AJ777 "“ I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” by Frank Turek"

If the author doesn't even understand the dictionary definition of atheism then his book must be worthless. Apparently neither he nor you know what an argument from ignorance fallacy is.

Why do you keep answering criticisms of your beliefs with the obvious but irrelevant fact atheists don't share them?

The criticisms apply to those who believe the bible to be true. It's like us answering every criticism of atheism from a theist with "but you're not an atheist"?

It's mind numbingly dumb.

Do you believe the bible or not? Do you think it's a moral guide? Do you believe a deity exists, and is perfectly moral?

If so answer the criticisms of those beliefs with some attempt at integrity instead of insulting everyone's intelligence with risible lawyers obfuscation.

You might also read the bible objectively instead of with an a priori bias towards belief. And do at the very least learn word definitions thoroughly before starting to try and debate things like morality, objective and subjective. As your contradictions here are inane.

Lastly do at least a cursory researchers of the topic, instead of simply parroting what you've been told or read about your religion by other apologists.

The Kalam cosmological argument is not evidence for a deity. And is a deeply flawed argument for a first cause anyway, not even an argument for a deity. A cursory look online could have saved your blushes here, but for you to produce it when asked for your best piece of objective evidence makes you appear woefully illinformed to the average poster here.

Don't dodge questions as this makes you look very dishonest and merely highlights your bias. Don't preach to atheists by repeating the same subjective belief over and over, whilst ignoring all objections and refutations, as again this just looks like blinkered closed minded bias.

If people reject your claims for evidence and take the time to exolain why, then do them the courtesy of addressing those objections, rather than the peurile lie they are "Not interested in evidence". As you mendaciously claimed about me.

In short learn to debate rationally and honestly. And if you're going to deny logic with superstitious counter arguments then please don't pretend you have logic to support your claims. Learn what common logical fallacies are, look up a list of them and try and eradicate them from your arguments and claims. Then be honest about the result.

"arakish, I’m not following how it’s possible for a non existent deity to make two bears do anything."

You're saying you think the bible describes a non-existent deity? Otherwise this tired old duplicitous word game of yours is getting very old.

So if someone told you that exploiting children to make them steal for you was perfectly moral, and we should base our morality on this idea, and cited Fagin in Oliver Twist to support their claim, insisting it was real? Would you not care or speak out against it because they used a fictional book to try and support their claim?

AJ777, why is it immoral to murder children? Are you ever going to tell us? Or do you not even have any reason?

I feel your pain. Sadly this is al too familiar lately with theists evoking claims and arguments they could disavow themselves of with a cursory look at a dictionary.