The Morality of the Bible is Outdated

Well Shucks I’m going to take the unusual turn of beginning my final round with some apologies to the readers. Firstly, I should have made the debate five rounds instead of four. We won’t have time to get to everything I think we ought to have. Secondly, although my opponent gladly paints over shockingly large swathes of people with an astoundingly broad brush, I myself am also guilty, especially in round 2, of using terms like “atheist” and “theist” much too freely. Even within the same denomination there can be tremendous variation. In recognition of my error, I’d like to take just a moment to acknowledge that there is an incredible difference between a theist who uses his beliefs to advance tolerance, dignity, and integrity, such as Baptist Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, and one who uses his beliefs to advance hatred and bigotry, such as Preacher Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church. I wanted to make sure not to give the wrong impression. Some theists are my heroes. [16] Some Catholics are my heroes. [17] Thirdly, I’d like to apologize to readers for the enormous distraction caused by some unnecessary comments of mine in round 3. Most of Con’s 3rd round was expended on defending Catholicism against attacks which I never actually made (if you have the time and inclination to review my comments, the claim was in fact that some influential Catholics still struggle with anti-Semitism, NOT that doctrine itself is anti-Semitic, or that all Catholics are anti-Semitic). I do still maintain my suspicion that Hitler’s fantasies of becoming a messiah, his hostility to Jews, and his unwillingness to admit error all evolved in large part out of his early formative years in the Church. But the point is not pivotal to my case. I could have not even mentioned it. I fear this debate could have been much more interesting for everyone had I avoided the topic, and had my words not provoked Con into a long lecture on Catholic doctrine and history. That’s partly my bad, and I own it. Back to Humanism “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - Albert Einstein [18]“The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.”- Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom [19] It may surprise you to know that Jefferson had such annoyance at the absurdities, miracles, and supernaturalism contained in the Bible that he rewrote his own, surely keeping the good parts like Matthew 5 – 7 which Con mentioned, but discarding all the garbage. I’m sure his book was better than the Bible. [20] Most of the American founding fathers and early Presidents like Abraham Lincoln were better described as Deists, not Christians. [21] They were influenced by the Bible, yes, but also by enlightenment works such as those of Voltaire, John Locke, etc… They did not believe in any particular religion, and so I argue that many of them are better described as Humanists than Christians. Humanist values seem broad enough to accommodate anyone along the spectrum of Atheist (“I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, but it’s too a silly an idea to take seriously”), agnosticism (“I don’t know if God exists”), Deism (“a creator exists, but not one who takes an interest in us or that we have any interaction with”), to even moderate Christianity (“I know this stuff is kind of silly, but what the heck, the crackers taste good”). True believers are the only ones that really need to hate our guts, especially if we’re so unlucky as to be gay or like seafood [22]. As to religion being pushed out of the public sphere… imagine you weren’t allowed to run for public office. There are some states where atheists are so discriminated against they are actually denied the right to run for office on the basis of their beliefs. THAT is messed up. [23] Consider also the discrimination faced by the atheist soldiers who defend our country despite the discrimination they face daily [24]. Con seems to want to claim most human achievement for Christianity. Actually a lot of discoveries were first made in China (thus having nothing to do with the Bible) and then brought to Europe, but at any rate I argue that many Deist and non-religious people, especially in the enlightenment, were driven much more by their own natural curiosity and exploration than Biblical morality, and thus came up with incredible technology, medicine, and more sophisticated laws, like the Declaration of Independence and American Constitution… and moral systems, like the humanist manifesto 3, which comes without the liabilities of iron age superstition, misogyny, and bigotry which have been discussed in earlier rounds, and flippantly, sarcastically responded to with non-answers by Con. Prosperity One of the reasons why I object to Jesus’ outlook on money is that Capitalism is the only economic system which has consistently raised societies that use it out of poverty and into prosperity. Acting on one’s economic self-interest can serve the common good. The most merciful way to help the poor would be to elevate them out of poverty itself. The proven way to do this is by seeking your own wealth and creating jobs for others in the process [25]. This could finally become a reality for most of the world within the next few decades – thanks to Capitalism, not Communism. So why would I or anyone else want Communism? Even the atheist, “Communist” Chinese have largely abandoned the idea in favor of what has shown itself to actually work (Capitalism), and reaped the rewards accordingly. Why would Humanists want to go back to something that obviously doesn’t work? Are you nuts? Was it not Jesus that demanded the rich to give all their property to the poor, comrade? He created the universe but knew nothing of economics!? It’s the wrong advice! “Hire and train the poor how to earn an honest wage, and then pay it to them for their work” is considerably better advice, I’d argue. Again, there’s a lot more that I wanted to get into, but I think that’s where I’ll have to leave it for now. Thanks for the contest, Con. Until our paths cross again, live long and prosper. 16) http://www.movpins.com... 17) http://www.comedymoontower.com... 18) http://www.nbcnews.com... 19) http://www.nobeliefs.com... 20) http://www.monticello.org... 21) http://en.wikipedia.org... 22) http://rationalwiki.org... 23) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 24) http://militaryatheists.org... 25) http://www.economist.com...