Secular Morality is Superior to Religious Morality.

Con CaseMy case will be simple. I outline it as follows: If there is a God, then a religiously based morality is objectively superior to a secular morality.If there is no God, then neither moral system is "superior" in any meaningful sense given the lack of objective moral values.Pro CaseC1: Nature of the word superior.Pro strongly runs the risk of arguing in a circle here, and we find he is already on unsteady ground as I will point out later. If superior means "according to my intuitions about how morality should be" then Con has essentially already won. My own vision of "superior" - as briefly outlined in the Pro case - seeks to remove the term from its intuitional content and into the realm of objective judgment.C2: EmpathyPro has already departed from numerous secular moralists in this regard (Kant, Rand) nor does he even put forth his own particular ideology of secular morality for us to even debate. Pro never really provides a target here, so to speak. Emapthy is perfectly in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (the religiously-based morality I will be advocating). Pro cannot rely on some conglomeration of secular doctrines to fit his own amorphous definition of "superior." Pro makes a sweeping statement here without providing much backing, although to be fair he did clarify that his time is limited due to other committments. Let me first say that Jesus Christ is unbeatable on the front of empathy - his entire existence is dedicated to the idea of altruism, helping the poor, and serving God. C3: AccountabilityAs warned of earlier, we have Pro begging the question here ("A religion can mandate an action with little regard to how moral that action actually is.") Pro's point is a little confusing here because if accountability is synonymous with responsibility then there is no shortage is religious injunctions against wrong-doers. Christanity is undoubtedly serious about moral responsibility with the presupposition of free will. The main point here Pro cites is a "sword quote" and there's a few things to be said here.1. The context of the quote must be considered. For instance, "In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters" [1]. There are certainly strict guidelines on how to treat slaves, but it must be noted that even some secular moral systems condone slavery (utilitarianism can in some circumstances). Pro has yet to cite a secular moral system to be argued for.2. Pro cites from the Old Testament rather than Jesus' teachings. For the sake of argument I will take the NT to be more authoritative, and the text must be viewed in the context of other anti-slavery clauses. Even mosaic law is harsh against "man stealers": “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” [2]. Back to you, Pro.[1]http://www.gotquestions.org...[2]Exodus 13:14