Believers in atheist Dogma Are Exactly as Dumb as Animals (Shanor Is an Example)

Someone wrote: "What evidence do you have for the claim that "without God, racism couldn't be objectively wrong"?" There is nothing in existence other than God that could provide a basis for objective moral values. Therefore without God, racism couldn't be objectively wrong. The only way that you could validly refute that statement would be to posit something other than God that could provide a basis for objective moral values, and then prove that the thing you posited does actually provide that basis. You have failed to do either one, and in fact you cannot do either one, because there is actually nothing in existence other than God that could provide a basis for objective moral values. Therefore you lost the debate. "Again you compare atheists to pond scum, dehumanizing them. What evidence do you have that makes this comparison valid?" That evidence is in my OP: Don't ask me to explain something that I already explained -- that is stonewalling on your part. Also, without God, dehumanizing someone could not be objectively wrong. "Lower animals have no intellectual capacity to believe or disbelieve." True, and they also don;'t have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the revealed facts about God. That is why they don't worship God. Two-legged animals that claim to be humans and yet don't worship God are also on the same lower intellectual platform as the four-legged animals, and that is also why they do not worship God. (By the way, this was also already explained in my OP, so you have a continuous problem with stonewalling, which is bad debating on your part). "Their opinion on the matter is practically worthless since they have no real opinion." Yes, -- same with those two-legged animals that identify as atheists. "Theism is exclusive to humanity" That is my point, yes. It is exclusive to humanity because humanity is smarter than the four-legged animals, and humanity is also more intelligent than the two-legged animals that identify as atheists. Your insane rant about your "fairies" is nothing but a red-herring, and has nothing to do with the subject of this debate, so it does not warrant a direct response, except that resorting to red herrings is typical behavior for believers in atheist Dogma because of their lower intellectual capacity paired with their logically and intellectually inferior atheistic worldview. "Intelligence does not necessarily correlate to a belief in theism." I never claimed that it did. In fact, I never even mentioned any so-called "belief" in Theism, so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "If that was true we would expect theistic beliefs to be more prevalent in the highly educated." Humans are more highly educated than animals and piles of feces, so actually, belief in Theism is definitely more prevalent in the highly educated, but as I alluded above, this is a side-issure since my actual argument has nothing to do with "belief in Theism." All people who worship God are also more highly educated than animals and more highly educated than piles of feces, so in those cases, too, those who do not worship God are less educated than those who do. Education does not make one more intelligent -- it provides data, either false or true data, but it does not provide intelligence. Also, relaying facts about God are part of the human education system, which both four-legged animals and two-legged animals that identify as atheists fail to complete, so your reference to education is helping my side of this debate, not your side. "by building a computer" Without God, there could be no science, and without science, there could be no computers. Therefore, without God, Turing could not have helped defeat the Nazis. Also, without God, Nazi rule (or the rule of any other person or group of persons that you may subjectively assess to be immoral) could not be objectively wrong. Also, Hitler was an atheist, and that is why he murdered six million Catholics and six million Jews. Also, without God, mass murder and genocide could not be objectively wrong. "nor does he present evidence that this should make atheists at the level of donkeys." Yes I did. You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)