Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

So, the covenant changed, not the Law.

Hairsplitting.

It changes for the believer because he/she is not judged by the law but by what Jesus Christ did in his/her stead. The NT tells the believer repeatedly; we live by grace, not by the works of the law. By the works of the law, no human is justified because no accountable human other than Jesus has been able to live without sin.  

Not when marital unfaithfulness is present. God even divorced Israel in OT times. Adultery is a reason given in which the offended person may divorce their spouse. 

Or is your standard of "goodness" "let Jesus guide your heart"?

By faith in God through Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is given to the believer that they may know Him better.

Adam had free will. He was the only person who could choose to sin or not sin, other than Jesus Christ.

If I made a robot, would that robot be "free from the influence of sin"?

Its programming would depend on your moral character and what you included in the programming. 

Are you capable of making such a robot? 

I do not believe you are able.

A robot does not suggest (to me) a free moral agent.

Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose? 

IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness?

What is that standard? Yourself? Is your own standard really good? Or do you just suppose so, or call it good even though it is not?

Are the standard those who influence your thoughts? Since you are not almighty, nor omniscient, how could you avoid programming it without including sinful instructions or codes?

For freedom of choice would it not have to know all things to determine the good, or nothing at all and build from there and choose the right choice every time to avoid sin? 

Some suggest that Adam was a blank slate, free to choose to sin or not to sin. No influence at first. He only knew the good God had made. That is what he saw. In this way, he was different from every other human being. He could choose not to sin. We can't. It is built into our nature through the Fall.

He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan)

...and then a third, Eve, repeating what Satan had said. Adam chose to sin which impacted the rest of humanity since not only did sin create a barrier between humanity and a holy and pure God but it also gave rise to humans deciding what they would accept as right and wrong (subjectivism/relativism). 

...and within those groups, there is a huge diversity of values and beliefs.

A dog is a dog. A dog cannot be a non-dog.

What one person calls a "dog" might be a "catellus" to someone else.

You're confusing ONTOLOGY with "objective reality".

If one person measures in inches and the other measures in centimeters, which one is more "objective"?

We are to drive out sinful practices or deeds from our lives so that they do not rule over us so we can have a close relationship with God.

Sounds good.

So you have absolutely no concern about what consenting adults do with and or to each other in the privacy of their own homes?

Words have meaning, and "dog" is the meaning we give to a specific type of animal. You are confusing the word we identify with that type of ontology with another word. We use a particular word to describe the nature of that particular being. Failing to do so fails to communicate or jive with social norms. In societies, specific words have specific meanings. 

If I were in France and wanted to express myself to a person who does not speak English, I would have to know the word 'chien/chienne' and what it means, or a synonym like “un toutou," or a French slang word that expresses the same idea of a dog.

So you have absolutely no concern about what consenting adults do with and or to each other in the privacy of their own homes?

If it is immoral it should be a concern to everyone.

Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how. 

Each individual is the arbiter of their own moral instinct.

Then I say what is sa[id by you] is morally wrong!

Yes.  For you and those you are responsible for.

You never explain why your relative standard is or can be better than anyone else's?

You never explain why your "objective" standard is or can be better than anyone else's?

Is it because you believe it?

Is it "objective" because you believe it?

Does that make something good?

Does your OPINION that it is "objective" make something good?

Then two opposing and contrary standards (a logical absurdity) can both be right depending upon who holds what view?

(IFF) you have a son, and you call this son "son" (THEN) should everyone on earth call your son "son"?

Is one language "objectively wrong" and another language "objectively right"?

Without a fixed identity for a moral prescription, what makes it good/right?

The exact same thing that makes your moral prescription good/right (4 U).

Your moral instinct.

Is it force? If you force me to believe 'it' does that make it good/right?

Good luck trying to force someone to believe something.

That's not how belief works.

If Kim Jong Un kidnaps you and forces you..., is that then good/right? He believes so. Why is your belief any 'better' than his? 

Because it's mine.

I am the ultimate authority over my own body and mind.

You keep implying that there is no objective biblical standard because subjective people, such as Christians, cannot make objective judgments. Yet, you yourself claim there is an objective standard (double standard). 

What is this 'see-saw' you refer to? My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent.

The woman is violating the body of the unborn TO KILL IT and without its consent. 

If we are all arbiters and say the opposite of the other, logically, we can't both be right since we are stating contradictory things.

You used your own reasoning and moral instinct to VALIDATE "the gospel message".

You have to believe that God exists before you will come to Him.

You can only believe if you are CONVINCED.

You and you alone VALIDATE "the gospel message".

Because it has what is necessary for making sense of morality. I can point to Someone necessary for morality outside my subjectiveness in that such a necessary Person would know all things, thus being objective. Subjectivity and subjective people are limited in knowledge. 

On top of that, I believe I can give reasoned evidence of why this ontological Being is the biblical God that exceeds the reasoned evidence of your idea of God. So, the proof is in us laying down our ideas of God as to which is more reasonable. When two opposing ideas of the same thing (God) are held logically, one has to be false. 

Did morality exist before Abraham?

Yes.

Great.

So, we don't need all this special literature in order to be moral.

Why can't Christians agree?

First off, do you believe truth is discernable? 

The problem is that way too often we collapse passages, ignore context, ignore the relevant audience of address, ignore time statements, misunderstand the difference between biblical culture and our own, and a whole host of reasons. Having said that, Scripture makes it clear there is a correct way i=of interpreting God's word. You have to understand what the Author is saying to get His meaning. That means not reading into His words something He has not said or does not convey. You also have to build line upon line, precept upon precept. An isolated passage can very often lead to a pretext.

If all Christians are reading the same book and speaking to the same "YHWH" shouldn't they all come to exactly the same "objective" conclusions?

Are all Christians who disagree with you less moral and or less intelligent than you?

And you won't be convinced if you do not first believe He exists.

Are all Christians who disagree with you less moral and or less intelligent than you?

It is not me who is important; it is what the Word of God actually says.

...speaks to our hearts and minds...

What practical value is an abstract "truth" if nobody knows what it is?

Why do you think no one knows and how do you know that?

God is able to say what He means. 

(IFF) "the ("objective") truth" is so crystal clear (THEN) why are there literally thousands of flavors of Christianity?

(IFF) theological variation is so slight & unsubstantial (THEN) why did competing denominations historically slaughter each other?

Why can't the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Calvinists, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jehova's witnesses, Anabaptists, Hussites, Quakers, Pentecostals, Messianic Jews set aside their slight & unsubstantial differences of opinion and UNITE under one cohesive and "objective" truth?

Even iff someone was actually convinced that there was an "objective" moral code, which flavor of Christianity holds the "one true and perfect interpretation"?

P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves. 

True north or the North Pole is.

Does your compass point to "true north"?

No.  It points to magnetic north.

Does magnetic north change by hundreds if not thousands of miles without warning?

Yes.  Yes it does.

Does this mean that your compass is unreliable & utterly useless?

No.  Of course not.

A multitude of errors usually conceals the truth. Truth is exacting. 1+1=2.

I point you to the standard, Jesus Christ - true north;

Magnetic north leads you in the right direction, the general direction.

Because we are subjective beings who are influenced by so many things and have so many beliefs, sometimes misconceptions in one area lead to greater misconceptions.

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

Yea, well, you're just wrong, and you squash your own denial when you argue for forced slavery for the purpose of conversion. I mean, seriously, if it's forced it can't be indentured servitude. 

No, you're mistaken. You are comparing the 19th-century chattel slavery to biblical slavery that God condones. [...] 

chattel slavery:

the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery.  [Link]

OT slavery allowed non-Hebrews and women to be bought, sold, and forced to perform services without wages (beating was acceptable). This is stated plainly in the Bible and no amount of bad apologetics changes or mitigates this.