If Hitchen's challenge is correct, then why are there ethical lapses?

[kanageddaamen]

richardhutnik said:

kanageddaamen said:
Regardless of what is considered virtuous, moral, or immoral, they are done so in the bible by command, rather than by self reflection, logical analysis and mutual interest in the betterment of the society in which we exist, all of which are completely disjointed from any religion. Morality only exists in a realm where there is the possibility of no punishment or no reward for your actions. Doing something good, or not doing something bad motivated by self interest is not morality. With an omniscient, omnipotent being, there is an ever fear of punishment and hope of reward, which nullifies any potential moral decision on the part of the individual. In which case, we a re back to obedience to what is commanded, or not.

You may try to split hairs and say it wasn't rape because it doesn't use the word rape, but that is what the passages mean. Numbers 31:18 is particularly blatant. "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"

Sorry, that is telling them to take the virgins as spoils, ie to have sex with. I don't think these rampaging savages were interested in reading poetry by a babbling brook. And this wasn't an abstract "what to do in war" this was a specific command for a specific instance.

But fine, I will allow that tap-dancery. Another act that is objectively immoral is slavery, which is commanded frequently in the bible too. Or the murder of innocent children, etc etc etc. These things are objectively immoral. They are wrong regardless of whom commands them.

Based on your modern view of things, you have these view of things.  About every culture on the planet ended up doing slavery.  A question you have to ask is, who exactly lead abolition movement around the world and how did it happen.    You may want to look into that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

You may also want to look up the history of William Wliberforce and how he got into the abolitionist business.  Thing is that you aren't going to end up find anything on the atheist side that manage to get anyone to suddenly be anti-slavery from that side, because atheism is a negation.  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

But, if you want to get into what the New Testament, you see the letters of Paul and others on what is demanded, where the issue of treatment is dealt with above all.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Up34TA1G4

 

 

So your argument is that slavery is morally ambiguous?  That it is sometimes okay to keep another person against their will and force them to perform labor for you?  This illustrates Hitchen's point precisely.  The only way to reach a conclusion of moral acceptability of slavery is to either a.) be told it is okay by religion or b.) hold a view that a separate group of people (the slaves) are innately inferior to another (the slavers) and hence its okay to treat them as animals.

My assertion that slavery is immoral is not based on my "modern view" but on logical analysis and a lack of a superiority view of myself over others.  You argue that slavery is conditionally moral based how society feels about it, I argue that slavery is unconditionally immoral and society allowed it and judged it okay due to selfishness, greed, and racial or religious bias (among other things)

I notice you make the mistake a lot of religious people make and treat atheism as a religion.  It isn't.  Atheists are all individual people with a variety of motivations and personalities sharing no common group of beliefs or doctrines.  They just believe in one less god than you do.  That is all that connects these people into a "group"

A religion on the other hand, has a set of history, beliefs and tenants that are agreed upon by all participants and can be pointed to as motivators for that group.  This is the crux of Hitchen's argument.  There is no moral thing that religion allows someone to do that an atheist cannot.  Religion does however justify immoral things which there is no basis for justification for an atheist.