Does Atheism make sense?

[organiccornflake]

Telling me that God predates the world when the bible doesn't acknowledge that that world existed does nothing to further your arguement.
There is a great deal of historical detail that we are aware of that predated the apparent 6000 years or so of the earth's entire existence, so your arguement is flawed right from the very beginning.

Of course assuming I believe the world to be 6000 years ago; which I don not. I believe the world to be somewhere in the range of 4.5 Billion years old. This throws many of your following assumptions and arguments a curveball.

I said that I use my own moral guide, not society's, though they often coincide with one another but ultimately I dictate my own morals.
But yes, that is to say that what is "moral" in one society is different from another society.

So, you give the right to self-dictate morality to rapists and murderers?

That is kind of my point because the bible's morality is different from America's morality or even modern christian morality since even those fuckwits are not rapists, slave owners (nor do they condone slavery), paedophiles, or murderers. We don't ascribe to the 'eye for an eye' style of justisce but instead attempt to do what's fair to all parties and punish wrongdoers.

You have no say in what is moral or immoral. Perhaps for yourself; but not for your society. You continue to say that god condones rapes, slavery, paedophilia, and murdur. All of these things are condemned in the bible and I have given you scripture that says such. Is it impossible for you to accept that 2000 years worth of Christians could be right about something, and you be wrong?

Compare to this to Afghanistan where a woman who was raped by a man is forced to marry her rapist despite being a victim or the morals of the Westboro Baptist Church, which advocates the admonishment (putting it lightly) of gays for the simple reason that they are homosexual.

The culture has changed. Jesus' changed the rule book. This is so clearly wrong.

The morals among all of those individuals is not equal, based upon the same foundational principles, or is equally fair or just. This is true even among different christian denominations - baptist, methodlist, evangelicals, mormon, catholic, and so forth and even those are wildly different than what is literally word-for-word condoned or at leats not admonished in the bible itself, the book of mormon, the quoran, or any of those assinine holy books.

All was subjugated to pre-jesus era culture. We are under the new system where all of these things are immoral. As ive said, your morality is derived from the culture you are in. The culture you are in is post-jesus era. It is okay for you to see the things in the old testament as immoral, as im sure people from the old testament would see modern society as immoral.

What I am saying is that there are few, if any common morals among all humans and the few that might qualify (don't kill or steal) not only existed before christianity, but exist in people independant of faith.

Maybe before Christianity, but not before god. God was before time.

There is no evidence that the story of Noah happened at all.
God still committed genocide against the human race in that story because he didn't like who was fornicating with who.

The evidence is within the bible itself. Please quote your scripture. Genesis 6:5-8 clearly says that man had grown wicked, except for Noah. And as we discussed, the story of Sodom shows that god does not kill the innocent. Therefore; we must assume that this is an abundently clear contradiction (as you are an atheist, im sure you will choose this option) that people followed for thousands of years without noticing, or that god only killed the wicked with the flood.

There is a lot more to the story of noah that I could use to emphasize my point, but I don't have the time or energy to commit to that endevor, but I will attempt an abbreviated version.

On the eugenics:
Genesis Chapter 6 practically in its entirety describes how god decided to kill all humans because the 'sons of god' and giants had chosen to intermingle with human women. It was essentially the first thing that happened and then god saw humanity as being corrupt.
It states that only Noah and his three sons (and all of their wives) would be spared.

Where do you draw this? Im assuming from Genesis 6:4 which stated that the sons of god bore children with man. It never says that this is why god sent the flood. The scripture you are refering to is simply saying, "Human's cannot be with immortals forever, as they are mortal." He sent the flood because of humanity's wickedness (See genesis 6:5 , 11, and 12.)

On the genocide:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Note that he said he would destroy basically everything he made, save for Noah and the beasts he hand-picks from the world to travel with him on his stupid boat.
So, either the bible is wrong (and therefore god is wrong), or your 'evidence' that the flood happened only in a particular area of the world is wrong.

This was not murder, as they were wicked and against god (see my above scripture references). Also, where does it say that god hand-picked any animals? It clearly says ALL animals (Genesis 6:19). Which, due to genetic variation and small scale evolutionary processes would have been a small enough number to fit on the giant arc Noah built.

Though I would personally say that neither is true, but what do I know?

That is a question for you to answer yourself.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 only applies to unwed virgins and the rapist is "punished" with a fine and is forced to marry the victim.
Let me repeat that: The VICTIM is forced to marry her rapist. Where is her rights in this, exactly?

You must look at this scripture from the culture of thousands of years ago. Must I keep saying that scripture is easily demonized when taken out of context? In their culture, women had little value, all of which was lost with their virginity. It was for the woman's protection that she wed the one who deflowered her. If this was not a rule; than the woman would return to her family in shame, and since she lost her marriage value, would be an alone outcast for the rest of her life.

I would love for you to talk to someone who was brutally raped and tell her that if she wants to get into heaven, she has to do the biblical thing and marry her rapist, assuming she even knows who he was.

Under new covenant (testiment) law. This is clearly wrong. Is it so hard for you to accept that you don't disagree with the bible's morality?

Deuteronomy 22:25-28 - you might notice that this rule only applies to betrothed women who cried out and were caught in the act.

The rules for raping a non-betrothed woman are stated in later scripture. If they didn't cry out, then they are complicit.

THEN and ONLY THEN is the man punished with anything significant.

WELL OBVIOUSLY. Not even in modern society can you convict someone with a crime if there is no evidence. What other evidence is there if he were not caught in the act? Also, I like how you said "punished with anything significant." What a light way to say, "Punished with death."

I love how you left out the part where if she doesn't (or CAN"T cry out) and they're in the city, then SHE is punished with DEATH.

If she doesn't cry out, then she is complicate.
What this passage is saying that if it is consensual, then she is also responsible for adultry.

Galatians 5:19-21 (English Standard Version) - I have two bibles and two online bibles that I regularly use and they use the term "Adultery" instead of "sexual immorality" but given that "rape" isn't described as 'sexual immorality' elsewhere in the bible, I'm inclined to believe that the intended meaning confers with (as opposed to retcons).

What a silly assumption to make. You yourself have read scripture that condemns rape.

all of its previous statements regarding human sexuality, which is to mean that I would believe that the quote condemns adultery instead of rape considering that in the OT it is only punishable at all because it shames the male members of the victim's family and given that adultery would actually violate a commandment.

As stated; the laws were also written with the victim's interest at heart. Stop reading scripture like it still applies, and that it was written for your culture.

So... basically, I think I've proven that I know your own book better than you do.

I think you pick and choose what to take from "my' book (it's yours too), and then take it out of context in an attempt to demonize the bible using your moral code. Your argument is filled with so many fallacies and assumptions that it isn't argueable.

God impregnated a married 14 year old woman with his son, Jesus.

14 years old was an average age to be betrothed in the culture that it was written... I assume you choose to skip the passages where Mary thanks god? Interesting.

America's capitalist society is based entirely around greed, envy, and lust.
People have sex before marriage all the time and it is not considered socially unacceptable.

Depending on where you are from. If you want this to turn into an argument on how christian america's founding principals are, i'm all for it.

Slavery is abolished, rape is a punishable crime because of the damage it does to the victim (as opposed to her male family)

,

Right, all of which is supported under the new testament. It was written for our changing cultures.

homosexuality isn't punished at all,

Once again, the new testament taught this as well.

there are non-christians and even atheists who also live and die in America without punishment (those 'false idols"), nearly everyone on the planet loves their family more than god and/or Jesus, and so forth.

Unfortunately, that last statement is true.

Not one of those things is morally acceptable in the bible.

Let's turn this discussion to the new testament (I.E. The covanent that we are currently under) , shall we?

Two things:
1) You and every other theist ever then can no longer claim that humans must derieve their morals from god if this is the case.
2) It's not even really a choice if the "wrong one" results in TORTURE FOREVER. It's a choice in the same way that "pay the mobster 15,000$ or the mob kills your entire family and breaks your legs" is a choice

We do derive our morals from Jesus. Read jesus' words and you will agree.

1. I doonot believe Hell to be eternal.
2. What a silly metaphor. The mob does not love us. The mob has only self interest. Hell is self-inflicted by going against god, and the price to get out of it isn't 15,000 dollars. It's have a relationship with a wonderful and righteous man named Jesus Christ.

I was born into this world despite the fact that I had not chosen to do so.
In your twisted, sick logic, I deserve to be tortured in the fires of hell for being born even before all of the choices that I have made between being born and now.

Unfortunately we are affected by the sins of our fathers. Even now you are confronted with a choice. Accept that you don't deserve to be in the presence of god, and ask Jesus for help. Or accept hell (eternal separation from god.) Eternal separation from good is the punishment. If you truly knew the bible, you would know that all descriptions of hell are metaphorical and vague.

You worship a sick, sadistic monster and your christian values teaches you that human beings are completely worthless

God teaches us that humans have much value. God numbered our hairs. He knew us while we were in the womb. The god of the universe knew you before you were born. You are very important in the eyes of god. "It is his will that all would come to know him."

without devoting your love and life to a genocidal monster or his zombie son who enjoyed a pointless existence in which he died because of retarded rules his father placed on humanity.

Those rules were for our protection. Without god's ultimate morality, if humans just, through a series of crazy random genetic mutations, were allowed to run things their own way, where do you think society would be?

Never tell me or anyone again that a universe without god means we don't have morals because the view that all humans deserve to be punished for being born is worse than any view of humanity than I can imagine.

You don't have morals. In a world explained only by the studies of the natural world (science,) how can there be morals? You cannot measure or weigh them. They don't exist. We are all animals that know how to manipulate our environment. We are astronomically lucky that there was a planet fine-tuned enough (This is one source) to support life. We have no reason to do anything. There is no greater purpose, nothing after death, just us. We are alone.

Or, maybe, just maybe, there is a super natural creator. That explains why we are self-aware, why Earth is capable of supporting life, how biblical prophesies were fulfilled, (First source, Second source, and a third source is your bible and a history book) why we have a sense of morality, how a universe worth of matter and physics came from nothing, how jesus still changes lives to this day, and why we are are here!