☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it"

[Opoponax]

1. There is no objective morality. Life isn't that simple and neither are people. What may be "moral" in one situation, society, culture, job, family, marriage, etc. may immoral in another. Please engage your own imagination to understand how this applies to reality. 

2. The way an argument first works is that the person making the claim has the duty to provide the evidence for it. "Evolutionists," so to speak, have been doing this nearly a century and a half now. If you want to do the work to understand it, the information is readily available to you. That is, science has done the work of providing evidence for its claims. 

3. Returning to your question about the right to question certain behaviors as moral or immoral, all that's required is for one to value human life. If one values human life, then one understands why the Nazis were so awful. In the same vein, if one values human life, one can see why Yahweh is so awful for wiping out every man, woman, and child on the planet with the exception of Noah and his immediate family. And it isn't a long trip from there to see that Yaweh doesn't much value human life (I'll eschew the little detail about the masses in Hell burning forever for the sake of brevity), and is in fact scornful of it. Therefore, if one values human life the God of the Bible is probably the very worst example to follow, given that he's prone to wiping out entire planets full of humans. 

I don't need the threat of permanent torture to keep me from doing cruel and unlawful things to other people. Do you?

You said, "all that's required is for one to value human life".  

If you say that reducing harm is a valid standard because that is what people want, then how are you not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want is what makes something morally right? If reducing overall harm is the standard of morality, then should a nation that is being attacked by another nation not practice self-defense since by defending itself it would increase overall harm to both nations?If you say that the standard of morality you use is neither good or bad but just something that people agree to, then how can it be a standard of morality since morality deals with what is good and bad?

Ugh. 

There was nothing difficult to understand about valuing human life.

I said nothing about the following:

Reducing harm
Geopolitical conflict
Anything being neither good or bad
Anything people agreeing to

So quit making up shit you wish was said and allow your brain to shift out of first gear.