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

I extend my apologies for not being as quick. I'd first like to comment on my opponent's summary of my arguments. He says the following: "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. " Either my opponent does not understand my argument or is putting words in my mouth. I respectfully ask the voters to disregard the summary, read my arguments in full, and summarize them for themselves. What my opponent calls "hijack" I call the "necessary precondition. " This is an extremely important distinction. To hijack is to steal by force. I suggest such terminology is a straw man meant to defame my ability to argue logically. My opponent is welcomed to show my transcendental argument as invalid, but he should do so logically and respectfully. 1. Morality is absolute. My opponent, in a sense, concedes the point. He says, "Well I do agree that relative morality is flaw prone," and later adds that "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). " Moreover, my opponent did not refute my claim that relative morality is a self-contradiction, so I will extend that argument into this round. We do, however, strongly disagree on the nature of absolute morality, which I will address in the next point. 2. Moral laws are immaterial. My opponent lays out an evolutionary explanation of absolute morals. He does not offer scientific sources on the matter, so I am guessing he does not mean to present this as fact, i. e. , something scientific. I think my opponent is using the argument as a hypothetical alternative to immaterial laws. That is to say, if he can logically show a naturalistic explanation for absolute moral laws, then he refutes my point that moral laws by necessity must be immaterial. I think this is a valid approach and hope I can defend this contention to the reader's satisfaction. Even if we assume for the moment there are two genes, one for selfishness and one for altruism, and that these are the driving force behind our perception of morality, we still cannot adequately account for absolute morals. This is best explained by allegory. Thieving Steve steals Honest Abe's car as witnessed by Lying Larry. According to the police report, Lying Larry testified that Honest Abe gave the car to Thieving Steve as gift, Honest Abe says his car was simply gone when we returned from his morning run, and Thieving Steve says he really only meant to borrow it. If the actions of these characters are driven by genetics, then who is right and who is wrong? If I say Thieving Steve is wrong, is it only because I have more evolved altruistic genes? If I condemn Thieving Steve, then I contradict my opponent's claim by appealing to a morality outside the genome. If I do not condemn Thieving Steve, then morality is not absolute and we are back to my first contention. Evolution is probably the least rational way to explain morality. For example, my opponent says "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. " Fitness cannot be predicted in the evolutionary model. To do so is to render evolution as teleological, as having a purpose is if Mother Nature were designing each new species. In fact, fitness is only determined in hindsight; we only know which organisms are fit after they've survived. Survival of the fittest is a tautology; it might as well be called the survivor of the survivors. Since evolution is always changing and has no purpose, it cannot account for absolute morals. Absolute morality can never exist within a moving, changing, or evolving physical universe and still be immutable. The only rational approach is to accept that morality exists outside of nature, that they are immaterial. Anything else reduces morality as arbitrary, especially evolutionary theory. 3. Christian theism is the necessary precondition for absolute moral laws. This is likely the point of contention from which my opponent claims religion has "hijacked" absolute morals. This is not at all the case. If morals are absolute and metaphysical, as I have shown, then we must ask ourselves which worldview rationally accounts for both properties. This is called a transcendental argument--an argument for the necessary precondition of something else. My argument is simple. This debate is about worldviews. A worldview is a set of assumptions adhered to, consciously or unconsciously, about the nature of reality. The atheistic worldview is generally naturalistic, presupposing that only matter and energy exist. The Christian theistic worldview presupposes a metaphysical reality. There are other worldviews and variations thereof, but I use these two since they represent the worldview battle at debate here. I argue that Christian theology is the necessary precondition for absolute moral laws due to the impossibility of the contrary. Atheism cannot rationally explain absolute morals given the constraints of its presuppositions. 4. Atheism denies its premises when engaging in ethics. My opponent feels his explanation of absolute morals was logically sufficient and therefore claimed that religion borrows from the atheistic view of morality. This is only true if religion appeals to a relative morality located in the physical universe, since I have shown that relative morality is the only option for atheism. History and human experience, however, show otherwise. Humans appeal to absolute morals every day as seen in the justice system, legal system, the news, etc. In so doing, they appeal to something that must be immaterial and immutable. Since this only makes sense from a theistic perspective, I maintain that the atheist denies their worldview when taking a stand on any moral issue. The atheist borrows the Christian worldview, knowingly or unknowingly. Since an atheist is no longer an atheist when engaging in ethical behavior, I affirm the resolution that an atheist is unethical for the mere fact that he is atheist.