Oh and by the way, don’t think the Old Testament isn’t relevant just because it’s more, archaic, Jesus never said to stop following it:

Matthew 5:17-18

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For
truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest
letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from
the Law until everything is accomplished.

And if the Bible were complete fiction, then the Christian religion is complete fiction, but I do agree with that. It does not mean god is real though, show me a scrap of evidence.

Oh sure I’ll quote the new testament, here’s a quote from Jesus himself
Luke 12:47-48
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Where did you even get racism from this conversation?

er… “Moot” says the heathen grammar cop.

Christmas is a completely secular holiday for atheists, most of us still celebrate it, just not religiously, what your saying is mute.

I’m beginning to wonder why I’m talking to you about something that you’ve already been talking to someone else about. The only conclusion I can come up with is that you have no intention of listening to what I or others have to say on the matter and just want to pick a fight. Based on that I’ve decided it’s pointless to talk to you with that mindset.
So, goodby. Your repeating your claims still does not prove your point.

No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.
In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.

You’re just as much proof of one as any in this regard dude. You’re inferiority complex is once again noted.

You have, inadvertently, given me the empirical evidence I have been looking for to support my new proof for the existence of God: the argument from douche.
P1: if a maximally douchy entity exists, there must some transendant, countervailing entity which embodies all that which in not douchy. Otherwise, douchiness would have overwhelmed the universe.
P2: non-douchy things exist, such as Jesus, America, freedom, baseball, Ronald Reagan, etc.
P3: a maximally douchy entity exists (proven by your last comment ).
P4: maximal douchiness does not dominate the universe based on the existence of P2 + sunsets, babies, Chuck Norris, etc.
P5: the transendant embodiment of maximal non-douchiness, which allows for existence of P2, must be spacess, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, in order to overcome the maximal douchiness of P3.
That entity is what classical theists call God.
Thanks again neck beard boy. In all your pseudo-intellectual, teenage angst ridden butthurt fury, you have proven the existence of God.

Ok, nice interpretation. Let me know if separating yourself from your kids for their refusal to worship you is working out for you.