My guess would be that that “Amen” is for the poster about Daniel in the lions’ den. In SA, the chances are upwards of 90%.
Not that it is possible to argue somebody out of their religious faith, but this Old vs. New Testament morality question always produces revealing results. When faced with the question whether believers would follow OT prescripts such as killing adulterers or stoning to death those who work on Sundays (or Saturdays, depending), the answer is usually that the NT supersedes the OT with Jesus’ new dispensation.
I’ll get back to that option in a moment, after looking at the other possible responses.
If a believer says they would follow those OT prescripts, they are intellectual dinosaurs for not recognising that morality changes over time and according to social circumstances. More than likely, they are also hypocrites for not actually following them—or liars if they claim they don’t know of anyone who has transgressed them.
On the other hand, if they say they wouldn’t follow those laws then they are violating their god’s explicit commands. In addition, they are being heretical by way of following or having developed a moral sense independently of their god.
The most common reaction is that the NT replaces the OT. So, what they’re actually saying is that their perfect, all-knowing, ever-present god got it wrong the first time and changed his/her mind so much that it required a readjustment. Some perfect god, that. But the clincher is that Scripture itself refutes this claim: Jesus himself affirmed the whole of the Old Testament.
Whichever way they try to spin it, the Bible should be an epic embarrassment for any right-thinking person, but despite all of the disparities, it’s still checkmate, atheists—just as it’s always been.