Theists are no more moral than the irreligious

Again, no I don’t have to defend my own faith. I thought I explained this well enough the first round but I guess I’ll have to try again. At minimum you have argued Christianitys morality is equal with atheism, at maximum you have argued it is below atheism, a poor morality, but still existant. And that’s all I need for the form my argument for this debate takes. That Christianity has some kind of rational basis for morality. It clearly does (from its own perspective). There is a Creator of all things, this Creator had a few things to say on morality. Being God gives him authority to have the last say at what is right and wrong. While any given person might disagree with that god, they don’t have greater authority in the matter (from Christianitys perspective), So Christianity has grounds for a morality. If you really would desire to get me to answer your specific charges against the religion, then PM me and I will. But I do not here because it not relevant to my argument unless you start arguing Christianity has no grounds for any kind of morality from its own perspective. Meanwhile I make my arguments to attack that there is morality at all, but while adopting an atheist perspective instead of my own. For all purposes in this debate you can just go ahead and consider me an atheist until its end as I make my case about morality from an atheist view. From and atheist view I agree that things such as Darwinism is considered a nonnegotiable fact, that there is no God is a fact, that the bible is just a story book that does not reflect reality as a fact. From this premises in this debate I choose to take the position that there is no True Morality, that the concept is an illusion of the mind, I lie we have been told. I understand not all atheist take this view, but I argue that if reasoning is applied correctly they would. That a whole country does not take its own beliefs to there logical extreams does not change anything, the fact that there are many does not make there beliefs totally sound or actions coherent with there beliefs. Aristotle on means and ends: I personally from an atheist perspective that I am adopting this debate to be fairly profound in general about human’s ultimate objective for any given action, and I suppose I respect the quote even outside this debate as a Christian. We seek means to an end. And while the different means we use for a variety of goals, all those goals can be reduced to an objective of happiness. I’ve not been able to personally come up with a practical real working example that disproves Aristotle. If we try to start peace talks and compromise between disputing countries, that’s a means to the end of not having war or to have peace. But wanting peace can be reduced as wanting something that would make oneself happy. War would not make me happy. If it did I would seek War wouldn’t I? Peace is the desired of the two to say the least. And to be able to say something is ‘desired’ is by definition admitting its the one you get happiness from. This truth I use in my general assault on the existence of morality. That all things we do, we do them to pursue happiness. If an ends is something we desire, we consider that ends a route to happiness. Adolf Hitler considered it a virtue to kill Jews. I and (probably) you consider doing any such a thing bad. The question is, why should We be considered more objectively right than he? As long as man is trying to do what is right in his own eyes doesn’t that make him right concerning ethics? In order for Hitler to be wrong about morality, there must be an objective standard you compare his take on ethics to, a standard that has authority over all. I however see none that exist and you have failed to show me one. Evolution and Ethics: My original argument in this heading was longer but I overshot charchter space so ill just left my point about raceism and inbreeding. Its documented were otheres have used evolution to say raciest things in the past. “If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.” –Hitler, Mein Kampf “At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”- Charles Dawin, The Decent of Man chapter 6. Of course what did Dawin know about the rational conclusions of Dawinism? You probably didn’t know Inbreeding is done on purpose some time to get genetically superior livestock, or you wouldn’t have so quickly dismissed it as an obvious wrong indicated by evolution. Intresting fact to consider when deciding what an understanding in evolution should teach us to pursue to further the human race. But again remember just cause I’m pointing these things out does not mean I’m arguing there wrong, from my perspective I’m adopting this debate, convince me I’m wrong using only the premises an Atheist can have. From this premise I see the people behind project Eugenics have fairly solid ground to stand on. http://personal.uncc.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... You point to human selfishness as evolutions product that drives what we call moral. To help others is to help oneself kind of logic. I point to the same selfishness though to show the drive for what we typically call immoral. I think though If youd be intellectually honest about the issue you’d at least concead that both of what we bring up exist within us in inner turmoil with each other as a product of evolution http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... And with not authoritative standard given, why should one side of that turmoil be considered more right than the other? Objective Morality: I am so very happy you have conceded your view on morality is that its not objective. The whole premise of my arguments have been to prove that you should think that way about morality. Really as long as you concede this is your view on morality I’m just wasting space talking about Aristotle and Evolution. This is the debate point I must focus on. Morality that is not objective, meaning that if it wrong to lie in my case, it has to be wrong in yours as well. Meaning that Murder is not just wrong for me who agrees murder is wrong, but for Adam Lanza who believed Murder was right when he did it. Objective Morality is a kind of morality that someone could be ‘wrong’ about what they say is moral because it is independent of there agreeing or disagreeing with it. Morality that is not that way, not objective, can not be considered a real thing, just an illusion, a lie of the mind. Because if it is unethical for me to have sex before marriage by my own ways and understanding, but to you it perfectly fine and natural, even a recommended step to occur on your 3rd date with someone in your ways and understanding of whats right, and neither of us is considered ‘wrong’ on the issue, you have one standard and I have another, then our standards are not real, they are as fictionalized Harry Potter, Garfield the Cat, and Spiderman. If its based on just something my genetic code caused me to think up, but not based on some objective reason independent of my self and sourced in the reality that I live in, then its not truly real. Its just some stupid set of rules you or I made up to annoy other people with.