A Secular Lifestyle is superior, and often more moral than a Religious one.

Before I begin, I would first like to express my respect towards my opponent. I find a very redeeming quality in the willingness to discuss worldviews that conflict with your own, especially regarding religion. So my hat is off to you sir. I would also like to mention that this is my first debate on this site and I am very excited to jump into it. Unfortunately my opponent stepped on his facts and committed some fallacies, but I'll reach that in a bit. I will be commenting on many of my opponent's posts, and then presenting more of my own. "I do not believe in Diana, I don't believe Diana ever existed, and although I know several people who profess to worship Diana, I have never felt compelled to label myself an a-Dianist or to join groups or post discussions on the absurdity of Diana worship." This is a hypothetical that doesn't accurately describe the situation. The difference comes down to 2 things. The first reason that Atheists feel the need to label themselves (and many don't) is that we do not want to be tied to a religion. I wouldn't think to call myself a Non-stamp collector, but then again, if 84% of the world were Stamp Collectors and I wanted to distance myself from that group, I wouldn't have much of a choice. The term stems from a necessity to not be defined as the majority. The other reason stems simply from the concept of harm. Diana has never been the source for atrocities, rape, murder, discrimination, hate, and all other forms of negative conduct. A belief in Diana has never led to wars, or driven people to fly planes into buildings or condemn lifestyles. My opponent is comparing a benign example to something that beyond a shadow of a doubt has led to atrocities. I would also ask my opponent not to lump us all in a definition of Atheist I wouldn't agree upon. "It has always struck me as odd that one should feel compelled to vehemently protest something one believes does not exist." This is implying a definition of Atheist that simply isn't true. The term is simply the lack of a belief and nothing more. There are no tenants to Atheism, no doctrines and no requirements. It is simple a label that has been given. And to this I would respond with the fact that religion isn't special. If someone came up to me and said "there is a tiny troll on my head" Would it be so horrible for me to say "I think you are mistaken?" Religion doesn't deserve a free pass from criticism just for being religion. I would also say that there are just as many "Vehement Protesters" on my opponent's side of the fence. The Westboro Baptist Church, The Evangelical movement and their "Hell Houses" and the Mormon "yes on 8" campaign to name a few. "Santa, but I don't need to convince little children that he's not real." This analogy also simply doesn't work. Are you comparing believers to little children? Sure you used to believe in Santa, but you grew up and realized it was silly. I see no reason why this can't be applied to a belief in god, since you appear to have done it yourself. "The simple fact is that the very concept of "sexuality" as a form of identity has only emerged in the past 150 years. The world in which the Bible was produced knew nothing of sexual identity or sexual orientation. The Bible cannot speak directly to such concepts because such concepts did not exist in the human world of that day." This phrase is splitting hairs. Just because the term "sexuality" wasn't yet understood as a social construct doesn't mean it didn't exist. Sodomy and other homosexual acts have been performed since long before mainstream religion, and just because they didn't have a name for it doesn't mean they couldn't condemn it. even still that's hardly the point. The argument is over the lifestyle. And the simple fact is that religions on the whole condemn homosexuality. In the last 20 years, I think it would be difficult to find an anti-homosexuality based protest that wasn't spawned by religion. The fact that there are even "passages that condemn an activity that some translations render 'homosexuality'" is proof enough. The Atheist has no book, no tenants, and so there is no pre-ordained condemnation of any kind. I decide what I condemn based on my own morals, NOT an obedience to a text. "The anti-Christian Nazis" This is the biggest error in my opponent's entire argument. This much needs to be understood. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Hilter stated in several of his speeches that he was "Doing the work of god" and spoke positively of the Church. There where Churches erected in Hitler's Honor and they are all plastered with the swastika. It's true that Hitler made Nazism a state Religion, and in some aspects paints Organized religion in a Negative Light, I would strongly argue that while the Nazis may not reside on my opponent's side of the Fence, they are most Certainly not on mine. http://www.nobeliefs.com... I think it is time I moved on. but this is fun! "It is more interesting to note that the major impetus for the various rights movements over the past two hundred years, the movements of which gay rights is only the latest manifestation, has been the Christian religion." I wouldn't be so sure. I would argue that Christianity had halted progress on far more accounts than it has helped it. Christianity as a whole cannot be blamed for the various halts, but without the relentless actions of young-earth creationists, a notion that, I hope we can both agree is simply false, We would be farther along in understanding our universe. "For the true Christian, our lives are not lived by following a set of rules but by living in relationship with the Spirit of God." I Don't understand this sentence. This is a case of th "no true Scottsman" fallacy. What if a different "True Christian" thinks differently. You're using a term whose definition is not a unanimous fact. My Opponent also has interpreted my argument as "If it feels good do it." I would argue that this is not the case. If one is using their logical mind to make decisions, one would of course consider the Consequences of those decisions. But not all, but the catholic church specifically condemns Contraceptives, an act which I believe is impractical, illogical, and immoral. Never once did I speak of Sex as a Children's toy. But I believe making decisions about what is and isn't moral about sex for yourself, based on ones own morals is still more beneficial than to do what "God Says." If you aren't following a book of rules then what I ask, are you following? God doesn't physically communicate with his people. Nobody has ever had a literal conversation with their god. So am I to assume that if Christians don't always follow a book of rules, and they follow God, what are they following? No thanks, I'd rather trust the chemical synopses in my brain thank you. "the crux of Christianity is that we are more than our physical selves. We are eternal beings, souls that will never die." Right, but I as a non believer don't follow this notion. and even still, I don't see how this condones thought crime. "We lose sight of the humanity of the object of lust, and by so doing we harm not only ourselves but them as well. How many a woman has complained that men look at them like a piece of meat?" You say we harm them and ourselves. how so exactly. I honestly can say that I have never attributed physical or mental harm to a pornography actress by simply viewing a film they are in. These women aren't being objectified and they aren't being held and filmed against their will. This notion of harm only applies if you adopt the concept of thought-crime, which I do not. The point is, if no one is being negatively affected by your actions, then in my opinion they are not immoral. just as my opponent believes I have misconceptions about Christianity, I believe he too has misconceptions. thank you and now I await your response.