Theists are no more moral than the irreligious

'At minimum you have argued Christianitys morality is equal with atheism, at maximum you have argued it is below atheism, a poor morality, but still existant.' If you truly acknowledge that, I've already won the debate. Have a look at the title: I'm arguing that Christianity, and religion in general, has no significant effect on one's initial morals; religion didn't initiate morality, nor does it rightfully dictate it. What I find perplexing is your categorising of 'atheist' morality and 'Christian' morality, as if the two were synoptic of the respective adherents' morals. Not every atheist supports abortion; and not every Christian (and there are hundreds of denominations of them) is against same-sex marriage. These generalisations have disadvantaged you already. Some of the issues you raise barely even concern morality. Sex before marriage is a cultural issue, not a moral or ethical one. 'That Christianity has some kind of rational basis for morality. It clearly does (from its own perspective). There is a Creator of all things, this Creator had a few things to say on morality. Being God gives him authority to have the last say at what is right and wrong.' Really? Zoroastrianism, a faith espoused by the Archaemenid Empire, prohibited slavery and allowed for the freedom of religion. This was practiced by the Persians centuries before Christ was putatively born. Confucian texts also contain many moral tenets that predate Jesus. If the Christian god begat morality through his texts and figures, why did he send Jesus to Earth in circa 3 AD? It has been calculated that modern humans have roamed the Earth for about 40,000 years (give or take). And after millenniums of suffering and privation, God 'gave' us morality through the medium of ancient text with oudated practices? You cannot prove that, even if God exists, the God that effected morality was the Christian god. Further to this, nothing can be 'good' or 'bad' to God; after all, if he is omnipotent, what evil can be done to him? And even if it were so, can you honestly say that Christians are more moral than atheists? 'From this premises in this debate I choose to take the position that there is no True Morality, that the concept is an illusion of the mind, I lie we have been told. I understand not all atheist take this view, but I argue that if reasoning is applied correctly they would. That a whole country does not take its own beliefs to there logical extreams does not change anything, the fact that there are many does not make there beliefs totally sound or actions coherent with there beliefs.' What are you babbling on about? I'm not sure if it's the lack of conjunctions or the spelling, but I'm struggling to discern any kind of point being made. Your talk on Hitler's ethics is interesting, but I think you're missing the point. There are many factors that moulded Hitler's and the many millions that lived during his time views. You're making the rashest of conclusions from the most tentative of cases. The point is, morality is an inherent function of humanity that evolves for the better over time, and does so without the service of religion. Many factors alter the zeitgeist of a current epoch, and our collective perception on morality changes to be at its most optimal. If morality were objective, at what point was morality at its most ideal? If slavery was morally acceptable a thousand years ago, and isn't now, objective morality invariably favours that slavery is moral; else, it is no longer objective for slavery to be amoral, as that would indicate and evolution in moraity (where its goes from slavery being acceptable to it being morally reprehensible).