Atheist

[Dao Hao Now]

Again , you want to invoke answer based on emotion.

Again,
Explain to me how you see that as “Trying to give some kind of reason based on emotion to try to change the argument”?
As opposed to merely making the unfounded claim again.

Help me understand.
Hint; quoting the bible verse that has nothing to do with my statement doesn’t suffice as an explanation of how you perceive my correlation to be “trying to give some kind of reason based on emotion” or explain how you perceive it as trying “to change the argument”.

This is red herring fallacy

Congratulations you have apparently looked up fallacies …..
though based, on your accusation of use, don’t appear to actually understand them.

I quoted the portions of the scriptures I referenced that depicts them as being quotes from god (and included the link so you could read it and confirm it yourself).
Do you not agree that Exodus 25
and Leviticus 21 are purported to be the words of God?

When you proclaim:

It is easier 5000 years later to judge, when our way of understanding things is different.
Its more likely that we can understand things better , we can assume that we are more advanced.

This would perhaps make sense if we were talking about what men wrote, leaning on their understandings 5000 years ago, not if they were in fact the words of a god often depicted as being all knowing and timeless.
To which I asked:

Or is this a tacit admission that the bible as written was merely the opinions of men and there understanding at the time and not inspired/representative of a god.

If you agree that the scripture verses in question are quotes from God, it seems natural to ask….

Am I to understand that God’s way of understanding things is different than it was 5000 years ago,

And…..

Are you suggesting that his morals and ethics have changed over time?

In an effort to clarify this, I queried

Or are you saying:
“Its more likely that we can understand things better , we can assume that we are more advanced” than your god?

Please explain to me how you construe this to be a red herring fallacy.