An atheist is unethical for the mere fact that he is atheist.

I would like to thank my opponent for engaging in this debate, "so I ask my opponent to accept the following definition"- KRFournier states. - Yes, it is what I was hoping you would choose if any of these defining statements of the word ethics. Now you have labeled your contentions with numbers, thank you I will be responding to them according to their number in which they were marked in my rebuttals. Summery Of Opponents Response: You replied as I thought you would, you hijacked morality saying that without belief in god (rendering God as the absolute law giver) it is impossible to be ethical, for you claim that it only turns into relative morality otherwise. Contentions: 1. Well I do agree that relative morality is flaw prone. 2. But I disagree with the other majority of your response as i summed up in my summery. Rebuttals: This rebuttal counters your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th contentions for the issue. (1.) What was once relative morality(meaning only helping in some sense) could have evolved into what we would now consider absolute morality(helping in all sense). I contend that morality got to were it is today via altruistic ways of evolution (NOT via a absolute law 'giver' known as God in your case). Now let me explain, there are two main genes that were factors in this morality issue, an altruistic gene and a selfish gene (these defines what morality is to this day). Given that an organism is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness, altruistic genes would be beneficial to the evolutionary process by benefiting the species in which ever way this be. The key in that last statement is that it benefited meaning; help, which is good/moral. There is no divine law acting upon this altruistic gene. It is doing so for SOV (survival of the fittest), in order to advance its species. When I am referring to this altruistic gene and it benefiting its species you will think, well ironically that seems quite selfish, well on a broad spectrum, yes. But I am speaking for the mere human species and none other ergo it is moral in our terms. Now there are also the selfish genes which help use define what is not moral/ethical, for they do nothing to benefit any advancement and simply leach of the efforts of the altruistic genes to survive( which in the end does not benefit any advancement) . Altruistic genes thus far have given birth to what we will now consider moral in an absolute sense. As you can tell in my similitude of evolution, religion and God has no act in the issue of morality. Leaving your absolute morality via something that must be metaphysical perverse. In rebuttal to your 4th contention specifically, (2.) Given in my above rebuttal I would now contend that it is religion that barrows from an atheistic view of morality. Not, contra . This is why I claim religion has attempted to hijack morality (or ethics for that matter). Ergo atheism is not denying its premises when engaging in ethics. In conclusion, an atheist is not unethical for the mere fact that they're (note my change commenter's from "he" to "they're") atheist. And as for my statement "If anything a modern day religious person is unethical." I first would like to apologize for it is name calling and very spurious and non-topical of me to say, but if you would like to debate this in separate debate I would be more than happy to elaborate/substantiate this claim and why I think so. Otherwise it is irrelevant to the topic therefore I will not substantiate in this debate. I feel my debate is now sufficient and I excitedly look forward to my opponents rebuttals. ~ Mastajake