How To Be Ethical Without a God: At 33:49 into part 1 Dan Barker explains his ethical viewpoint:
How can I summarize how we naturalists know how to be ethical without a God? Here it is, it's very simple. It's a principle, it's not a rule, it's a principle. If you intend to act in a way that minimizes harm by your actions in the real world, then by definition you can be called an ethical person. If you don't intend to act in a way that minimizes harm you are not ethical…
Having dealt with the Timothy McVeigh issue; I continue the essay with my conclusion because I think that it is so important that I do not want it to be missed. Dan Barker absolutely discredits every criticism he has ever, and will ever, utter against religion, Christianity, the Bible, God, Jesus, etc. by his own relativistic situational ethics. This essay will support this rather hefty assertion.
In the previous 5 parts of our consideration of evilbible.com's claims as to the question of rape in the Bible we noted an unfortunate trend amongst many atheists towards un-scholarly pseudo-skepticism and an inability to condemn any action by appealing to anything but assertions of authority and outrage. Our study of evilbible.com's claims demonstrated that they imagined rape where there was none and that they, for some odd and yet self-servingly convenient reason, neglected to quote, cite or comment on the biblical text that is crystal clear about its views on rape.
Preliminary reminders: typically it is the most militant atheist activists who look down upon everyone for not being as erudite as they who are, in reality, "faith"-filled-pseudo-skeptics who choose only to believe that which is self-servingly convenient. Also, as a reminder; any and every atheist condemnation of any action whatsoever is merely the piling up of unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion until a tel is built of arguments from outrage, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments for embarrassment, etc.
Again, we must begin by keeping within the forefront of our minds that many alleged champions of reason are mere pseudo-skeptics who have widdled down skepticism and scholarship to the point that it amounts to nothing but elephant hurling via cutting and pasting the first hyperlink that comes up on a search engine when a search for an anti-theistic slogan is conducted.
While evilbible.com condemns what they perceived as the Bible's approval of rape we must recall that they are merely presenting their opinions, personal preferences, assertion, upon unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, and building a tel of arguments from outrage, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments for embarrassment, etc.
Now, to the relevant portions of the next text in the evilbible.com arsenal, Numbers 31:7-18,
We began part 1 by considering the issue of a, sadly, typical trend amongst atheists who are generally given to lack of skepticism. They seem to think that skepticism amounts to typing an anti-theistic slogan into a search engine, copying the first hyperlink that appears, posting it as a comment to a blog and saying, "Answer that believer!"
Upon learning of a website entitled evilbible.com I thought that I had more important things to do with my time such as oh, I do not know; watching the hair on my knuckles grow, perhaps pocking my eye with a stick or attempting to break the Guinness Book of World's Record's record for most belly button lint collected.