I wouldn't expect someone who has rejected their creator to take me seriously when I speak of spiritual truths that are only discerned spiritually. I'm not surprised you think what I'm saying is stupid.

quote:
You literally call your god pro-life and yet he killed everyone on earth except Noah and some farm animals.

There are a few things to note here.

1) I don't refer to God as "pro-life", though He is the creator of all life and the one who grants everlasting life. "Pro-life" is a circumstantial moniker that is applied to the abortion discussion. I'm certainly "pro-life" when it comes to abortion, but I support the death penalty and just wars. I support self-defense that may result in the loss of life of a perpetrator.

Likewise, God is "pro-life" in some regards, and not in others, and He differentiates for us. God is a God of justice, so He demands life for life in regards to human justice, and He demands eternal "death" (punishment in Hell) for those who commit cosmic treason against Him.

2) Related to point 1, God is not just the creator and sustainer of all things, but He is the Lord of all things. He created human beings to worship Him, commune with Him, and to reflect His glory to the rest of creation. When we sin, we are violating the purpose for why we were created, and we are rebelling against the king of creation, committing cosmic treason, as I already mentioned. When we sin against God, we deserve death. Since all people sin, all deserve death, and so when God takes a life that He has created, He has the prerogative to do so and the obligation to do so to satisfy divine justice. When God takes any life--including those of the entire world, save for Noah and his family--then God is just to do so, and we have no right to complain because we are not innocent.

3) If you are an atheist who believes all there is is matter being acted on by physics (materialism) and that we learn all knowledge through our senses (empiricism), then you adhere to an irrational worldview that removes the ability to make sense of the world around us in a fundamental way. One of the important areas that are made intelligible by such a worldview is moral reasoning. When you have no moral standard that is objective (that which originates outside the human experience), universal (applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times), and invariant (does not change), then you have no basis for objective morality, and all that you are left with is some form of subjectivity that results in "might makes right" and removes any meaningful praise or critique of any behavior whatsoever, which means any complaint of God's taking of life is nothing more than your own personal opinion rather than a meaningful attack on God, since personal opinions carry no objective weight in matters of truth.

In other words, since God's character is the only objective source for morality, if you reject Him, then all you have left are opinions about things you like (what you call "good" and "moral") and don't like (those things which you might call "evil" and "immoral"). By rejecting God, your attacks against Him become absolutely meaningless in your own worldview, and you lose all rational ability to condemn and criticize the actions of others. No longer should you be able to say that torture, rape, and murder are "objectively immoral", but you have to accept that such activities are only as immoral as the society that embraces or rejects them, and societal moral tendencies are prone to change. So, while you can say that in our society, chattel slavery from kidnapping human beings from Africa is immoral, you can't criticize Western societies from a few hundred years ago since they agreed that such practices were morally good, or at least morally neutral.

quote:
You believe that a man rose from the dead, parted water with magic, etc.

I do, except I don't equate God's extraordinary work in His creation (miracles) with "magic".

There is nothing irrational or illogical about such a belief, since such a belief doesn't violate any laws of logic. You think that such things are silly because you haven't witnessed such things happen, and your worldview precludes the miraculous and supernatural from existing in the first place.

quote:
I understand that the Bible has some good in it, Psalms and some other stuff are quite good,

Why do you call such things "good"? What is your standard for what is "good" and what is "bad"?

quote:
but there is really no room for superstition in this day and age.

Clearly not, but what I believe is not superstition. I don't hold to an irrational or illogical belief about God. Whether our society believes in God or not is irrelevant to whether or not the Bible is true; truth isn't determined by majority opinion.

quote:
Especially when you try and dictate how other people should live their lives when they are literally harming no one.

When you want to prevent Christians from having a voice in society, aren't you trying to dictate how we live our lives?

Also, why is your standard "do no harm"? Where does that standard come from, and why should that be the standard I or anyone else should live by? Is that your standard because it feels right to you? Is that your standard because our society generally agrees with it? What about societies that don't live by that standard? How do you condemn them if they've developed a social contract that differs from ours?

Also, how do you define "harm"? There are many ways people are "harmed" in our society that are socially acceptable.

quote:
It's very hard to have a serious conversation with someone who literally cannot prove what they believe and has no evidence to back it up whatsoever.

This again speaks to your empiricist epistemology, which is self-defeating. You claim that what is true is that which can be observed by the senses, but that standard, itself, cannot be proven to be true by sense perception. How do you know we cannot learn truth outside of the scientific method, for example?

Your criticism also doesn't define what you mean by "evidence", but I suspect you mean incontrovertible proof that is also persuasive to you, personally. There are many truths that have evidence to support them that are not persuasive to everyone. This problem occurs all the time in court rooms, where a crime is alleged and a plea of innocence is provided, and days, weeks, and months are spent providing evidence for each side in order to persuade a judge or jury to agree with one claim or another. OJ was found not guilty, but that doesn't mean there was no evidence to support his guilt. Likewise, there are many evidences Christians provide for the truth of our claims, but none are persuasive to you, so you claim that we have no evidence at all.

The transcendental argument for God's existence is the one I typically cite, because it is the most fundamental proof of God's existence, namely that if He did not exist, you could not prove anything. Or in other words, the existence of God is what makes reality intelligible, and that if God did not exist, you couldn't even make an argument that He doesn't exist because you couldn't argue anything at all. His existence is necessary for not just material existence, but for the existence of immaterial concepts like logic and mathematics. Moral reasoning requires His existence, as well, but we've already covered that.