Humanism is a Better Morality System than Any Religion

While you are free to argue if modern Christianity truly follows the Bible, the term Christian still refers to anyone who believes the Bible is the Word of God and at least tries to follow it as law. While you may argue all you want if God is the source of objective moral values, you would of course have to actually prove that your God specifically exists. The problem here is that you assume any God that could exist would most definitely have moral values at all, or that we were even created by some kind of ultimate God. For all we know, we could have been created by beings that are similar to us, or a God that is completely neutral, we simply just do not know. Regardless, this is not the topic of the debate and I would ask that you stay on topic. The point of this debate is to find which morality system is better for mankind in general, not whether objective morals could exist or not. Secular Humanism is not a religion by definition. I said in my opening statement that I am arguing for Secular Humanism, not any kind of strange religion. I would ask that you not try to create a strawman to try and make your position seem better. As stated in the beginning of this debate, if a clear logical fallacy is used for an argument I may completely ignore it as it is not a good argument. However, I will still answer your point because I think it may be important for any viewers. To start off, I will restate this again by posting the literal definition of Humanism which is devoid of any kind of religion or religious beliefs Humanism :" an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems." On top of this I have no idea what the hell you are talking about saying that Eve was a Humanist just because she 'wanted to be like God'. That would assume that Humanists believe that the Bible is true, and that Adam and Eve existed in the first place which Secular Humanists simply do not believe. Going on to the supposed 'faith assumptions' Humanism believes in, none of them are actually faith assumptions whatsoever. It is simply logic. Just because we do not believe in your faith assumptions without any proof whatsoever does not mean in any way we are making a faith assumption as well. If someone came up to me and said that God was really a giant cosmic pink unicorn with omnipotence and omniscience with no proof whatsoever for it, it would not be in any way a faith assumption for me to say I don't believe him. It would be a completely natural response, being he would be telling me something outside of this natural realm exists that is objectively true with no proof in the physical world to prove he is correct. In other words, your argument is quite ridiculous here. This is akin to the age-old argument that Atheism is also a religion somehow, even though it is clearly nothing more than a lack of belief in any kind of God. "If absolute moral values are not existent on the basis of God then what is the value of human beings? What makes us so special? Why do we have moral obligations to do anything? If we have no absolute moral values then we have no moral accountability for anything that we do." As I said in my first argument, the basis for such actions is wholly dependent upon nature and survival. Humans naturally do not want to die. It is similar to a parent telling a child not to put their hand on a burning stove. It will hurt the child immensely if it does put its hand on the stove, being your nerve endings will send messages of extreme pain to the brain. We as a species have learned not to do such things because it causes pain and discomfort to others. And we know that the more we hurt others, we heighten our own chances of being hurt by others. For example, if you have a tribe of people and one of the members of that tribe kills someone in their tribe, the rest of the members will be naturally hostile to that person being that person not only caused pain to someone else, but also because that person has a heightened chance of killing someone else in the group. It is natural selection at work in everyday life. Eventually we learned through natural selection that racism, murder, rape, slavery, stealing, etc etc. are wrong. If you opened literally any history book you could get a very clear picture of this. In the end, we act morally because it is the best system for everyone, not just one being. I will expand on that last sentence at the end of this post. Addressing your concern about my closing statement: once again, as I stated in the very beginning, if you use any kind of logical fallacy or personal attacks, any argument you are using can be dismissed out of hand. To be clear, I was born and bred as a Christian until about 18-19 years old, so yes I do know what the Bible says, I did not read it with a bias to destroy it, and I did understand it. I will refute every single argument you make after saying this with actual Bible verses. I will refer to your argument in quotation marks, and then proceed to state Bible verses. "The rape of women I assume you are referring to Numbers 31. Israelite's were allowed to take female captives and rape them? This passage has nothing to do with raping captive women. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and women captives. If it was rape it would have violated the commands in Leviticus. The women who were taken captive were never referred to as sexual objects. They did eventually marry the Israelites but they were never forced into sex." There are multiple verses on this so lets go one by one. The first one was in Mosaic Law: Deuteronomy 22:29: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. This verse you argued for saying that they intended to marry the women so it was okay; do you truly believe these virgin women had any choice in it? These were forced marriages so that the men could rape the women under the law. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 I cannot post the full verse here being I'm running out on the character count. So lets continue; "Slavery in Bible is not the same slavery that has existed in past centuries. People were not enslaved based on race, or their nationality. People were enslaved based off of economics at the time. " Ahem. Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. I would also suggest reading Exodus 21: 2-11, 20-21 "Why did he command the mass genocide of people (including children)? God knows the future of everything." I really do not think I even have to try to fight this point. I would answer more, but I have used up almost all of my character counts. Ultimately my argument boils down to this: According to Christianity genocide and the killing of children who were literally unable to commit sin is totally fine as long as God commands it and in the future they were destined to. This is totalitarianism made whole.