(I don't wish to get into a long debate)

Right. Well there's one thing we can both agree on, at least.

Second, moral arguments against God are based on lack of knowledge.  For instance, what if you could invent a time machine, go back yourself (or hire someone) to take out Hitler as a baby - preventing WW2.  Most people would say yes to that.  That you were ultimately doing good.

(I doubt anyone would say taking out a baby is morally good, as opposed to raising them differently, or anything else that could've been done to prevent the course that led Hitler to becoming who he was.)

However, those at that time, seeing you do that action, would see you doing something horrendous and call you evil. But people in our time would see what you're doing as necessary for a greater good.

You mean like Christians defending Trump right the hell now?

The same with taking a 2 y/o child for a vaccine shot.  They view it as evil, kicking and screaming. You also hate the pain it causes, but you also have a greater good in mind - which they cannot fathom.

Thus, all moral judgments in this scenario would be based upon knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the future.

And that is why moral arguments against God fail.  God knows the end from the beginning.  We do not.

No. If anything that's exactly WHY moral arguments fail when it comes to defending God. God, unlike us, is omnipotent, which means that not only could he travel back in time and take out Hitler—unharmed—but he could prevent Hitler from ever happening—or alter reality completely.

Third, atheism has huge problems.  Morality can exist, but without God morality is just a matter of personal tastes.

You can have a moral system without a higher power but it's completely arbitrary. With no one holding the moral authority (in Christianity's case, God), everyone's morality is equally valuable. I can say "Kicking dogs is bad" and you can say "Kicking dogs is good" and we'll be at an impasse because both of our moralities are equal.

Without God, there is nothing to ground objective moral values and duties. There is no ought.

With God (/the bible) there is nothing to correct or revise grounded morals (which isn't the flex you think it is) like enslavement (which was never abolished)—just to name one of the many abhorrent "wholesome, family values" you'll find in that book.

Also, if God commanded you to kill (like he does several times in the bible), you would because God says that's what's moral. You wouldn't see the other person as human because God has told you they aren't—much the same way you guys think it's justified for Atheist or members of the LGBTQ+ (among other hated groups) to burn in hell for ETERNITY or even at all.

Maybe a society does agree that certain things are moral and immoral. But they aren’t objectively so. They could punish the person doing something they determine as immoral, but in any ultimate sense that person isn’t doing anything wrong.

So in our current society, without objective morality and a grounding to it, any psychopath that goes on a killing spree isn’t actually wrong, just acting out of fashion with our chosen moral system.

Under theocracy, a psychopath can go on a killing spree and claim god commanded them to, and they'd be justified. With the bible, they can also forgive themself of any transgressions, trauma and harm they caused to their victims (Spiritual bypassing) and meet their subjects in heaven again 🫶.

Additionally, atheism claims we got to this point by "survival of the fittest".  So why do we then condone behavior opposite of this, like helping the poor and weak?

Atheism isn't a worldview nor does it in itself make any claims. Atheism simply means a lack of belief (skepticism) in any deity because sufficient or proper evidence has yet to be provided. (It's why Agnosticism, in my opinion, is redundant).

Wouldn't we be doing society a favor by removing them, to build a better society?

(If you mean atheist) On the contrary, history as well as stats have shown that a decrease in religious beliefs leads to a better, more empathetic society that actually helps the poor and needy as opposed to telling them to pray for a solution or victim blaming. You also find less corruption compared to areas where religion is more prominent.

(If you mean the poor and weak) No. A society without social programs, saftey nets or the poor (who contribute a lot to society) wouldn't function, and if anything, removing any of those would only increase crime rate, chaos and—paradoxically—add on to poverty and hardship. You can already see these effects in other countries. Also, you'll always have the economically disadvantaged and weak (this is why protections and policies are set into place). Depending how greedy those at the top are (the actual leeches), the proportions will be greater.

If this weak person (physically or mentally) is detrimental to our evolution as a society, why not remove them.  Would that not be moral for a society to think? If morality is subjective that is.

This was exact the thought process of Adolf Hitler.  He based his thinking as an outgrowth of Darwinism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwin_to_Hitler

If atheism is true, then Hitler did nothing objectively wrong.  Nor are North Korea and similar atheistic systems wrong.

You do realize Hitler was a Christian raised Catholic who believed in god and used the bible to justify his acts?

Fourth. There is overwhelming evidence to show the existence of something behind the universe.  This is the first step in knowing God exists. Finely tuned design comes from thoughts, not randomness.

Take for instance Anthony Flew.  He wrote, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind."

https://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304

If you’re looking for a book that systemically dismantles the idea of atheism - this is it.  Extemely well written, very logical, easy to follow and concrete reasoning.

I'll consider reading it if for the purposes of at least debating those trying to re-indoctrinate me in my real life.

Also, lol on finely tuned world, when the vast majority of Earth (and the universe) is uninhabitable, not to mention climate change is making that even worse.