their book is obviously evil

 The bibble is obviously evil. There have been centuries of [reinterpretation] as folk start with the assumption that the bibble is good, and therefore it can't possibly mean what a plain reading means. Logic and the bibble can't be upheld together.

 Let's assume yeshua was a cool dude. If so, little to none of his message survived. It was replaced by paul, the high priest of satan at the time. There is no christianity, there is only paulianity. Namelessness, as always, gives itself the wrong name. 

 Fanatical christians have a reputation for being stupid because you have to behave extremely stupidly to buy incompetent christian rhetoric.

 

 Christians often like to explain evil with free will. A perfect being made things capable of imperfection.

 Zeroth problem: this inherently assumes imperfection is superior to perfection. Whoopsie, classic-satan chicken foot. There is no reason to add imperfection to a perfect cosmos unless imperfection is an improvement. The nameless one was incompetent, incapable of keeping his story straight. The Truth is more powerful, even at the heart of the domain of the father of lies.

 First problem: even assuming imperfection is superior, free will cannot explain evil without the addition of the desire for evil. Why would a good being deliberately make a mortal who wanted to sin? Answer: he wouldn't. 

 The story makes no sense. Because it's namelessness. It's just a lie.

 Without a desire for evil, when mistakes resulted in evil, the mess would get cleaned up. When the evil events occurred, they would notice their mistake, and would see rectification as a priority.
 Evil would not exist, on average. 

 A fortiori for jehovah. When adam sinned, jehovah wouldn't have let it be, he would have cleaned up after himself. The way a mortal can. If jehovah were competent and good, adam would have either been executed or melted down and re-forged. Put a Fence around the Tree this time, moron. Though to do this would mean to admit [[[The Creator]]] wasn't a perfect being in the first place, because otherwise he couldn't have fucked up. Whoopsy. Chicken feet again.

 

 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 Well, sure, but only if you're stupid enough to be vulnerable to rhetorical aposiopesis. Yes, a potter can do that, but why would he? "Class, today we'll learn to make a useless pot that we're immediately going to throw out."
 "On purpose?"
 "Yeah, on purpose. After we waste our time deliberately misshaping it, then waste fuel firing it, and waste glaze finishing it, we're going to smash the shit out of it."
 "...on purpose?"
 "That's right, and then we're going to stand around and mock the busted shards for being so ugly and useless, because we are Potters of Love. Ready?!?" 

 Christianity is cluster B, for Bad. Clinical insanity.

 A fortiori, again. This potter shows no ability to make vessels unto honour. He only made adam, a dishonourable vessel. The whole bibble is made of similar lionizations of failure. Irresponsible underclass failure, with concomitant shifting of blame. A moralizing slave, LARPing as a ruler. 

 There is no reason for mortals to be particularly vicious, unless they were the children of satan all along. Mortals have the desire for sin because that was the purpose and goal of their creator. There was no mistake. Nothing fell. There are, as is meet for namelessness, only excuses.

 

 The gnostics are an example of reinterpretation. Having taken false assumptions, instead of easily assuming it was a load of bullshit, they had to come up with the idea that the god of the bibble was in fact a delusional demiurge. It is so ludicrous to conclude a good being wrote the bibble that even mortals can't sustain that nonsense. 

 The problem is that gnostics are aposiopriests, just like regular christians. [Demiurge] doesn't solve the problem, it pushes it back. Shoves it under the rug and hopes nobody sees the bump; sophomoric at best. Can a perfect being create a demiurge? Sure, but why would he? As a perfect being, he can't do it by accident, and as a good being, he wouldn't do it on purpose. Whoopsie doodle. 

 Are you saying evil is superior to good? That a good being improved the cosmos by making it more evil? Sounds satanic.

 Woke censorship is an example of incompetent christian rhetoric. The post-roman church found christianity was only remotely plausible if literally no competitors existed. Likewise, wokeness is only remotely competitive if nobody is aware of any alternatives.
 The nameless one was always incompetent. It was only through mortal subsidy, their desire for tyranny and suffering, through which he could survive. 

 See further: atheism. As a christian sect, it is also illogical. It can only criticize the bibble on bibblical grounds. Atheism doesn't grow on the strength of atheism, but on the pathetic weakness of its parent superstition.