A right to choose what? A right to evade a biological consequence and in turn obligation (in dignity)? Women have all the choices in the world to do whatever they see fit with their body. But when they enter into any consensual activity that results in the introduction of a third party, how can there be any sense in that argument?

You're opinion doesn't end the story I'm afraid. Just because you typically dehumanize a fetus doesn't end the conversation. The same fetus has a genetic identity. That fetus has a beating heart.

Regardless of how far along the pregnancy may be? It's not American citizens but human beings that have unalienable rights. You cannot reasonably say that a fully formed baby is not human and therefore has no unalienable rights.

He's not required to! He should not give up his tax returns if he's not required to and voters who put him in the White House are not interested in that. It's Trump's enemies who are reaching for anything to use against him.

You have it backwards. Believing in God is the path that will lead us from suffering.

That is the argument that is supposed to call all professing faith away from faith?

You seem to confuse an ad hominem for a valid argument. You called religious people delusional, claiming there are arguments that we have ignored to continue with our faith. Please present the arguments.

What so called rational argument has been presented to render faith invalid?

Thejackster,

Your arguments are based on false representations of the Bible.

First you present the flood as an evil thing. But the story presents the flood as an act of justice toward injustice. Genesis 6 presented how humankind had lost its way, and how the flood was necessary to "reset" history. And it should be noted that the flood tarried for about a hundred years, allowing enough time for people to change their ways. Also there is the view of the angels birthing titans through earthly women and corrupting the world (Enoch described this in detail).

There is also the position that the flood was not worldwide, but regional, destroying an evil civilization.

The point is that God judged an evil generation. God has the ontological ground to judge evil and its perpetrators.

Second, on the killing of the first born sons of Egypt, you must remember that the Pharaoh of Egypt had ordered the genocide of Hebrew males many years before the plagues of Egypt. Pharaoh slaughtered many Hebrew males, of which Moses narrowly escaped, to maintain power over the Hebrews and keep them in perpetual slavery.

And remember that the Hebrews were slaves and untrained in war. Therefore the plagues were the necessary toward setting the Hebrews free from slavery.

How many lives were lost in America's civil war toward ending slavery? Will you argue that Lincoln was evil for fighting the war that cost many fathers their sons, to end slavery?

Pharoah could have yielded after the first plague and let the Hebrews go. But instead, he insisted on keeping the Hebrews in "chains." His evil toward the Hebrews cost his nation the first-born sons.

For further discussions on genocide, you may refer to [http://pastorrexiteke.com/2013/11/28/response-to-an-atheist/]

Third, Leviticus didn't call for the death of homosexuals, but those caught in the act of homosexual sex. This was to deter homosexual sex (and other sexual practices that were listed) from the public, not to persecute homosexuals.

Fourth, children were not killed simply for disobeying their parents. The text was referring to youths in their late teens and early adulthood who were a menace to society and bringing dishonor to their parents.

"Kill non-Christians"

Fifth, there were no Christians and non-Christians at the time.

"Kill people who work on Sunday"

Sixth, Sabbath was on Saturday. And Jesus challenged the legalism that became a burden to the Sabbath, saying that the Sabbath was intended for humankind, and not the reverse.

Seventh, Genesis 3: 16 apportioned punishment for sin to man and woman. Man gained dominion over woman, while he began to toil for his "daily bread."

On slavery, you may also refer to [http://pastorrexiteke.com/2013/12/23/the-bible-supported-slavery/]

Eighth, though men were allowed to take multiple wives, it was not so in the beginning. The formula for marriage in Genesis is that "two shall become one."

Ninth, The rape you purported actually referred to consensual sex. Don't be misled by the language. In that society where a woman's opinion was of little or no relevance, men "took" hold of women as desired. It was a woman's role to submit. Hence we are speaking of a man taking hold of a woman (as in wooing her and receiving her submission) and consensual sex thereafter.

You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts.

"Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics."

But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning.

"It just means we don't know yet."

If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported.