Theists are no more moral than the irreligious

Thank you for you speedy reply. You gave me one request at the end of last round and I’m going to have to tell you request denied. I’m not addressing any charges against Christianity this debate as I explained in my opening round. Now if you sincerely just personally want to know from a Christian his apologetic answers to any of the problems you would raise with it, then by all means message me a PM and I’ll answer any and all of them. But in this debate I’m spending my character space on having you answer the challenges to your Godless morality, not defending my own Theist Morality. But all that aside, as I said this debate is about you. You have one real argument pertaining to the resolution really and that is you contend evolution created morality. To put this idea to the test I’m going to run with it in my responses to all your answers to my 15 questions on how you view morality plus one more sense your brought up racism (glad you did too, I forgot to put include it but forgot) Murder) why must a life live to its fullest extent? Why should it be considered inherent life is better than death? Why should pain of another concern you over your own desires? These questions all take on a serious new life of bringing skepticism to your claims there is a morality at all when put under the standard of ‘evolution’. Perhaps your not familiar with your own theory but evolution…it works through natural selection, it works through death, it works through survival of the fittest. For evolution to progress the weak who cannot ensure there own survival must die. A mass murderer is the future genetics provider for the whole race because he cancles out others DNA and may ensure the progression of his own if this Clyde can hook up with a Bonnie. I’ll get more on this as I hit the Racism issue in sec… Racism) by evolutions standards racism is not only rational its needed. By mutations some members of the species are supieror and they survive better, populate better and replace the inferior versions of the species eventually. If peppered moths with black wings survive better than the whites than they will replace the whites. Black wings camoflauge better with the black plants so black is better for the moths color. Its not deniable human races offer different genetic PRO’s and CON’s for humanity. For example black skin more resistant to sunburn than white. With the Ozone disappearing that is a much needed trait for humanity to have and to grow better with. On the other hand if sickle cell were to outbreak for some weird reason all over the earth the black race DNA would not be wanted in most of humanity, it compromise our ability to survive. (these things have not happened, just talking hypotheticals). Not to be raciest but somehow blacks have become known for being better at sports and Asians better at more nerd stuff. Now I’m a white guy but if I were basing the good of humanity on evolution than I would say we need to kill off as many white people as we can and only encourage the further reproduction (preferably cross-breeding) of blacks and yellows. Also people born blind or with other birth defects… as Hitler said its smart for humanity to put them to death or euthanize them. Lying) why would it be wrong to bring them pain? Its does not affect your survival and if they don’t have the capacity to defend themselves from your lie than they should die. They have to so only the perceptive survive. Those that grow from such pains as well Polygamy/ Polyandry /Monogomy) I find it curious you could say ‘its unfair’ as a complaint in something’s moralness. What does it matter if one has more than another? Evolution if anything favors that very principal. And for that matter perhaps it would even favor a Polyanderous relationship between a Black Woman and several Asian and Black men. Reproduce the better smarter and stronger DNA as much as possible. (if the sterotype is true anyway, not saying it is, just making a hypothetical point.) Stealing) not to the party of the thief. The thief gets something he wants. Why should people have things there unable to ensure they can keep on there own? Why is it wrong to take from them? Why does it matter how it makes some other party feel? Premarital Sex) interesting so consent is important to you? Abortion) okay so its not immoral in your eyes, is it morally good though? Gay Sex) Interesting so consent is important to your moral standard? Incest) why does it go without saying? Abortions okay in your eyes so if two cousins or siblings or parent and child are consenting why shouldn’t they? And for that matter if a family has superior genetics isn’t it true in incest breeding while most offspring have defects (said offspring that can be killed) are not about 1 out of 10 inbred children gifted with exceptionally good DNA? Its that way with livestock. You bread a Bull with its mother and she will probably give birth to a crappy weak calf, but on rare occasions it’s the recipe for a champion bull or cow that the farmer wants to keep. There so good some farmers purposely force incest among there livestock to try and get one. http://extension.missouri.edu... Gambling) why not? Why don’t you approve of people doing whatever they want with there money? Secondhand Smoke) what if helps injure all those who are not born with a mutation that gives there lung resistance to smoke inhalation? Alcoholism) did alcoholism really increase crime or did the outlawing of it? and does a man really have a reason to care what harm he does to others when he takes a drink of booze that he wants? Suicide) previously you told me consent made the difference in other issues. Why does your standard double over back on itself now? Why ‘must’ it be talked? If one is of the sort to want to kill themselves shouldn’t they die? Cyber Bullying) So? Because it grosses you out cant make it immoral. Operating on someone can be gross with all the blood and body parts but it saves lives. Why care about there feelings? Can you see some recurring themes in your answers and my rebuttal questions? There is a fundamental problem with evolution as a standard source for morality (from your perspective anyway) because it makes too many baseless assumptions. For example most of yours is ‘we must do moral things so society is benefited and the species goes on.’ But When was a reason given for why we must help the human race ‘go on’? why not just let all society die out, advocate anarchy and have some short-lived but amazing ‘sinful fun’. To quote Aristotle “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”What he means by that is everything we try to do is in some shape or form a means to the ends of happiness. There are no other true ends we try to achieve. If ensuring the human race goes on and progresses makes you happy than of course you’d try doing the ‘moral’ things that are a means to that ends but that isn’t good enough to make right or wrong its just what you want to do. Another person may just want to watch the world burn, so if that’s what would make them happy then of course the would have to pursue means to make that ends if they want to be happy. So because while doing what you perceive as ‘moral’ may make you happy, it wont necessarily make someone else happy and even be abrasive to there happiness sometimes. So they would end up with a different ‘morality’ than you that better suits there pursuit for happiness. And if any ‘morality’ cant apply to all objectively, independent of what anyone ‘thinks’ or ‘feels’ then there really is no such thing as ‘morality’ at all. In Summary…. Evolution may make things ‘beneficial’ or ‘pleasurable’ but it does not give you ‘moral’. This a made up concept as far as you can prove. Thus you have failed to provide solid grounds for believing in a morality and thus have failed to prove the PRO side of the resolution.