Atheists have better morals than Theists.

I have decided to group some of my answers as the questions merited similar responses. Questions 1,2,3 I will approach these questions from two angles. First, I will use the "foundation" argument (which is quite short and more theoretical and perhaps less satisfying to my opponent). Second, I will the "theistic" argument. As the debate topic is concerning a comparison of the two sets of morality (Theist vs. Atheist), it is important to note a "con" argument needs only to prove that Atheist morality is NOT superior to Theist morality. As such, it is important to examine where atheist morality is generated. I will be using a set of short statements to logically prove my point. There is no good or bad. Everything is subjective. If it is true that all atheists think alike, and generate morality based on the same rule, then it must be that NO atheist in the existence of the universe has ever deviated from this (assuming this atheist is a rational being, sound of mind). -That is to say, if even a single atheist exists/existed that did not base morality off of "doing unto others", it is impossible to say all atheists generate morality in this fashion. If there exists an atheist who does conform to my opponent's proposed system of morality, and good and bad are subjective to each person, then that person's morality must be a "truth". -That is to say, what they think is right (murder, perhaps) is morally right to them. In this case, how can it be said that this atheist's morality is superior to a theist's morality (that the opponent claims allows for murder)? From the "theist" perspective, an absolute authority exists that is entirely independent of humanity. It is not dependent on random chance or human perception of reality (which is a contentious philosophical debate: whether what we perceive to be as reality is indeed reality). If this authority is accepted as absolute (which is a question of religious belief and the existence of a deity), then a command to punish offences against this absolute moral code is NOT a moral offence itself. In the case of the passage that was quoted (Deut 22:21), they are ordered to kill the woman with stoning, not murder her. In the original text of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill" is actually meant to read "Thou shalt not murder". "יב לֹא תִרְצָח, לֹא תִנְאָף; לֹא תִגְנֹב, לֹא-תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר. "( . http://www.mechon-mamre.org... , Exodus 20:12)As to the passage quoted concerning rape, I would invite my opponent to read the entire chapter. It is actually a condemnation of rape. Concerning the role of women and their position in the Bible, it must be acknowledged that what we perceive as debasing of women comes from social conditioning and bias (if not entirely, at least partially). It is a common social doctrine that "different" means discrimination. In mainstream society, we are all the same (nobody is different), while at the same time we all want to be unique. It is very obvious if one were to study the Bible thoroughly that women and men are prescribed different roles. Many criticisms about this stem from the misconception that because men and women are described as holding different positions in the Biblical society, it must be an attack on women. Of course, this has been exacerbated by post-Biblical societies claiming to be Christian (to support or propagate a religion is not to represent it) that have placed actual discriminatory restrictions on women (literacy, workplace discrimination, the sexualization of women). Question 4Morality must be objective and immutable for it to have any meaning. If there is no greater authority, and morality changes constantly, who is to say an individual cannot select a set of moral rules from 1000 years ago (outdated as compared to others) and claim it as their standard of good and bad? Morality has no meaning if it is not applicable to everyone. Additionally, there are no consequences to a morality backed by subjective good and bad. In a world with no grand purpose (we are just chemicals), why should one care if they are thrown in prison? Why should we treat others the way we wish to be treated be a "good" moral? Life has no value if we are all chemicals born from chaos and random chance. Question 5,6,7In a random universe created by chance, what is the standard for perfection? What is the standard for efficiency? As there is no standard (everything is random, we are chemicals with no greater meaning), an atheist cannot argue that humans are "unintelligent design", because his notion of perfection stems from abstract concepts he cannot prove exist. (Science? Science is based on logic. How does one determine logic even exists? How can one say logic is unbiased or absolute if one has no proof of it? ) Question 8 Ultimately (and unfortunately), this debate returns to the central theme of logic. Atheists claim "logic" is their ultimate standard for truth, yet are unable to determine why logic is supreme without using logic itself in the argument. What is bias? If unable to define logic and the reasons for its infallibility, it is impossible to say that the book that is being referred to is "unreliable". Question 9This question assumes that animals one the same level as humans and should, therefore, be bound to morality as well. However, the question itself presupposes a God. If God truly exists, as per the question, what is the problem with animals being inferior to the human race and therefore not being bound to a divine moral code? The answer, if God exists as per the presupposition, is that there is no such problem. Question 10I do not feel quite overwhelmed, although I am thoroughly enjoying this civilized debate. God knows (pardon the expression) how many toxic debates I have seen on this site. I look forward to the concluding statements of this debate.