What? what the... why.... did you even read? half of your post you just reiterate MY point as if it contradicts me and the other you just say things that are simply irrelevant.
Let's go through this
That's because there is no logic their argument. It's based on faith, and nothing can touch faith.
There is no nice way to say this....
My point was this: Religious people do not tout their arguments as logical, so attacking their logic is somewhat silly. In contrast, atheists DO tout their arguments as logical and are very often guilty of poor logic. I find it odd that otherwise clear thinking individuals see any merit to the argument that says "Oh you think IM being illogical? well HE is being WAY more illogical so there!" as if that in any way fixes the irrationality of the offender
That is grade-school thinking. The kind of thought process that gets a child to point and say "well he started it". It's just bad.
I can just as well say there's a flying spaghetti monster in the outer reaches of the 60 millionth closest galaxy to Earth, and there would be no way to prove that I was wrong. I can base my belief entirely on faith, but wanting to believe it's true doesn't make it so. People who believe in God have the burden of proof, not atheists, but there is no evidence that God exists. But you guys just go back to saying that there is no way to prove he doesn't exist, so the cycle just goes on and on with no end.
You are simply wrong here. You cannot put the burden of proof on someone like that. If they were to demand that YOU believe then yes, they have the burden of proof. Burden of proof does not follow the positive statement. It follows he who asserts a fact towards another. For most religious, their faith is enough for them and they don't demand that others believe what they do. For those who do call others to believe as they do, part of the deal remains faith, so if you won't believe on faith you wouldnt be doing what the religious person wants anyways and it becomes a moot point. However, what happened here is someone expressed that they were religious and the atheists jumped down their throat saying "God does not exist", thereby asserting a fact onto another and assuming the burden of proof. It's on you skippy
There were plenty of religious posters writing that morals come from God so I don't see what your point is.
What? How in the name of Spaghetti Monster did you think I said people were not saying morals came from god? I said that the claim that they come from god does not mean that non-believers must be amoral. And this is your response? what?...
And you suppose that there were Christians before Europeans arrived in Asia or Africa? If morals came from a Christian God, then how can precolonial Africa or Asia possibly figure out what was moral and what was not? Did people living in China before any contact with Europeans have morals? Could they not figure out what was moral and what was not because they had no concept of a Christian God? Can any religious person explain that?
Here is the thing.... The argument "If you say morals come from god, that means any non-believers must be amoral" is simply ridiculous. For that to work, it means that non-believers would also not be created by god. Belief and origin are two separate things and are just simply not linked. This is an example of an irrational and inappropriate logical extension that you made in your argument, one that I find ironic because you so scorn the irrationality of theists while at the same time being highly irrational.
In the past, people who said that morals come from a Christian God are implied that those who do not believe are "barbarians" or "savages" and must be converted. The Africans didn't believe in God, and therefore must not have morals. Why not enslave them right?
Oh, so now how the followers choose to use such beliefs impacts either the validity of the statement or the chance of there being a god.... I suppose if your dog disobeys a command you also cease to exist now. Interesting
Nobody is saying that many within the church werent *******s. They were
but the logical disconnect is attributing their behavior towards the likelihood of a god or "higher power". There is simply no logical progression there so attempting to do so makes you as guilty as every religious person you have ever scoffed at.
Don't feel embarrassed for me. I know what the Old Testament is, and I feel liberated knowing that I don't believe that some vengeful, vindictive God is looking over my shoulder, judging my every move. I only used the "before Christ was born" line because no in their right mind would use the Old Testament as a moral guide, which only begs the question of how people can distinguish between what is right and wrong in the Bible (hint: it's not because it's in the Bible!).
I feel like you are backpeddaling your argument and... really nothing here is relevant to what we were discussing.
That actually sounds just as plausible as a man in the sky ordering people around and divining "holy books." Not to mention a boat that can fit two specimens of every species of animal, talking bushes, and a virgin birth. Yep, all completely plausible.
Wait, what?
That last bit was pretty succinct. Others got it. That you didn't tells me quite a bit....
your counterpoint back to me is essentially "Oh yeah? Well HE started it!" So what... a theist being irrational or even MORE irrational than you does not make or unmake you irrational. Yet another example of your irrationality here 
