Atheist moral judgment on religion have no basis whatsoever.

Being an atheist SHOULD eventually lead to one specific ideology. There IS probably a correct answer to most questions in life. However, It does not have an ideology in and of itself. To believe so is to not understand what the term 'ideology' means. There isnt one specific set of theist ideologies, But multiple religious ideologies. If this were terribly pertinent, I would give it more time. 1. Science is one of the many ways religion has held us back. This is objectively true. There is no metric you can point to saying it has been improved by religion. You can say religious people have assisted scientific progress. This is in spite of their religion not because of it. Most scientists will say they leave their religion at the door when they go into their labs. They pretty much have to. Now, Who cares if science improves? All the christian converts in Africa being told not to wear condoms would probably like an AIDS cure at some point. Asteroids can be warded off with the right tech. Plagues can be cured. Who knows, The sun may be reignited or the heat death of the universe may be avoided with progress. We have thousands of years for those two scenarios. Look at the progress in the last 100 years and try to imagine what science will do to improve our lives. What if the tech to cure a plague comes a day late because religions have held us back even 1 day of scientific progress? I would claim that number to be far higher, Though it's impossible for me to currently put a real number to it. 2. Bad, Negative, And evil are all roughly equivalent in my morality. It is not a move away. Negative and positive are to better show the calculus of morality in my mind. Raping a girl would be a negative. If I could somehow know that she runs for office and puts policies in place that stops thousands of rapes that would be a positive. Raping the girl is then a net positive. A hypothetical any intellectual should be able to engage with. People that don't want to mate being bad for society? Just let them die in a few decades. They aren't reproducing if you kill them either are they? It's easy to know which answer is most likely correct. Criminals largely understand that morally speaking they are doing wrong when they kill an innocent. Please point me to the morality that accepts the widespread killing of innocents as morally good. Besides Christians with the Amalekites and the firstborn sons of Egypt, And the flood of Noah. You define gays as having committed some sort of crime, But for that to be true you would have to be able to point to some specific negatives that come from their having sex with the same gender. You can't. Failure to reproduce is not a sin in the Bible nor is it "bad" in most moralities. Most economically advanced countries have birthrates falling to at or just below replacement level, So one could argue we will eventually get to the point where people will need to be encouraged to have children. We aren't there yet. There are plenty of immigrants we can use to reach replacement. The solution is better vetting and making our countries look better for immigrants. Who would say forcing people to bear children is a moral positive? 3. There are arguments for objective morality without god. It's not yet fully thought out even in my mind so for now I'll say most atheists have a subjective morality. It largely just depends on what people's definition of morality is. Even if atheist morality is subjective, We can still claim the bible objectively supports slavery. There are plenty of passages in the Bible and inductive and abductive arguments that will point to this, And no real arguments I've heard against it (including your lack of an argument). My morality doesn't factor into the equation. I don't use my morality as the basis for those arguments. I use the Bible and the text therein. Being an Atheist doesn't change objective facts into subjective just because my morality may be. This is a red herring, Entirely baseless illogical argument that has no validity. My conclusions: My opponent has failed to respond to my claims that the Bible, Or any religious text, Is subjective because all religious texts are open to interpretation by humans. He cannot claim to have objective morality for his entire religion or any other if anyone inside that religion disagrees. His religion could be entirely true and this fact would remain. There is no reason to believe that objective morality is immediately true even if God was proven to exist and his opinion were clear. Who is to say that an evil omnipotent being could not exist? As such, There is no current objective morality that exists. My opponent is saying no religious person or atheistic individual should be able to judge each other's statements. He is saying that there is no basis for these statements. My argument would state that since Objective Morality is currently unknown, All people can judge each other's systems. We should all be able to discuss and judge each other's systems. Only this way, With logical and intellectual debate, Can we move closer to the truth. Perhaps one day we will find Objective Morality. There is no reason to accept that any random religious individual HAS objective morality with the current state of us being unable to prove a god, Thousands of religions, Et cetera. There is no reason to quell intellectual argument-driven debate simply because a religious individual claims, With no basis, His God is outside the universe, Outside of the realm of logic, And thus unable to be logically critiqued. We haven't seen any situations where Logic and Consistency have proven false after sufficient study. His god cannot be said to be objectively true, Or objectively outside of the realm of logic and reason. People who believe in things to which logic does not apply who try to use logic to prove that logic doesn't work on their favored entities probably don't belong in logical debate. As such, Religious judgement on atheist moral judgement has no basis whatsoever. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht