What puzzles me is RD's claim that what we, as humans, would not...

What puzzles me is RD's claim that what we, as humans, would not do, viz send our sons to certain death, can be used as an argument to support a belief in the non existence of God.

So, what is he? A substitute for God? He obviously would have treated his son differently, ergo God should have done so. Hence God does not exist?

Evidently God should have consulted RD as to how to demonstrate to the world of His existence.

In other words, RD begins his argument with God does not exist. And why? Because RD says so. Besides, he argued, haven't we got a brain and logic to reason our way to morality? Really? Heaps of areas of morality do not have a clear answer, despite all the brains and logic applied to these areas for centuries. Capital punishment anyone?

Is there any after life? No, says RD. Isn't this good enough, the life we have now? For many people, actually, no. Lots of human suffering. Apparently, RD dismisses them as he feels OK, so, he supposes should everyone else. What a smug individual. Easy to dismiss people who hold spiritual beliefs. But RD only believes in the brain. Especially his.