Atheists Are Not Stupid

Author: ethang5
Fools
Bible
psalms
apostasy

Posts

Total: 127
Topic's author
#1
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” 

Some take these verses to mean that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the only meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal, which often refers to an impious person who has no perception of ethical or religious truth. 

The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “sinful people do not believe in God.” In other words, it is a wicked thing to deny God, and a denial of God is often accompanied by a wicked lifestyle. 

The verse goes on to list some other characteristics of the irreligious: “They are corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” Psalm 14 is a study on the universal depravity of mankind.

Many atheists are very intelligent. It is not intelligence, or a lack thereof, that leads a person to reject belief in God. It is a lack of righteousness that leads a person to reject belief in God.

Many people do not object to the idea of a Creator, as long as that Creator minds His own business and leaves them alone. What people reject is the idea of a Creator who demands morality from His creation. Rather than struggle against a guilty conscience, some people reject the idea of God altogether. Psalm 14:1 calls this type of person a “fool.”
#2
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
( give a meaningless post title comment ) 
Majority of Theists are right handed and yes some are left handed. 

( Then whack in a name followed by some numbers and add some jibberish ) 
ROBERT 17 : 24.   did e just like flick a ciggy but at me cat 
And 
Elizabeth  22 : 22.  A rolling stone is worth two in the bush.  

( give proper meaning for said names with numbers )
Some take these verses to mean. Theists are bat shlt crazy and lack sense. 
This is true BUT they mean other things also . 

( then write some more crap in Shakespeare esk way ) 
( then chuck in a sentence or two of sciencey stuff ) 

State some more things you think you know because of the scripts . 

Deliver it in a cocky manner. 

Press the create post button. 

Then reply to what others say about it, whilst all the time making sure not to answer any questions ( DIRECTLY ) you are asked about. 

Typical ethang. 
#3
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I'm really looking forward to this one. I hope members take the challenge and respond.

I really enjoy your creative threads!
#4
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
It is a lack of righteousness that leads a person to reject belief in God.
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus. He died so that their sins - no matter how heinous or frequent - could be forgiven. Not believing in god for a "lack of righteousness' is nonsensical.

Secondly, the Bible says non-believers are "corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good." Where is the demonstration of this? Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists? The fact of the matter is that people, religious or not, commit crimes and do the right things too. 

#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus. 

I reject that notion. In fact, I reject a relatively common model of some Christians using the confessional like a revolving door, so lax is their understanding of how repentance is supposed to work. It is not repentance to merely ask for forgiveness, and be absolved, only to repeat the sin committed in the first place, over and over again. Repentance is a change of heart, a commitment to reject the act of sin of which one is repenting, and repentance is not complete until the temptation to do the sinful act is entirely dismissed, defeated, and disposed. To fail to do so is to whip and crucify Jesus Christ all over again. He bears our stain, again and again. And to do so is not accepting Jesus Christ at all. Merely because one claims it does not make it so.
#6
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists?
Hello Skep!

I would like to see it pointed out.

#7
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
According to Psalm 10 we are told that the thoughts of the wicked may be summed up as “ There is no God” and “God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it” (vv. 4, 11).

What  is the meaning of the bold assertion, “ There is no God”? Commentators rightly maintain that the statement is not a literal denial of the existence of God (or of gods), but a description of the wicked, who live and behave as though God takes no notice of human behavior. The respective contexts of Psalms 10, 14, and 53 support this interpretation. According to Psalm 10 the “wicked hotly pursue the poor ”  and the “man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord” (vv. 2, 3). The wicked man believes that God “will never see” his evil deeds (v. 4). Moreover, this man believes that he will never encounter adversity, but will get away with theft and murder (vv. 6, 8, 9). According to Psalms 14 and 53 the man who says there is no God is corrupt, is a liar, and never does good. It is no surprise that the Apostle Paul cites portions of these psalms in order to make his point that no human is righteous and that none seeks for God (Rom 3:10–12).


#8
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
Many atheists are very intelligent. It is not intelligence, or a lack thereof, that leads a person to reject belief in God. It is a lack of righteousness that leads a person to reject belief in God.
That certainly could be the case in some people, but not all. We find believers in God who are not righteous. We also find non-believers in God who are righteous and they are often the ones who lack a belief in God based on their intelligence. 

Topic's author
#9
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus.
No. The Christian model is one can be as sinful as they like BEFORE they accept Jesus.

He died so that their sins - no matter how heinous or frequent - could be forgiven.
That is the wonder of Jesus, there is always forgiveness and redemption as long as there is life in you.

Not believing in god for a "lack of righteousness' is nonsensical.
Actually, it isn't. Since you didn't say why you think it's nonsensical, I will only leave this verse with you.

2Th 2:10 - ......[snip]...... because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

The bible is talking about an attitude, a way of looking at the world. If you read the chapter, it flesh's it out.

Secondly, the Bible says non-believers are "corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good." Where is the demonstration of this?
Demonstration of what? What the bible says, or the depravity of human nature?

Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists?
No. The bible already did that.

The fact of the matter is that people, religious or not, commit crimes and do the right things too. 
True. That is exactly what the bible says.

You're so quick to believe everything the bible say is an attack, that you have your gloves on even before the message and the intent has had time to sink in.

That chip on your shoulder is heavy isn't it?
#10
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ATroubledMan

What  is the meaning of the bold assertion, “ There is no God”? Commentators rightly maintain that the statement is not a literal denial of the existence of God (or of gods), but a description of the wicked, who live and behave as though God takes no notice of human behavior.
Keep in mind, this most likely was before any kind of (atheist) movement. There was no Freedom From Religion Foundation. No Atheist Union. So the commentators are probably correct, but they're not talking about deists. Atheism, and deism (an impersonal creator) were not themes of that day. So the lack of public denials of God didn't mean that the people in reference were not authentic atheists.
Topic's author
#11
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ATroubledMan
We also find non-believers in God who are righteous....
Are you one of the non-believers in God who is righteous?

Because I suspect you are equivocating on the bible's meaning of "righteous"
#12
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@ethang5
Righteous - (of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
#13
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
willow alt
#14
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
To advocate atheism, it  was understood, is to corrupt society. This was the very accusation leveled against Socrates, for which the great philosopher was forced to drink hemlock.

Topic's author
#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Sometimes I wonder if some atheists ever think. If an alien were to listen to an atheist, he would be dumbfounded when he found out the actual performance of the book they so denegrate!

It's like listening to some idiot claim that a flavor of ice cream is terrible, yucky, hated by reasonable people, and bitter, and then find out that the flavor is vanilla and is the most popular flavor by far!

When you ask the typical idiot, if vanilla flavor is so bad, how come its the most popular? The idiot screams that you have committed the ad popullum fallacy. And so never address the sheer stupidity of their claim.

If the bible was actually 
ROBERT 17 : 24.   did e just like flick a ciggy but at me cat 
And 
Elizabeth  22 : 22.  A rolling stone is worth two in the bush.  
As our genius suggests, could it have become the most quoted, most studied, most cherished, most influential, most copied, most history changing work of literature on Earth?

Because he is basically uneducated, he misses all the wisdom, all the complex concepts, all the literary excellence of the bible, and in his ignorance, believes everyone is as ignorant as he.

But challenge them on the contradiction between their description of the bible and the bible's actual performance in real life, and they either double down on the disconnect, insisting the bible has no value, or come up with completely ridiculous rationalizations to explain away the bible's accomplishments.

But in the end, the only thing that will help such people is school, and for some, it's already too late.
#16
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
When you ask the typical idiot, if vanilla flavor is so bad, how come its the most popular? The idiot screams that you have committed the ad popullum fallacy.

#17
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
No. The Christian model is one can be as sinful as they like BEFORE they accept Jesus.

That is the wonder of Jesus, there is always forgiveness and redemption as long as there is life in you.

Unless it is your contention that those who accept Jesus are perfect or that they cannot be forgiven for sins done in this acceptance (which I dont think you believe), rejecting Jesus so that one might 'live in sin' is unnecessary. Believers are no more righteous (or no less depraved - however you want to look at it) than non-believers. Accepting Jesus does little to prevent awful people from being awful.

Also, the verse you cited in the OP was in reference to non-believers, not all humanity. However, I accept the Bible holds humanity to be depraved, so I'll not quibble over this. As pointed out above (and conceded by you) believers and non-believers are capable of good and bad actions. This conflicts with the Biblical characterization of atheists: "They are corrupt; their deeds are vile;” So which is it? Atheist can be righteous or is there "no one who does good"? You can't sit on the fence on this one. Either the Bible is wrong or atheists do no good.
#18
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus. 

I reject that notion. In fact, I reject a relatively common model of some Christians using the confessional like a revolving door
So do I, but then again, I reject laying blame on an innocent person too. 
#19
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
To advocate atheism, it  was understood, is to corrupt society. This was the very accusation leveled against Socrates, for which the great philosopher was forced to drink hemlock.
Thus would be why the emphasis on a fool saying within his heart there is no God. The verse reveals the inner thoughts of an individual. In Israel it was obviously not kosher to make it a proclamation.


We also find non-believers in God who are righteous and they are often the ones who lack a belief in God based on their intelligence. 
Politicians will often do things like kiss babies, hug a common crying woman, etc. It's very important that this not be done in secret. There's always a camera. This helps to ensure an election, or reelection.


Today, it's very important for atheist organizations to publicly promote their intelligence, practice charity, refuse tax exemption, etc. They certainly don't want to be labeled with atheist communists.


So there's also an organizational  element to the modern atheist morality, called humanism. The idea that we can all collectively be righteous without belief in God. The problem is that  collective humanist righteousness changes over time. Today, humanists advocate abortion, thinking it completely

justified. And I think some atheists advocate abortion without really thinking about it. They just follow the collective thought of the day that it's not murder. Years from now our modern society may appear completely barbaric.


The other day I decided to search for television programming on YouTube in the 40s. Back then the narrator of a show would often act as a commercial for a sponsor of the show. On one of the programs from 1949, the narrator gave a commercial, or public service announcement for anti-racism, telling us not to discriminate based on race or religion. The interesting thing is that there was no reference to segregation. Back then, segregation seemed perfectly justified. The idea was that equality for both blacks and whites meant equal quality of each separate facilities. The quality of the black school, water faucet, etc. would be the same as the white's. Of course today we know that's absurd. And the idea of racial segregation seems appalling today. But, the collective humanist thought of that time was segregation was okay. This included both religious people, and non-religious, as the humanist movement has been around since the birth of the U.S.

Topic's author
#20
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We know Doc.

You can wrap poo in ribbons, but it'll still stink.

Topic's author
#21
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
Unless it is your contention that those who accept Jesus are perfect or that they cannot be forgiven for sins done in this acceptance (which I dont think you believe), rejecting Jesus so that one might 'live in sin' is unnecessary.
I doubt anyone rejects Jesus so that they might live in sin. The bible says they do not have a love of the truth.

Believers are no more righteous (or no less depraved - however you want to look at it) than non-believers.
No, it actually depends on how you look at it. Believers have the righteousness of Jesus imputed to them. We are all unrighteous though.

Accepting Jesus does little to prevent awful people from being awful.
Sure it does. There are hundreds of stories(some I know personally) of awful people who were changed by the power of the word of God.

Also, the verse you cited in the OP was in reference to non-believers, not all humanity. However, I accept the Bible holds humanity to be depraved, so I'll not quibble over this.
Good move. You'd lose that point.

As pointed out above (and conceded by you) believers and non-believers are capable of good and bad actions.
Yes, the bible clearly says so.

This conflicts with the Biblical characterization of atheists: "They are corrupt; their deeds are vile;” So which is it?
When the bible says, "they are corrupt, and do not receive the love of the truth", it isn't talking about actions, it's talking about a state.

Atheist can be righteous or is there "no one who does good"?
An atheist can do good deeds, but the bible is clear that good deeds make no one righteous. Not even theists.

You can't sit on the fence on this one. Either the Bible is wrong or atheists do no good.
Or you simply don't understand the doctrine. The bible is more concerned with our state than our actions.

The atheist refuses to have the righteousness of Jesus, the only truly righteous one, imputed to them. They declare that they will lean on their own righteousness.

You seem not to be aware that you are describing the exact problem with humanity that the bible points out.

Though we can sometimes do good things, we are not righteous. God must address our unrighteous state, not just our sins.

The bible mentions Christians who will truthfully recount to Jesus all the good things they did, but will still not be accepted as righteous.

The righteous will be the ones who put on the righteousness of Jesus, to cover them like a shield. So the bible is not saying that the atheist behaves less righteously, it's saying the atheist has no shield.
#22
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode

Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists?
Hello Skep!

I would like to see it pointed out.
Hello, Roderick! 

Keep in mind the context of this statement. I was not suggesting the actions of atheists are necessarily better or worse than believers.

As Ethang conceded, the Bible gives examples of each. King David sent Uriah to die so that he may have Delila. The good Samaritan was a non-believer.

In modern times, Priests rape altar boys (and the church covers it up). If for some reason you reject Catholics are Christian, then Southern Baptists have ~700 victims of sexual abuse they've tried to cover up.

On the other side, there are individuals like Bill Gates who through his foundation seeks "enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty globally, and, in the U.S., expand educational opportunities and access to information technology" [1] Then there are groups of atheists working to make the world a better place in various ways through organizations such as Foundation Beyond Belief, Atheists Helping the Homeless, Non-Belief Relief, etc.

This is not to say believers do no good or non-believers do no wrong - it is a given this is not the case. I simply challenge the connotation that believer should be seen as good and atheist should be seen as bad.




#23
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
Today, humanists advocate abortion, thinking it completely justified. And I think some atheists advocate abortion without really thinking about it. They just follow the collective thought of the day that it's not murder.
Or, they take their information from medical professionals who outline the reasons for abortions.

Years from now our modern society may appear completely barbaric.
Very much in the same way we find societies in the past as completely barbaric. 

But, the collective humanist thought of that time was segregation was okay. This included both religious people, and non-religious, as the humanist movement has been around since the birth of the U.S.
Humanist movements have been around for much longer than that and they did oppose the Jim Crow Laws, to no avail.
#24
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
Deeds = actions 

The original verse you cited from the Bible explicitly contradicts your understanding. Switching to a different (and weaker) translation to avoid this is disingenuous:

When the bible says, "they are corrupt, and do not receive the love of the truth", it isn't talking about actions, it's talking about a state.


They are corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” 



Topic's author
#25
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
The original verse you cited from the Bible explicitly contradicts your understanding.
Sorry, I don't see how.

Switching to a different (and weaker) translation to avoid this is disingenuous:
Huh?

They are corrupt; (therefore) their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” 

Or, if you prefer,

They are corrupt; (and) their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” 

We already know that the bible says it is our spiritual corruption that is the source of our vile deeds.

Deeds = actions
Agreed, but corruption is state, not action.

Eph 2:1 - As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,

Eph 2:2 - in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Eph 2:3 - All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

Eph 2:4 - But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,

Eph 2:5 - made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Eph 2:7 - in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

Eph 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

Eph 2:9 - not by works, so that no one can boast.
#26
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
2 words.  Yadah. And genosko. They mean the same thing, intimate knowledge of. 
God knows that people know about him, but they dont yadah or genosko him. Which is what is needful for salvation. 
#27
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
So, spiritual corruption equates to bad deeds, and good deeds are individual based? In other words, bad actions are due to a spiritual chasm, but anyone can do good deeds regardless of the spiritual distance from god? 

That might be plausible if "there is no one that does good" wasn't written regarding non-believers. After all, you've agreed atheists do good things.


#28
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
Sometimes I wonder if some atheists ever think. If an alien were to listen to an atheist, he would be dumbfounded when he found out the actual performance of the book they so denegrate!

It's like listening to some idiot claim that a flavor of ice cream is terrible, yucky, hated by reasonable people, and bitter, and then find out that the flavor is vanilla and is the most popular flavor by far!

The Bible being the infallible word of a god is like preference for a particular ice cream flavor? Interesting. I agree. It's not a matter of objectivity, but personal preference - at least for those who consider it to be perfect.




Topic's author
#29
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
So, spiritual corruption equates to bad deeds, and good deeds are individual based?
No. Spiritual corruption is a bad state. Our "Good" deeds are often selfish and deceitful. None of us do good deeds, even our "good deeds" are not righteous. And good deeds do not make anyone righteous.

In other words, bad actions are due to a spiritual chasm, but anyone can do good deeds regardless of the spiritual distance from god? 
Sure. Jesus once said that even sinners know how to gave their children a fish and not a serpent when they are hungry.

That might be plausible if "there is no one that does good" wasn't written regarding non-believers.
Sorry, you've been so reasonable up to now, I forgot you are one of those atheists who thinks words cannot have more than one meaning in the bible.

The bible includes Christians when it says no one does good. And the bible accentuates that by repeating, "No, not one."

But the bible uses the word "do"in different senses. For example, just because I do occassionally drive, doesn't make me a driver.

The occasional good deed I do does not make me  dooer of righteousness. The bible calls our good deed, filthy rags. None of us are righteous, not the atheist, or the theist.

After all, you've agreed atheists do good things.
That has never been in dispute. But those "good things" the bible calls "filthy rags" when judged by God's standard of righteousness.

And worse, even if they were really "good deeds", they still would not make us righteous.

Our righteousness comes from faith in Jesus Christ, not from our deeds, so that no one can boast of earning his righteousness.
Topic's author
#30
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
The Bible being the infallible word of a god is like preference for a particular ice cream flavor?
No. The bible being convincing is evidenced by the multitude of people convinced by it. Just like the evidence of vanilla being the favorite flavor is evidenced by the majority of people who prefer it.

This argument is simple common sense, but to a semi-leterate, it's the ad popullum fallacy.

If one was to say, "vanilla is the best flavor because most people prefer it." That would be the fallacy. But I'm saying what is plainly obviously true, vanilla is the clear favorite, and that is validated by the fact that most people prefer it. That has nothing to do with truth or what is the best.

Interesting. I agree.
Lol. That you agree with youself is hardly surprising.

It's not a matter of objectivity, but personal preference - at least for those who consider it to be perfect.
OK. That is a whole different argument, and I suspect you want to go there because you've lost the one relating to the OP.

I needn't counter it as I see nothing wrong with it. People are free and right to choose anything on whatever criteria they find acceptable.

But the astounding accomplishments of the bible and Christianity remain, and I think that has influenced why it has become the dominant religion.