Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

Here, we are dealing with supernaturalism. What, on the planet, is the point in making it subject to the scientific method? There are other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize this. But atheists somehow object...I don't get it.

So, the atheists agree that the scientific method is practically useless when it comes to understanding and verifying things in super-naturalism. Okay.Let's start with this:1. Both atheists and theists will agree that morality is surely a major part in human life. The ability to discern good from evil right and wrong takes precedence for more people than not. (there are more theists than atheists. I do not mean to say that atheists live immoral lives, no. Just, that isn't their main focus in life, as it appears. There are other things, like self, accuracy, science, etc that occupy a much bigger part of their lives.)2. Obviously, in our world, we do not have a universal moral code that everyone follows. Even if there are laws on paper, and more or less similar among countries, people are imperfect, to say the least, in following them.3. Yet, we all strive to be moral.4. We all know, for sure, that man cannot ever reach the moral standard he has set for himself.5. In light of this, there are two possible ways out of this problem. 1) Forget morality and live your life
2) Submit to an absolute, ultimate moral code6. The absolute, universal moral code is the moral Code of God. There is no personal preference or bias in following this code.7. Since man already knows that he is imperfect, and cannot perfectly follow God's moral code (he couldn't even his own!), there has got to be propitiation.8. That is exactly what the Christian God offers. Propitiation.Now, if people would rather choose to throw morality and its ramifications down the drain for personal reasons, what I wrote above is perfect nonsense--farce. But for the other group who are on the lookout for moral lives, there seems to be only one way--a supernatural way.

Now assuming that you've met with God personally and are 100% sure about His existence, and how will you be able to show others that it is true that God exists?!?!?! You will find that there's not any efficient way for such a kind of truth to be conveyed among humans. Even when you are 100% sure about it, others will have to need faith either to accept or to reject what you said. To simply put, witnessing and testimony are already of the most efficient way for your truth to be conveyed. And coincidently this is what Christianity is, witnessing and testimonies.

Umm, well now, if you would define morality as "getting along with each other", then sir, more power to you. /sI mean....where's your beef?

Um, yeah, that's the best I can tell you,I don't base faith on physical evidence..even if there was 100% reliable evidence for the Flood. I might say "oh look, we have physical evidence to further confirm the veracity of the Biblical account that we already believe in based on faith" but not "hey, Joe, umm...they finally discovered the Ark, so now that we have a leg to stand on in the scientific community, lets believe this Bible, shall we?..and if they contend with us, its okay bud, we have physical evidence!"

Philosophy! Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic, Philosophy of religion. If you want to categorize my argument into one of these, that's ethics. Dealing with morality!