The Bible is not a good source of Morality

[ 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 ]I want to start by just looking at this syllogism. It is neither valid nor sound by means of being both circular and affirming the consequent (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) and this is important because the foundation of any argumentation must be sound. I shall demonstrate in two ways, one with the examples given by the opponent, and one with the actual discussion of the syllogism itself. First the example:"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."The practice of seppuku (http://www.britannica.com...) was done out of honor and though a punishment in many cases was a means of maintaining one's honor as a samurai. We know for a fact that stabbing yourself is very much so detrimental however the moral value of seppuku as suicide is high not low. Many objectively harmful practices as a means of proving social status including ones that end in the participants guaranteed death are not considered immoral. In modernity this can be even as simple as a tattoo since the grounds for this is a lack of harm and obviously needles piercing the skin for aesthetic pleasure or as recognition and symbolism are both quite harmful regardless of longevity. Harm aversion is not a basis of morality.Another very easily noted example is alcohol consumption; with 56% of individuals reporting they drink alcohol, a known poison, at least monthly (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...) it is entirely impossible that one's knowledge of said poison drives one's aversions to said substances. Knowingly imbibing poisonous materials (from here on known as "drugs") is very common and many humans support it regardless of it's harm value. There are even times when the damge is permanent and still continued even for only psychoaddictive substances such as cocaine (http://www.dependency.net...) which, contrary to popular belief, are not physically addictive."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."This is the fallacy of the consequent. The premise states that due to the lack of evidence for something it must be reasonable that something else must be true which is not true and easily demonstrated by simply using a hotdog:If Chad is German he will know what a frankfurter is and he did know what one was therefore Chad is German!Chad's being German has nothing to do with knowing what a frankfurter is. In the same sense humans having moral sensibility on the basis that there is no deity has nothing to do with their ability to discern things accurately in a moral sense and because it has been at least posited that human morality is not based on safety or harm aversion the premises relating to physical prospects of discovery are almost nullified since, again, humans willingly drink alcohol often to drunkenness and at times beyond safe limits (presuming there is such as thing as a "safe limit" in harm aversion logic for unnecessary poison intake). This is key because if the moral agency of humanity is so flippant it cannot be the basis for any sound version of ethics and even human logic, as demonstrated, is prone to an extreme array of what is and isn't acceptable and also a change in that acceptability at any given time since in an ironic sense I will demonstrate that people actually use battery acid (http://www.justice.gov...) is at times a key ingredient in Meth which humans most definitely consume.Of course the conclusion itself must be circular (or non-sequitur, if you wish to choose that route) if one takes into account the invalidity of the premises themselves and above all the conclusion is unsound.Now one might ask why I went through all that instead of posting Bible verses to prove my point and this is actually proof of that point: Human logic falters badly. It falls flat on it's face and because humans are actually not capable of forming sound personal morals their ability to form congealed and appropriate ethics is at best weak if not impossible thus why there is no one brand of ethics (http://www.csrnyc.com...) which, if there were any absolutism to human morality there would be, and no one universal basis for law. Human cultures differ so much that it is impossible to assert they actually have, with any real indicating factors, sense of moral agency that would be sufficient to do more than simply set up a mildly functioning society.The God of the Bible is stated to be "True", that is, He does not lie:Numbers 23:19 NIV "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (http://biblehub.com...)"If God is stable and True then God's morality is an ethical standard, it does not shift, it does not change, it is impossible for God to do "wrong" or "sin", it is logically sound, and it is absolute. By this standard God is therefore without shadow of a doubt capable of both passing appropriate judgment on an individual whilst humans have shown they are not through false imprisonment (https://www.law.cornell.edu...), political imprisonment (http://www.rferl.org...), and even zealous murder for false crimes (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) such as simply saying "No" to another person. Humans are petty and incapable and are willing to excuse their crimes without any particulars where in some societies you have oligarchial rule that allows for excuses such as "Affluenza" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) however before God all men are equal and appropriately judged regardless of wealth or any other such humanly satisfying value (https://www.biblegateway.com...) as shown in Romans 2:"If you judge someone else, you have no excuse for it. When you judge another person, you are judging yourself. You do the same things you blame others for doing. 2 We know that when God judges those who do evil things, he judges fairly. 3 Though you are only a human being, you judge others. But you yourself do the same things. So how do you think you will escape when God judges you? 4 Do you disrespect God’s great kindness and favor? Do you disrespect God when he is patient with you? Don’t you realize that God’s kindness is meant to turn you away from your sins?"All-in-all humans are, by far, horribly incapable of managing a stable form of morality that is actually based anything concrete whether it be purposefully drinking poison, justifying stealing and killing, or just outright practices of favortism from which discrimination is born God is a far better judge and the Bible at least stable in it's approach to morality never shifting from Yahweh's word. Not a single commandment given, that would appropriately apply to modern day, seems to be troublesome to follow.Back to Pro.