1. By what definition of primitive? And how does that give anyone the right to conquer them by force?
2. The Bible has been proven false on every testable claim it makes, and therefore cannot be regarded as true in any particular without independent corroborating evidence. As for historical figures, they are no more immune from criticism and disparagement (provided such disparagement is rooted in facts) as anyone or anything else.
3. Lots of religions posit singular creators; none have been able to prove such claims. Jefferson's original was mutilated by the Continental Congress and disrespects anyone who does not subscribe to a monotheistic religion.
4. People are held accountable for their actions; it's called the legal system. As for God, Jesus says explicitly that you can break any of the laws (which did refer to the 613; it was in the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for the Jews, who held to the 613) and still get into Heaven, you'll just be "least in Heaven", except for the singular command to worship God. As long as you do that last, you will get into Heaven, you might just have to fly coach. That is a huge disincentive for moral behaviour.
5. No, atheists still see their freedom unduly restricted under such a system, as they cannot freely express their views on certain matters. Under a secular government, Christians are still free to evangelize and proselytize; they just cannot use the government and its monopoly on legitimate force to impose their views on everyone. That is far freer than the society you propose.
6a. And when the King behaves unjustly? Absolute power of that sort is far too much power for any one person to command.
6b. Which is not a legitimate way to receive power. The ONLY (GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL YOU RETARDED MORON) legitimate source of political power is a clearly expressed, freely given, uncoerced mandate from the governed.
6c. And what happens when the King stops using his power in the interests of the nation and starts using it in his own self-interest? What prevents that? Or would you implement the autocratic principle of "L'état, c'est moi!" so that the King's actions cannot, by definition, be against the interest of the nation?
6d. Which has not been proven to exist, and indeed all the ones so far posited by humanity CANNOT exist--so, effectively, the King is accountable either to nobody or to voices in his head, which is the same thing.
6e. Which is impossible when the King commands the military, and you have no guarantee that their successor will act any differently. The only system that allows for the government to be removed from power peacefully and provides a mechanism to ensure that the new government will act in the best interests of the people is democracy. Absolute monarchy cannot provide that and is hence inferior as a system of government, and neither can theocracy.
In short, you fail on every conceivable level. You are fractally wrong. Your ideas are dangerous and deleterious to a free society.
1. They were primitive in that they were tribes not nations. Civilization spread when tribes were conquered by or unified into nations an example being the great Roman Empire.
2. Prove the Bible wrong. And I think that certain great historical figures such as America’s founding fathers, should not be insulted.
3. The only monotheistic religions are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Zocrastianism. And as I said it was Christians that were the vast mast majority of the American colonists, so the creator is a reference to the Judeo-Christian God and could not be interpreted to also mean Allah or the Zocrastian God Ahura Mazda.
4. But people are willing to do evil deeds because they think that they won’t get caught and brought to justice. That is why the fear of God is needed, as an extra deterrent. The New Testament says that salvation. The New Testament says that salvation is by faith and good works and that you must avoid sinning and repent of your sins so the fear of God is an incentive for moral behavoir.
5. Why do you atheists need to express your views on religion to others?
6.
A) I already mentioned what can happen if the King behaves unjustly.
B) It is legitimate if it is a monarchy because then it is part of the nations constitution.
C) Again I already mentioned what can happen if the King does not use his power in the interests of the nation.
D) The Church can hold the King accountable by threatening to excommunicate the King if the King does something very bad. That is what the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages. The King therefore is held accountable to God.
E) Well usually when there is a horrible tyrant, many members of the military will defect in disgust and join the rebellion. And the fact that the previous King was overthrown will be used to deter the successor from acting the same way. And legitimate Democracy like in the United States is equally as great as monarchy because both have their wonderful strengths but are equally prone to corruption. While deposing a King by rebellion is less peaceful than voting out evil politicians, it is just about as easy, because it can be done at any time, while with politicians you need to wait until their term is up, and special interests groups and corporations can hijack the system to prevent opposition politicians from being elected forminag a corrupt swamp, that luckily Trump managed to win against, and now he is in the process of draining it.
Besides, under the monarchy, if the King is a good righteous monarch, his successor will be raised to be good and righteous.