The Bible is not a good source of Morality

Thanks for the open and friendly debate. So yeah, we can stick with Divine Command theory for the bulk of if you like. It's an awful lot to get at for 5 rounds. I will try to tie it together to make for a good discussion. For the viewers, sorry if we harp on one degree of the debate, but it was only in hindsight I realize how much information is involved. Good Luck! As to avoid Red Herrings, I assert any one thing only to the degree of maximal certainty, not absolute. Definitions: Bible- Both old and New Testament God- A personal, omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful, transcendent being (as described in the Bible) Morality - A decision of action or actions in regard to well-being of the individual with respect to the impact of said actions on the overall well-being of the population. Humans- The Human Race, Society of Humans Morality has been a debate for some time and often haled by the religious as a consequence of a Holy book, Divine being, or both. One of the most popular of religious scriptures is that of the christian Bible. The Bible itself is often touted as 'The good book', yet fails to meet the definition of morality as put forth above, and is a far-outdated, static pronouncement of barbaric practices as genocide, slavery, and rape. Morality is important to understand in today's world. And before jumping in, it's important we recognize it as a complexity- the many people, with different lifestyles who want a beneficial model of interactions in an ever changing world. In the vast majority of moral situations, we have a goal of preference for life. We know this, because we continually as a race have made advances in areas such as, law, medicine, agriculture, ect. that better our chances of living life by protecting and aiding our societies in their growing needs. However, creating a method in which we can judge the likeliness of a good action vs. that of a bad to promote this life, is essential. Further, we need a system that allows us to understand WHY an action is good or bad for us as humans, not just a declaration of omniscience. This notion of I submit is the cornerstone of morality. We have come to a time in humanity, where moral pronouncements are now being seen as an out dated practice, as it offers very little, if any, methodology in addressing the question of "Why should or shouldn't we?" and even less in the realm of situational ethics the, "When should and shouldn't we?". In fact, a large number of solutions mandated for some of the most mundane infractions within the contents of the Bible, happen to be the punishment of death- a punishment that is in direct conflict and violation of the state of well-being. To name just a few examples: Wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), Planting more than one kind of seed in the fields (Also Leviticus 19:19), Clipping your beard (Leviticus 19:27) Sex based Crimes (Deuteronomy 22:22- :27) We also note the Bible endorses slavery (Exodus 21:7- 11) and has very little regard to women's rights, on subservience: (Ephesians 5:22-24) Though I find it interesting these parts of the Bible are seemingly not advocated in mainstream christian ideology. Only a small front of fundamentalists seem to advocate these types of atrocious social injunctions. I posit that Christianity (as mainstream) has adopted secular values in a society who has found a better way to approach societal needs with the application of reason. As I stated in my opening, that the character God should be judged by the standards we set as a human race, for as we are the only forms demonstrated to exist in reality thus far. Below is my argument for the most attainable (and current) ideal system of determining moral baselines. P1 Morality is objective in terms of well-being P2 Humans can measure, collect and share information P3 Humans have a reliable method in which to discern data P4 Humans can independently exercise the mind as a moral agent C Humans can, independent of an outside agent, make moral decisions based on discerned collective data P1: Ex. Battery acid, if quaffed, will harm you. Irrespective of any subjective opinion of the use of battery acid, it's objective effect when swallowed on well-being is that of harm. Therefore, advocating the use of battery acid (for drinking) despite objective knowledge of it's consequence, is immoral. P2: Ex. I think this is evident, but the fact we have a variety of polls, scientific equipment, E.G. in medicine, research studies ect. demonstrates we collect data. P3: Ex. Scientific Method, Analytic Induction, Et. Al. Examples of some of the most reliable methods we have to date. P4: Ex. Considering God has not been sufficiently demonstrated as existing, let alone having an influence; It is reasonable to assert that we act independent of a God, as a moral agent; until such a time existence and causation of any supernatural entity or agent is demonstrated. .