Resolved: That Atheism is more desirable to general society than Christianity.

In this final argument, I will first answer the questions proposed by my opponent than move onto the final refutation. I believe this round will be decided by the fact that the affirmative has entirely misunderstood most of Scripture and is not well-rounded on actual Christianity. Furthermore, I would like to begin by stating that repetition is NOT refutation, and my opponent brings much repetition without refutation. With the view of this argument in mind, let's move onto the final arguments of the negative case, first with the responses to his questions. 1. There is a difference between moral law and Old Jewish civil law. The Ten Commandments and its branches dealt with moral law. The specific repercussions that were enforced deals with Old Jewish law. How we enforce morality changes, which is perfectly fine. Christ came down not to abolish moral law, but to provide a new way to salvation. Thus, the extreme methods of enforcing moral law where no longer required. Morality never changes; the way we enforce them does. 2. It is easy to prove the moral code of Christianity. It can be explained easily: is it wrong to murder? Is it wrong to steal another man's property? Is it wrong to lie? This moral code clearly exists; it's just something we can't prove with physical objects. It exists on the metaphysical level, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Can you disprove its existence? 3. You showed historical accounts of "Christians". As I had said before, there is a difference between the fake ones who do horrendous things "in the name of Christ", and the true Christian acts. We can easily discern them by reading the statutes of the Bible. If someone does something in the name of Christ, but it's against the Bible's teachings, that is not an action endorsed by Christianity. Since many of the examples you provided were those of "Christians", they do nothing to refute real Christianity's benefit to society. With the answers to the questions out of the way, let's go down to the key voting issues of the negative case. 1. Old Jewish Vs. Moral Law As stated above, there is a difference between moral law and how we enforce it. Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:17 refer to the moral law; no one can re-write morality. Same with the others. The context on how the Old Jewish law was used in the Old Testament is in the sense of history. It is a record of how God told them to enforce morality. Moral law, however, remains the same. That is what Christ taught. I believe this has been evidently reinforced, and now I'll move down to my opponent's next paragraph with my second voting issue. 2. Misunderstood Context The Revelations reference refers to what Christ will do to the sexual immoral in His final judgement. This doesn't only apply to fornicators, but the murderers, thieves, etc. Matthew 10:34 is in the context of the spiritual sword, the sword against immorality for the salvation of souls. 3. Justice As for hell, yes. It is eternal punishment. The problem with people thinking this is extreme is because we have a tainted view of sin. We think one little lie isn't all that bad, but what if you're a perfect being? Sin is SO horrendous to God, that we deserve eternal punishment for what we have done. Sin is horrible; we just don't see it that way because WE SIN. We must have payment for our sin, like a debt. We can suffer for eternity for it OR we can accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who took away our sin. All we have to do is accept Him and live for Him. That is the basic message of Christianity. Why would we find that man who lit his child on fire evil? Because he too is a sinner; he is no better than the child who disobeyed. Why is it justified for God? Because He is perfectly just; we must pay for our sin, through Christ or hell. 4. Loving God "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." ~2 Peter 3:9 This is the view of God on our sin; He loves us all and doesn't want us to perish. But, He gave us free will; he wants us to decide for ourselves whether or not we will follow Him. Why, you might ask? If you could create a universe, would you want an army of robots who do everything you say? Or, would you rather have sentient beings with free will who can live their own lives and choose to follow you? I think God wanted the latter; he wanted independent creatures who could fend for themselves. The only dependence we have is God's grace and pardon for our sins. We just need to accept the gift and live for Him. 5. Sexual Immorality True, we love the sinner, we hate the sin. That goes for murderers, thieves, and the sexually immoral. Furthermore, just because sexuality is healthy doesn't mean its moral. Sex in of itself is not a bad thing at all; it simply must be done between married couples. As for homosexuality, yes it is a sin. No, people are not "born that way". No one said that thirty years ago; it's just an excuse. There have been hundreds of homosexuals who were able to rid themselves of their inclinations and live happy lives as heterosexual beings. If homosexuality is so pure, why does it often result in STDs? Sin has consequences. Does this mean we hate homosexuals? No, nor do we hate those who have sex outside of marriage. Furthermore, a homosexual orientation isn't wrong; it's the thoughts and the actions that are wrong, just as heterosexuality outside of marriage. Now, why cannot homosexuals marry and justify sexuality? Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Anything besides that is fake and not real marriage. And before you talk about gay marriage, we don't define what marriage is; the Bible and other religious texts do. Every religious text agrees on the definition of marriage: the union of one man and one woman. Now, does this mean we should outlaw homosexuality and fornication? No, it's not the government's job. Government's job today is to protect the people. The issue of marriage should be left to the churches, separation of church and state. Those who marry homosexuals answer to God, not the government. 6. Murder Rates You are really selective about what causes murder rates. There are so many more factors that just religion. Population density, commercial districts, economic status, distressed neighborhoods, race, age, and many other factors play into murder rates. Religion is not the only influence, and thus your assertion does not apply in any way. 7. Why Is Atheism Less Desirable? So what if they test high in intelligence? That doesn't necessarily benefit society. Some intelligent people are snobby, while lower intellect people are nice. Intelligence has nothing to do with how one benefits society; morality does. Atheism provides no moral code; no standard by which to live. In the view of Atheism, because there is no God, there is no moral mediator. Morality is subjective to opinion. Murder may be ok some, not for others. You also provided no source on Atheists raising their children without indoctrination. I've personally known atheist families who have disowned their religion children. Indoctrination goes both ways, but that is still irrelevant. We are talking about which is better for SOCIETY, in which case... 8. Christianity Is More Desirable to General Society than Atheism Which would you rather have? A belief that sets up moral bounds to stop murder, thievery, and other dangerous influences on society, or a belief that has not grounds of morality, allowing truth to be subjective and having no structured form of right and wrong? The picture painted by my opponent does not illustrate Christianity accurately. Remember the difference between the "Christians" and the Christians. True Christians are loving, benevolent human beings who do good for society and follow a moral code, encouraging (not forcing) others to do the same. For these reasons, I ask for a negative vote.