that reason? Because that’s pretty much the same reason pastors and parents give to kids to convince them that God *does* exist.

This isn’t much of a reason either, and it conveniently excludes the well-read apologists and scholars who do give evidence for Christianity’s truth to their children.

12. The Holocaust

This is a repeat of question 2 on the argument of evil, so we needn’t address this again.

13. The proof people often give relies on their personal experiences — they felt God. God spoke to them. They just *know* God exists. It’s the sort of proof we’d never take seriously if it were applied anywhere else.

I agree with Hemant here. Subjective experience isn’t solid evidence for Christianity. That’s not to say it should be ignored, but rather than seeing it as conclusive evidence itself, it should be seen as supportive proof for what’s already established: the truth of the Resurrection. However, I have to fault Hemant for his purpose in bringing it up. It does no good to use a strawman as an argument to stop believing in God.

14. Too many of God’s followers, using Bible verses to support their actions, have made life worse for other people.

Please refer to the answer for argument 6.

15. No matter what Ray Comfort says, bananas weren’t created to look like this. They evolved this way without God’s help.

This is where the banana comes in. The argument is since we formed bananas a certain way (he corrected his mistake in the video, so it wasn’t evolution) we don’t need God. This, I will address in the next objection.

16. Every time science and religion battle it out, science wins.

Essentially what Hemant is arguing here is that, since science answers what we used to attribute to gods we no longer need gods to explain the universe. This does well to answer the “Why don’t you believe in Zeus or Thor?” argument, but placing the Christian God in there is a category mistake. God isn’t a mere explanation of the universe. Of course, the presence of a designer is reasonable to explain why the universe is as it is, I’m not at all saying that God can’t be a possible explanation. However, it seems Hemant views the Christian God as nothing more than an explanation, which is simply false. It also makes the assumption that people created gods simply to explain how things work. There is no evidence for this, I’m afraid. In ancient times explanations to natural phenomena were attributed to gods who were already thought to exist. Hemant has it the wrong way around.

17. You don’t need God to be a good person. So why not just cut out the middleman?

This argument misses the point entirely. The moral argument is that without God objective good and evil cannot exist. I’ve written about this in detail on this blog in a seven-part series, so I recommend checking it out.

18. People have been saying Jesus will return during their lifetime… for many, many, many generations. He’s not coming back. It’s time to move on.

If no man knows the hour, we can conclude those claiming to know are likely going to be wrong. My conclusion is that the final resurrection will be random, at least, in the sense that it will happen in a time where it is least expected. So I’d be hesitant to “move on” simply because people have been watching for a long time.

19. “God works in mysterious ways” is a euphemism for “Stop asking hard questions”

To me, it’s an answer when nothing else explains a phenomenon apart from God. Still, I don’t use this term, and no one I know does, but I can’t fault those who do unless it’s used as a cover up to the tough aspects of Christianity. I recommend facing the tough questions head on. If there is anything that causes concern in regards to Christianity, don’t ignore it or brush it off, I’d encourage you to find the answer. There are many (including myself) who can help.

20. Between tornadoes in OK, droughts in TX, and Hurricanes in AL, there are a lot of natural disasters going on in the places God loves.

Another facet of the argument of evil, this time regarding natural disasters. I won’t go into detail here as it would take way too long to provide a thorough answer so I will recommend Glenn’s article here.

21. You were made perfect, in God’s image. Except for your foreskin, apparently.

This final reason may be the worst of them all. Once more Hemant raises the false implication that being made in God’s image means we are physically like Him. Already the point of this objection fails. This one is also a complaint against circumcision, a Jewish act of loyalty towards God and the covenant He established with them. This argument ignores the reality of the fall and the reason for circumcision (to set Israel apart as a holy nation) and isn’t worth taking seriously.

And that brings Hemant’s video to a close. It’s amazing how many take this video as a serious argument against Christianity. It’s fraught with ignorant claims, misconceptions, false assumptions, and anti-religious bias that all create truly bizarre reasons to stop believing in God. Some, like the ones dealing with the problem of evil, are legitimate concerns worth answering, but the video is mostly a joke.

We will see Hemant Mehta again as he has another video in this series that’s worth checking out.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Answering The Friendly Atheist: 22 Reasons To Stop Believing In God?

  1. “I’ve yet to find a contradiction that can’t be harmonized with a little exegesis and scholarly research.”

    More like a little twisting of interpretation.

    “Please refer to the answer for argument 6.”

    None one I’ve ever come across has ever shown what Christianity itself says.

    “[…]the well-read apologists and scholars who do give evidence for Christianity’s truth.”

    And no one has ever given any “evidence” for Christianity’s truth.

    ” God isn’t a mere explanation of the universe. He is needed because we need a savior, not just because we need something explained. “

    No, we don’t need a savior, nor do we need a fake “explanation” for things we don’t yet understand..

    “[…]without God objective good and evil cannot exist.”

    Objective good and evil does not exist.

    “If no man knows the hour, we can conclude those claiming to know are likely going to be wrong.”

    We can indeed conclude that all of those prophets in the bible who claim “he is coming soon” are wrong.

    “This argument ignores the reality of the fall and the reason for circumcision (to set Israel apart as a holy nation) and isn’t worth taking seriously.”

    The “reality of the fall”? Seriously, none of that “reality” can be taken seriously.

    1. Those are some interesting rebuttal’s, Nameless.

      “More like a little twisting of interpretation.”

      And what basis is this set on? A pre-conceived notion of the truth of religion or a substantial argument? To me, it sounds a lot of the former, which isn’t at all convincing. You need to prove an “interpretation” of a passage is wrong and that a contradiction cannot be truthfully harmonized before making accusations.

      “None one I’ve ever come across has ever shown what Christianity itself says.”

      That’s a bit of a shame, although I would argue scholarship has satisfactorily shown what it says. You can also pick up any book by C.S. Lewis.

      “No, we don’t need a savior, nor do we need a fake “explanation” for things we don’t yet understand.”

      Just because you don’t think you need one doesn’t mean everyone else thinks the same way. The greatest people I know are the ones who readily admit their shortcomings and faults and realize they can’t do things on their own. Christianity is about being honest with oneself.

      “And no one has ever given any “evidence” for Christianity’s truth.”

      Sure they have, you’re just confusing evidence for the explanation of the origin of that evidence. You have to explain the empty tomb and the Resurrection one way or the other. You can claim they’re just stories, but nothing backs that up apart from a pre-conceived bias to naturalism. To me, based on what we know, the hypothesis of God raising Jesus from the dead seems most reasonable to me, although you’re free to convince me otherwise.

      “We can indeed conclude that all of those prophets in the bible who claim “he is coming soon” are wrong.”

      Are you taking on Jesus Mythicism here? You do know that’s a crackpot position not taken seriously by most historians, right? You’re gonna need to bear the burden of proof on that one if so. If not, then what are you going on about? No prophet has predicted the time of Christ’s second coming because no one knows. Just because they say soon doesn’t mean they know. It’s a general assertion the same way others say “The world will end soon.”

      “The “reality of the fall”? Seriously, none of that “reality” can be taken seriously.”

      Sure it can. It can’t be taken seriously to you because you’re holding onto a fundamental misconception of original sin. I’ll explain it in a future post.

      Thanks for reading.

Comments are closed.