Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent. Also, I don't determine anything from an "atheistic framework" Atheism is not a moral philosophy.

The biblical God is reveled as three distinct Persons.

Yes, now  commonly known as Dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a mental disorder characterized by the maintenance of at least two distinct and relatively enduring personality states.

However, I do understand that you have a particular bias and crusade against Christianity,

judging from you perhaps fifty threads, many of which work on isolating biblical context,

It is lacking in any proof, just hearsay

Or to you think everything you do is determined and you have no will at all but are just a robot programmed by your genetic makup and chance happenstance.

i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.

the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:

1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.

2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.

3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.

4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.

5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic...

....obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.

the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.

ipso-facto, no free-will.

Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are killed.

I'm pretty sure "it doesn't matter" how OLD the innocent human being is.

Is it a "greater" crime to kill a one year old than an infant?

Is it a "greater" crime to kill a citizen than a non-citizen?

And if you think "it matters", please explain your reasoning.

Once you start discriminating against one group or another of innocent human beings you are not being just and it leads to great inhumanity and dehumanization. 

Let me get this straight, in 99% of cases sex is consensual.

I'm going to guess you're counting COERCION as "consensual".

So, even though she is partly responsible for creating this human being, it is made up or carries half her DNA

Perhaps she should only be allowed to deport the half that matches her DNA.

...she should be allowed to kill another human being because she no longer wants to take responsibility?

It's a lot like people who are deported back into hostile territory after fleeing for their lives.

Is deportation "murder" when it directly leads to someone's death?

If she no longer wants her one month old newborn and it is using her milk and her breasts, on your thinking she should be allowed to kill it too. 

Deport, abandon, relinquish care of.

Also, a fetus is NOT a legal entity (not a legal person, no birth-certificate) and cannot therefore be considered a victim (so there's a slight difference between your two examples).

Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? 

Now to the moral aspect. Do you believe that all humans should be treated equally under the law? If not, would you mind is you were discriminated against and dehumanized, considered worthless, a piece of trash, by those who make the law?

Are you personally outraged by the treatment of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers?

Would you consider that just, if only the elites decide for the rest of us who lives and who dies?

You are describing historical reality.

If not, then why are you doing this to the most vulnerable among us?

The most vulnerable are the poor, the homeless and the desperate and forgotten prisoners.

- and see how you feel as they take your life in the same manner they would the unborn, sucking and tearing apart your body, or injecting poison into it, or the chemical burn to kill you. Do you want to feel that? Do you think others should be permitted to do that to you as a human being? 

Are you a vegetarian?

If you live in an area that I control (the woman controls the unborn in the womb) do you think I should be able to choose whether you live or die?

Do you believe deportation is a crime?

Or if your new born crawls onto my property, should I be allowed to kill it, because it did not know what it was doing and because I had signs posted, "Tresspassers will be shot on sight."

Do you believe "trespassers can be shot on sight" generally?

People are routinely deported with zero regard for their life or general well-being.

I don't follow your meaning.

Does it bother you when people die after being deported?

Nihilism demolishes morality.

Nihilism is impossible.

Any human stripped of all motive would necessarily be non-functional.

And if there is sone all powerful all knowing being that cares about justice why doesn't he just make everything just?

Because you are on the earth for a purpose, to know your God or reject Him.

Oh good, so now that you "know GOD" you're done?  You've accomplished your purpose?

The Bible tells the believer that there is great reward for someone who willingly gives their life's on behalf of others.

If people follow you out of fear, they are SLAVES.

If people follow you for reward, they are MERCENARIES.

If people follow you out of love and mutual respect, they are PARTNERS.

2. The percentage of pregnancies that are life-threatening is minimal (probably around 99% non life-threatening). So, while there are risks those risks are not usually life-threatening. 

Every day, roughly 10,000 babies are born in the United States, and about a third of them are born via Cesarean section.

So, maybe 66% non life-threatening?

3. When the woman's life is threatened (extreme danger that she will lose it) an abortion is permissible if the unborn is too young and not at the point of viability to save it also.  

Which law of "YHWH" (specifically) allows for this (seemingly arbitrary) exception?

I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery.

The rules for FOREIGN SLAVES specify perpetual ownership and ownership of the children of your slaves and ownership of the grandchildren of your slaves.

The rules for ISRAELITE SERVANTS is only slightly more palatable (and would still not be acceptable practice in modern times).

And there were reasons for some of the 613 Mosaic laws that do not apply today to our cultures, but the principles or lessons are still valid.

If the law of "YHWH" has changed, or "does not apply today", then how can you insist it is "universal" and "unchanging" and or "objective"?

Galatians 3:24 (KJV)

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 3:25

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Are you suggesting that each person who "knows Christ" is suddenly qualified to abandon the letter of the law and because they found Christ, they just "know" what is morally "right" in their heart?