Secular Morality is superior to Christian morality

Let's pretend for the moment that Con's rationalizations were successful. They were not, but I will get to that later. Con's entire objection to secular morality is that it is based on desires. This is not always the case, as shown with the example of vaccinating a child. The child does not desire the vaccine, but it is in his best interests because it will promote his well-being. Con tries to paint secular morality as some selfish, base way to deal with morality, but this is a caricature. Even if con could show that all secular morality is based on desire by going through some mental gymnastics to link all well-being to desire, so what? What would that do to diminish secular morality? It is still promoting well-being. I am not sure if Con is aware that the well-being refers to everyone impacted by your actions, but even if you include yourself in that estimation(I don't), you still don't get to just go around stealing because the negative impact on the well-being of all those affected(the one you rob and society in general by forcing people to spend money to protect goods instead of on more goods). Con claims that secular morality is not evidence-based and then holds up biblical morality as the correct method. This is backward. Secular morality is based on evidence used to determine the kinds of things deserving moral treatment. We understand that if something can be self aware then it should be given different treatment than something that is not self aware and we can understand the effects of actions based on the evidence of the effects of similar acts in the past. Biblical morality uses no evidence and just follows decrees that Con has yet to justify. Con has ignored my arguments that show that there is no good reason to accept the content of the bible as a good moral guide. Con tried to rationalize my examples of how the bible does not promote well-being, but has ignored the issue that without secular morality, Con has no way to determine if the bible is a moral document. It would seem, therefore that Con is trying to redefine morality as doing whatever God says which is dismantled by the Euthyphro dilemma. "It seems like the only reservations that pro has is that the Bible has some things within it that are not popular in western cultures or societies. The reservations I have against secular morality is that it doesn't actually have a basis in evidence. and its morality is completely dependent on the wants of people, not what should actually be so." No, I very clearly objected to the fact that there is no reason to accept the bible as a moral authority. Did you not read the Euthyphro dilemma and my pointing out that the only way you can determine if the bible is a moral guide is by using secular morality as your guideline? Now, let's get to the rationalizations Con tried to use. To Con's Slavery rationalization: All of of Con's attempts to justify this are incorrect. Con has cited a passage banning kidnapping, not slavery. As to God needing to soften slavery because it would already be happening, this is a common and completely unconvincing rationalization. If an omnipotent God that can commit worldwide genocide on a whim, create people out of dirt, and blink time into existence opposed owning people as property, he could just ban it. This is the same God that will torture people forever for not believing in him as he plays the world's longest game of hide and seek. As to the rules supposedly forcing people to treat slaves well, I literally cited the passage where people are told they can beat their slaves and as long as they do not immediately die from the woulds, the master is not to be punished. To Con's Homosexuality Rationalization - It literally tells people to execute homosexuals. It does not say throw homosexuals out of the temple of Moloch or tell homosexuals to stop having sex in the temple of Moloch, it says to kill them. There is a small reference to Moloch, but this is just a ban on worshipping the pagan gods of that temple, and in all the verses in Leviticus 20 dealing with that, it is explicitly mentioned. After Leviticus 20:5, people are then given explicit instructions to kill homosexuals, children who curse their parents, witches, etc. To con's rationalization of murdering babies in Egypt: You do not kill babies because the leader of the country is making you mad. If God wanted Pharoah to stop doing bad things, he could have just killed Pharoah, killing babies as a penalty for someone else's actions is obscene and so is that rationalization. That same rationalization could be used to justify killing my kids because you hate Obama. To Con's other rationalizations: No, rape is seen as defiling the father's property so the rapist pays for the property because women were basically not people in the Bible with few exceptions. Please explain why the flood was necessary. Why did children need to be killed and why was it necessary to use such a horrible method. This was a slow drowning of everyone on earth except for a drunk, his family, and a bunch of animals. I would love to hear the rationalization for Hell. Bear in mind that the crime you commit to be sent there is lack of belief in God. You cannot escape it via good acts. Christian priests are very clear on this, Hell is eternal punishment for lack of belief in a God. This God, however, makes it impossible to be justified in belief in him because of his eternal game of hide and seek. So to recap, Con objects to secular morality because Con claims it is based on desire yet con fails to show how this would have been bad even if it was true. Con has yet to justify accepting the Bible as a moral guide and just throws out this idea of an absolute authority without explaining why one is necessary or why it should be the Christian bible. Con also tried to rationalize the bible using secular morality, so even if con had successfully rationalized the bible, it would have been by using secular morality as the standard by which to judge acts, including those of a god.