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

This has been a great debate! And it has come to an unfortunate final round of debate for me, but before concluding to debate I would like to thank my opponent for not only accepting this debate providing diligent responses on his perspective of the resolution. First I would like to assess my opponents evaluation on my summary. First and foremost I would agree, summarize for yourself, that was merely my personal summarization of my opponents debate. Sorry if I came of brash, as if I was putting words in your mouth, but it is simply what I perceived from your debate. To put it in better words (considering you don't agree with the word "hijack", and I will agree it is a blunt term) but I would have to say it is still precisely what I mean, religion has seized morality as its own concept. You mention that religion is a "necessary precondition" for morality whereas I argue the same thing accept from my own perspective, the Darwinian ideal is a "necessary precondition" for morality and I shall exemplify this theory via my debate. Rebuttals: Rebuttal to my opponents "1. Morality is absolute." "my opponent did not refute my claim that relative morality is a self-contradiction" - That is because I agreed with you as I stated "I do agree that relative morality is flaw prone". There is then nothing to refute for me. You then quoted me saying that I conceded the point with my statement as fallows "What was once relative morality could have evolved into what we would now consider absolute morality.". The key word is 'Evolved' in my statement, I am not saying that relative morality is right but wasn't necessarily defined as so till absolute morality started to show it colors in righteousness. To conclude this excerpt we agree, you just must have had a misinterpretation in thinking that I agreed but then later conceded with my example, that simply is not the case. Rebuttal to my opponents "2. Moral laws are immaterial" You say "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.". To answer this I shall first note that not all scientific theory is noted as "fact" (given its misconception to be so) but it is still a theory, and a popular one at that, but there is no certainty to claim it as a fact. If you ask many biologist or those that fallow a similar study they reply that "That is the beauty of science, we proceed are studies to reveal the more substantial truth of the world". My source(s) of the main theory I present to you (the genetic Darwinian evolution theory through the gene's eye view of life) are from two separate books but of the same author Richard Dawkins; His books "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion", I have been using these as reference to this debate. In terms of my example being hypothetical, it can be if you don't want to render the theory as complete truth which is understandable for those that can't cope with the ideals of evolution, but either if you view it as hypothetical or not it gets my point across. Morality developed via evolutionary standards in which genes adhered to. I feel that this is MY valid approach in which I hope the readers appeal to, for there is actual substantial evidence in evolution that supports my argument. Your example of Thieving Steve and Honest Abe along with Lying Larry has to many loop holes to be considered a descent refute to my morality stance within the genome. There are, for example, many factors that can be a role in the specific intentions of these characters that are not noted. Leaving your example as illegitimate. These specific actions of the characters I hope you will note had nothing to do with the advancements of genes in ones species, yet his example did have those of selfish nature it did not have those of altruistic nature acting as a force, only a victim of the two selfish natured characters. This is yet to concede my contentions. "Evolution is probably the least rational way to explain morality" - I would have to strongly disagree here, I see it as the most rational way to explaining morality. As I have shown through my contentions, morality must have coincided with the evolutionary process for evolution to have even happened in the first place, for advancement would have came to a screeching halt if altruistic genes did not help its own development in evolution. "Since evolution is always changing and has no purpose, it cannot account for absolute morals." - Has no purpose! Have you read and comprehended my debate at all? Its purpose is in many forms, advancements and survival of a species and the genes that ride inside of them. It can account for absolute morals, for it has, I am an example considering I am a product of evolution. Rebuttals to my opponents "3. Christian theism is the necessary precondition for absolute moral laws." I have argued this fact throughout this entire final round of debate and now contend that absolute morals via the evolutionary process is the necessary precondition in which theism has knowingly or unknowingly abide by. Considering it is theism that either knowingly or unknowingly abide by these terms, has then seized morality as its own. "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." --- Oh, but I have. Given your Christian theology stance on the presupposition of a metaphysical reality, it is limitless for it is a abstruse idea that I deem quite unfair in this situation because it almost alleviates all of the burden of proof for you. But this is understandable for it is an ideal (Christian theology that is) that was developed in a very primitive age of man were science was hardly a requisite. This leads to my presuppositions to be more profound for there is tangible reality in which can be analyzed whereas yours cannot. Rebuttal to my opponents "4. Atheism denies its premises when engaging in ethics." My states "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" --- Since I have clearly shown otherwise, that relative morality is NOT the only option for atheism, this rebuttal on my opponents half is still insufficient . my opponent also states "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." --- This only backs my contentions that via evolution we have developed as a species to advance in altruistic ways appealing to these absolute morals. I was mortified when you stated (my opponent for those that are reading) "The atheist borrows the Christian worldview" --- I and many atheist would beg to differ. Atheist completely refute the Christians worldview ( view of the world ) for we see it as being created and controlled in a completely different way that a Christian would see it as, making this claim completely wrong. Conclusion: An atheist is NOT unethical for the mere fact that they are and atheist, as I have exemplified to be true vie my debate . My opponent is still left to refute and prove my knowledge wrong which he has yet to have done. My contentions remain strong. For the Readers, hopefully after reading this debate you can vote accordingly 'CON', for I have sufficed substantial and considerable debate for you to do so. Thank you. Now I feel my debate is adequate and excitedly look forward to my opponents response. ~ MastaJake