The Morality of the Bible is Outdated

As articulate and learned as you have presented yourself to be in your other debate, I have no doubt you’ll fit right in, and am delighted to have an opponent capable of presenting a worthy case for Con. Though fairly new here myself, I’ve found this place to be home to people of extremely varied perspectives, and I like to think that such diversity enriches all who participate. One of the reasons that decided to instigate this debate is to confront some very serious popular misconceptions. I’d like the reader to begin our journey with a moment of reflection - honest reflection – on the question of how one generally comes to “know” of Biblical truth and divinity. Early childhood indoctrination? Threat of social exile from one’s friends and family? Fear of death? Hopelessness? A need for purpose? Coercion? Torture? Enslavement? Colonial imposition? Throughout history, these would seem to have been likely processes by which many millions have found Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. None of these reasons seems a very compelling way to find truth when stacked up against dispassionate, objective, peer reviewed secular knowledge. And yet, even still today, with an irony that seems completely lost on them, the theist majority gloatingly describes the choice between embracing Biblical “truth”, or accepting to live as an unbelieving social pariah as “free will. ” There are areas in America where atheists are fired from jobs for their beliefs (or lack thereof), and are even denied the opportunity to run for public office - not that they could possibly hope to ever win elections, no matter how well qualified. [1] The tide of Christian bigotry is simply too overwhelming for an openly unbelieving politician to ever hope to swim against. Shrewd politicians, regardless of what they actually believe, tend to stoke the prejudice of the masses. There is perhaps some sophomoric amusement to be had watching the embarrassment of these politicians who make claims about the incredible value of the Ten Commandments, but yet can’t name what they are when put on the spot. Still, I’d gladly trade such simple pleasures to instead see an enlightened United States. Through the course of this debate, I will not be contending that it is impossible to live a moral life using the principles of the Bible. The reader may note that it is also not impossible to drive from New York to Las Angeles in an obsolete Ford Model T (though an iron age chariot might be the better analogy for the Bible). My point is that just because one could theoretically use the Bible as the basis for a good, prosperous, and moral life of peace and harmony, that hardly implies it must then be the best way to get there. I will also not contend that all non-theistic morality is inherently superior to Biblical morality. It depends greatly what processes are used. For example, the Soviet Union was atheist, and imposed that atheism by force, brutality, discrimination, etc… just as theism often has, and it fared no better. Instead of honest, free, and peer reviewed evaluation of data, the dogmatic pseudo-science supported by party ideologues was the only acceptable “truth” to be found. If my opponent wants to resort to the traditional theist mantra that “the worst crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated by atheists,” then he will ever so bravely be knocking down a straw man, as so many of his allies have done before him. To claim that Nihilism or Communism must inevitably represent the end game of Secular Humanism is about as false and ridiculous as if I were to claim that Mormonism and Islam represent the inevitable end game of Christianity. But even so, we hear it all the time, do we not? One last line of argument I expect to see from my opponent, but that I would like to prepare the reader against is the idea that the Bible must necessarily be the highest morality by definition because it comes from God. Hereafter I will refer to this idea as Divine Command Theory (DCT). By DCT, God’s command alone is what makes something moral or immoral. That is to say, when the God of the Bible tells you to enslave your neighbor and rape their wives, it is moral to do so, and you are wrong to resist. When the God of the Bible demands that you stone rebellious children and prostitutes, it is moral to do so, and wrong to resist. When the God of the Bible tells you that you must slaughter every man, woman, and little child of the neighboring tribe, his command is by definition morally just. As insurance against theist semantics, I embedded “prosperity” and “harmony” into the resolution itself, so that to effectively use DCT in this debate, Con would need to demonstrate that Biblical commands such as the ones above tend to lead to prosperity and harmony. Should he pretend that there are only warm and fluffy scriptures to be found in the Bible (which yes, they are there too) he will be cherry picking, and I will be delighted to provide counterexamples to help round out the picture more accurately. As I finish my opening argument, I submit that the Humanist Manifesto 3 [2] provides a superior moral foundation than the Bible because it promotes ideas like separation of church and state which through trial and error humans have discovered works well, but which Bible writers could not have known. Additionally, it does not carry with it the harsh, brutish, xenophobic, misogynistic intuitions of the ancient patriarchs who wrote the Bible. I do not claim it is the best moral foundation possible; merely that it is superior to the one set by the Bible. 1) . http://www.patheos.com... 2) . http://www.americanhumanist.org...