That fact that one can't give a better reason for calling something wrong than that they read it in a millennia-old book attributed to a deity is wrong.
Inspired isn't good enough. The Flintstones were inspired by The Honeymooners, meaning that the inspired part is true to the source and the rest artistic liberty taken later. If you only had the Flintstones to go by, you wouldn't be able to tell what came from the Honeymooners and what was added by Hanna-Barbera. Suppose some of that was a message from the creator of the universe, and the others the work of people. You wouldn't be able to tell which was which. The Honeymooners have two neighboring couples comprising two blue collar working men and two cynical, giggly, stay-at-home wives, but wasn't set in the stone age and didn't include a pet, and there was never a child in the families. You wouldn't know that if all you had was the inspired version.
Whatever creator and rules you mean, they only apply to volunteers. The skeptic can't sin or blaspheme, for example. Those apply to theists that believe that such things exist.
Not by humanist standards. Believing by faith is "wrong." Calling something immoral because it appears in a book is wrong by the standards for critical thought.
The comment was," the Bible authors knew so little about our world." Paul didn't know where the rain comes from. Paul didn't know that slavery is immoral. Paul was unaware of oral contraceptives. Paul knew nothing of overpopulation or greenhouse gases. Paul's "well-educated" is close to uneducated by today's standards. Do you suppose that Paul ever saw a parchment that wasn't theological? I can't imagine having a productive conversation with such a person. What would we talk about? Jesus? No thanks. The Roman taxation system? Why? The way to get to Damascus? How to circumcise a child? How to collect manna? That's his world, not mine, about which he would have known essentially nothing - the original claim. Such a person would have nothing of value to offer a 21st century humanist.
Nothing Paul concerned himself with matters to me at all, and Paul would be ill-equipped to advise any modern skeptic looking for advice.
I was with you until you got to bigoted. Yes, Christianity is evolving closer to enlightenment values every century, and that's a good thing. Tolerance of homosexuals is a humanist value (not exclusive to humanism).
And yes, you are correct that people are becoming less tolerant of Christianity, but I disagree that that is bigotry. It's a rational bias, a reaction to Christian bigotry and other problems due to the church.
You don't? Not all, of course, as this thread attests.
Do you think Christians are concerned about what goes on in classrooms or the wombs of pregnant women?
Do you believe that if the church had the power that it would punish homosexuals harshly? I do. And kill witches. I think they'd execute women that got abortions if they could. When has any religion that had that power not exercised it? As best I can tell, the only thing separating Western culture from the Muslim theocracies that tolerate pushing homosexuals off of towers or burning them alive in cages is four centuries of humanism and enlightenment enculturation.
And there it is, the emotional outburst.
I'm sure you're very familiar with the asymmetry in these discussions. The humanist virtually never becomes emotional in these discussions. When have you ever see a comment from one using the word whining in reference to the theist's posting? This comes from another asymmetry in the theist's mind: his opinions and purpose are good and holy, and those that oppose him have some kind of character defect, and should go away or shut up. You're the bad guy. Why? You weren't sufficiently respectful of his holy book, which he is willing to call hatred and whining.
