Nice video there.

However, the statement at the end "If Christians would only read the Bible, they would see that God is imaginary" or something to that effect.  The scary thing it, many Christians, or at least evangelicals, HAVE read the bible and they know these stories...  they have just concluded that "God's ways are different than ours" and "Our morality doesn't apply to God."

 

Yeah, the other thing I just remembered...  My 4 year old nephew has a Noah's Ark book.  All the animals, Noah, and his family are brightly colored and smiling.  Then at the end when the water goes down, the book talks about how loving God is for bringing the water down.

Next time I see my him, I'll tell him about the flood slaughtering millions...  I'll show him huricane Katrina and tsunami videos and tell him the flood caused much more suffereing. That'll piss my sister off a bit though... 

I'm guessing the Pope read the bible but chose to ignore some parts and not others, so the part that says condoms are evil (err... where?) he accepts, but the parts that condone genocide and rape he has never once heard.

I personally cannot see why a bronze age myth is still so powerful in what is the early space age.

 If God does not exist, than who's moral standard are we going to judge God by? How do we know what He did in the Bible was wrong? The atheist assertion assumes there to be such a thing as absolute good and evil. Morality and ethics are cultural creations and relative in an atheist universe. What's right and wrong to you, might not be right or wrong to a bush man in Africa. The atheist has lost all foundation for moral complaint against God if He does not exist. But the atheist is not consistent in his own worldview in that he assumes there to be absolute moral standards. If God does exist (which He does), then he is right no matter what He does because He is by definition the basis and foundation for moral absolutes. In contrast, the atheist is like an amoeba or worm trying to super-impose his own finite understanding of knowledge and morality onto a superior bring. Atheists are arguing from the vantage point of insufficient knowledge and wisdom. God IS absolute knowledge and wisdom. He does not make mistakes. He is perfectly just in everything He does.

 Where, when and how did Jesus ever kill millions?

 Well, God does punish and kill sinners. He is just. He cannot permit sin and evil to continue. He has warned mankind through His holy prophets since the world began. The greatest tribulation ever seen in the world is yet to come.  It's not really God who kills them. They kill themselves by rejecting Him. Free will can be a blessing and a curse. God does not violate our free will.

By the standards for men attributed to "god." Or by or inherent, or socially or culturally dictated standards. The ones that most people recognize as applicable today are pretty basic and consistent.
[redundancy snipped]

Which is begging the question locked in embrace with a slippery slope fallacy. The hard correlation between atheism and immorality is a chimera.

True with or without religion. Every culture makes their own excuses why their way is the right way.  Oh, right, there's that nasty Christian dream of converting everyone so they can be happy when the world blows up. Without moral absolutes, we're free to figure out what is humane and respectful of everyone, free from the arbitrary shackles of dogma.

I can't image an atheist interested in complaining against "god." But, there are men who speak for "god," (this seems to be the only way we hear from "god" anymore) and speak of things attributed to "god," so unless we dismiss them totally with a wave of the hand, we're stuck approaching to topic based on their premise. I don't have such qualms. *waves*
[snipped same thing said two more different ways]

No, theists use words like, "truth, knowledge, wisdom, perfection," never really certain that they mean anything, but totally satisfied with it. Your view is drawing windows on a refrigerator box and calling it a house.

Most moral examples or discussions includes imaginary examples.

There's nothing contradictory for me to have an opinion on an example or reference to something that a "god" is supposedly to have done.

And there is one way I can argue god's morality without resorting to any ultimate morality.

I do this by comparing his morality(shown to me by example from the Bible or whatever) to my own.

Since morality is relative, my own moral code must be the fixation point where my moral claim arises.

Comparing the two moral codes, mine and "god's", I can see a difference. And while I might not say that mine is better than his, I can say that they don't match.

And here lies the core problem.

If my moral values conflict with god's moral values, then I can not agree on his actions.

I have a difference of opinion with god. or in reality I have a difference of opinion with the Theist's who invoke such a god.

And until this difference of opinion is resolved, I cant consciously agree or comply to your actions or moral value.

As my moral values, and not your moral values, has to be the basis from where my actions arise.

 

The only way a society can become stable, is to take into account that everyone has a different opinion. And where those opinions agree we create laws, and where they differ we make a compromise. This is democracy, and if anything that is what I believe in.

I've noticed that many Xian apologists have a remarkably casual attitude toward mass murder and what can only be described as genocide whenever the Bible describes it as a good thing to do. Like Deut 7:1-5:

 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.

What may be called the Final Solution of the Canaanite Question. Which the Book of Joshua describes the Israelites as implementing.

I find such apologetics worse than Nazi Holocaust-denial apologetics in certain ways, because the Nazi apologists at least accept the premise that mass murder is not a very good thing to do.