Fatal Bible Flaws

For something to be called immoral, it must be contrary to some moral code. So what is this moral code that you are accusing God of breaking? If it"s just your own personal opinion on how people should act, it"s tantamount to you saying, "I don"t like what God did in the Old Testament." Well, so what? That"s your opinion. This is known as subjective morality, meaning that every person, or group of people, decides for him, or herself what is right or wrong. I have my moral code, you have your moral code, and there"s no way of judging between them. But is that really how morality works? No. There are certain actions that are really right or wrong for everyone. For example, it is truly good to love and care for a little child and it is truly evil to harm and abuse her. This applies to all people at all times. And this is what is known as objective morality. But where does this moral code come from and why must we follow it? We know that human laws come from a human authority, like a ruler or government. And an objective moral law that binds every human being across all of the time requires a grand moral authority who rules over everyone and everything: God. God is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. Behaviors that align with God"s nature or commands are good and actions that contradict them are evil. This is how we determine right and wrong. So for you to accuse God of performing a truly immoral act, you are actually providing evidence for God"s existence. To complain that God has committed immoral acts is also to admit there is an objective moral law. But God is the best explanation of objective morality. Therefore, calling certain actions truly immoral actually provides evidence for God"s existence. In other words, when you say God is evil, you are assuming that there is a good. When you assume there is a good, you assume there"s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, but that"s who you"re trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there"s no moral law giver, than there is no moral law. If there"s no moral law, there"s no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. So what is your complaint? So, you cannot say that God"s characteristics are, "hate and evil as he has freely admitted to with all of his deliberate massive genocides for absolutely no reason, his hatred of children, hatred of gays and women, love for raped women, fully endorsing slavery, simply not believing in your god is according to him being worthy of being stoned to death, your supposed jesus telling everybody to give up everything including family and ALL possessions which means you are not a christian at all". Because, without a moral law giver you cannot have evil, so your argument is viciously circular. The only way you can actually make those kinds of claims is if there is a holy and just God who is the standard by which morality can be measured. Are you 100% sure that you know the bible better than a "miserable high schooler"? That is a hasty generalization fallacy, where someone generalizes about a class or group on a small and poor sample. You are assuming that because I am of a certain age group that I have less knowledge of a specific subject that yourself. Classic generalization fallacy. To answer your quote from Trace Harris, that is why God is the authority, not man; and that is why God wants to have a relationship with each one of us individually, not as groups. Trace Harris is not the ultimate authority, nor is the pope, nor is anyone else, God is the one and only ultimate authority. Also, atheists have conflicting views on what the correct theory is that they should put their faith in; but they don"t have anyone to provide the ultimate authority; on those subjects. 1. Quoted from the Mariam Webster dictionary the definition of, "Fear": profound reverence and awe especially toward God. Again, it is referring to fear as in reverence, not fear as in terror. In your statement you are making another contextual error and also guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. You said, "But then again I guess you cannot understand what simpleton English is either" That is the fallacy of ad hominem. I request that you use no more ad hominem in your future rebuttals with me, please! 2. You continually appeal to morality. You remind me of C.S Lewis when he said, "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?" 3. It"s a very straight forward concept. You"re a smart guy; I"m sure you can figure it out. You said, "which is why your christian religion is failing and fading fast. Its lost 5.1% of its following since 2007 and atheism has doubled. Rightly. Justly" That is the dictionary definition of a red herring fallacy. You also said, "According to what imbecile? You? What grade of worthless pond scowl looking at himself in the mirror have you graduated from to---truly---make---that---one---up---from? " Again, the fallacy of ad hominem" 4. Again, It"s referring to the Lord allowing them what those few people wanted. Not him making bad laws for them to have to follow. 5. "jesus is a false prophet in which you cannot even prove having ever existed." How is it possible for one to be a false prophet if they never existed? Jesus Christ is literally one of the most documented figures in all of history. Even Bart D. Ehrman and Richard Dawkins admit that he existed. Now, your views are in conflict with other atheists, just like your quote from Trace Harris where she was trying to attribute that to Christians. 6. Did you not read my original answer? That is the actual answer to your question. You may not like the fact that one plus one equals two, but that"s the answer whether you like it or not. Sometimes people are not satisfied with an answer, and that is not necessarily the fault of the answer, nor does it determine its truth. But, rather the fault lies with the hearer; in denying the truth. Because people are not generally on a truth quest, they are usually on a happiness quest. 7. Paul was bitten by a venomous snake on the island of Malta, they expected him to die, but he did not. Also, lots of people go to bars and put snake venom and/or poison in drinks to prove their manliness or to get jumped into a gang, and survive. Many of the medicines that we take to this day are just poisons that have positive side effects like killing pain, or destroying certain cells that carry diseases etc., etc. So, not a very good argument. Everybody is born an atheist? To be an atheist you would have to have infinite knowledge of all things to be able to prove that God does not exist somewhere or somehow, this then would make you god. Hence, there is no such thing as an atheist; especially atheist newborns. And as for your answer of "no you would not become a Christian if Christianity were true" is completely unreasonable. If atheists are supposed to be the bastions of reason, how can you make sense of your unreasonable answer? If something is true and you deny that it is true, you are being unreasonable and illogical. If you don"t use logic and reason in a debate, then you are at a great disadvantage to say the least. It does appear that you may be in a state of complete cognitive dissonance. Finally and most importantly, you asked me, "why do I believe what I believe"? Because I know the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that He gave his perfect life up for me and every person. It"s just up to each person coming to the conclusion of whether or not they are going to accept the free gift of eternal life to be with God in heaven. Because @backwardseden I have news for you, God will always be God, and you"re not, you will always be like a speck of dust underfoot to God, but yet God loves you enough to die for you! Imagine that, the Creator of the universe, loves you! God is so amazing that he doesn"t expect us to do this alone; he actually has skin in the game, he took it upon himself to help us, despite everything we do. Why don"t you want that to be the case? By claiming to be an atheist you are literally sitting in His lap and spitting in His face at the same time. But that"s okay, God gave the gift of grace to everybody, all you have to do is accept that grace. Don"t you understand that? It"s so easy that a four year old can understand it fully, but yet so complicated that scholars, professors and theologians can"t fully understand the depth of it! It"s the best thing could ever happen to anyone, and all you have to do is take a free gift! I ask you to consider that, please, for your own good!