Saying that it was the "normal practice back in the day" does not at all justify it, or make it moral.

And regarding gays - Lev 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

You can nitpick whether or not this regards sexual orientation or just the act, but either way, death penalty for gay-sex is not a moral law.

The Bible allows "taking war prisoners as slaves" - which was the normal practice back in the day, and prescribed certain punishment for certain crimes. As any law code does.

However there were no "gays" around at that time and hence the Bible does not deal with sexual orientation at all.

PS. It also shows that Dawkins has no idea about the Down syndrome.

"if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering" neatly sums up that Dawkins is the real moral monster around here. Apparently, following Singer, he doesn't regard human beings as being of value in themselves but only as carriers for either happiness or suffering. If they suffer, in his view, they should be removed and replaced. This is exactly the rationale among any form of murdering the ill.

Neil, neil neil. /
you won't find any single verse that the people thrown in hell suffered endlessly./

Matthew 25:41
Matthew 25:46
Mark 9:43
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Jude 1:7

There are plenty to demonstrate that according to the bible hell was thought to be a real place, then again just like with many other contradictions, there are verses like the one you referenced, that could be argued as "not eternal"

I would dispute that. First you are equating the destruction of an inanimate object with that of something with agency. You started with the Eiffel Tower, and then a painting. Would people not stop you from burning or drowning a dog? I think they would. In fact, here in the U.S. it is considered a crime. As for burning or destroying the Eiffel Tower, while I can't speak to the criminality of it, there would be a lot of legislation in order to destroy such a thing, and one single person couldn't do it, as it is not owned by any one person, it is actually owned by the Council of Paris. Which is to say that it's owned by the people, making its destruction somewhat impossible legally speaking.

As to your god, No he doesn't hold the right to "do as he wishes" without at least some moral judgements being placed against him. If this god existed, and I see no reason for that to be the case, then, he could by any stretch of the imagination do as he damn well pleases. However, does that make it moral? Might vs right, in my opinion isn't a moral judgement. He would essentially be a thug, or bully, pushing his weight around, condemning me to an eternity in hell. Infinite punishment for the finite crime of finding the evidence for his existence uncompelling. If this god exists, atheists will not be in hell. They will all know that this god exists, but we will be in hell knowing that we are more moral than the thug who put us there, and the testicle fortitude to stand up for what we thought was right. I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees, and I'd rather spend my time pondering and discussing questions without answers, than to have answers that can't be questioned. No gods, no masters. As as Christopher HItchens put it, "The eternal praise and thanks to the dear leader? Sounds like hell to me."

Can we measure consciousness? We may witness it... or love or hatred or resentment...at least the effects of these but effects do not always lead to actual measurement. What about measuring reality which many scientists claim is an illusion?

That is a claim that must be demonstrated before it can be accepted. I am in now way saying that materialism is all that there is, but we have no right to assume there is more than materialism until we have a method to investigate that. I consider myself a methodological naturalist. In other words. Methodological naturalism should not be confused with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is the claim that nothing but the natural exists. This is a baseless claim in my opinion, because I’m unaware of how that conclusion could be reached with any degree of certainty. Whereas, methodological naturalism is the foundation of science. To clarify, it is the claim that the human species can only investigate that which is within nature. There is no mechanism in which to investigate things outside the realm of what is natural. Therefore, we are going to confine our methodology to the domain of naturalism.

Clay, In respect to the well being of a possible child who will live a lifetime of suffering I can see how it would be more moral to abort the pregnancy than to allow suffering. Again, this is from the perspective of well being as the basis for morality. I personally think that abortion in it's own right is amoral. It has nothing to do with the right to life, as much as it has the rights to bodily autonomy. Now, I will end that conversation right here, as it has nothing to do with the original post. I'm sure there are plenty "You're killing babies!" posts, where that discussion can be had, but this topic is in no way regarding abortion. Regarding morality, I don't think the bible is the best arbiter of that either. Any book that claims you can beat your slave to the point where it takes a day or two to get up "because he is your property" is exactly the best example to use for a moral superiority.

Back to the topic you were attempting to discuss, I can sum up the cosmology in the bible to one simple phrase. "god did it." That is what Dawkins was getting at. The book claims to have the answers for humanity, and creation, or is claimed to be the answer, by most Christians/Catholics (I don't know if you make that delineation). Whereas, in the department of biology, rabbits chew cud, bats are birds, snakes and donkeys can talk, etc... it seems to have missed the mark.