No current religion is the best guide for being a moral person in the 21st Century.

I must admit, when reading your rebuttal to my argument I was quite dumbfounded. You failed to specifically address the 6 different points that I made, and your "argument" was already refuted in my original argument. 1. I'm not sure how you were using the word truth when referring to the OT. It didn't appear to be a literal usage, and I would hope not since there is very little evidence for a majority of the claims in the OT. I'm sure you'll be able to provide many theories by Christian and Jewish "scientists", but the fact is that main stream science has debunked many of the OT stories. There is no evidence for the Exodus from Egypt, none for the earth being 6,000 years old, none for the flood, and none for the fall of Jericho just to name a few. There is also no reason to believe that these laws were ever worth following, and certainly no reason to suggest that they should be followed now. Our moral philosophies must be based on evidence and logic, not the supposition of a supreme being which wills us to do one thing or another. Christianity is not unique. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Scientology, and countless others believe that we must live our lives by their rules, or else. The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for any of these faiths is reason enough to not base our morality on them. Like I mentioned before the beliefs of primitive, unenlightened, and naive, cultures should not be the basis of 21st century morality. We have come too far, and gained too much from our predecessors to willing subjugate ourselves to these teachings. 2. Old Testament truth? ... How 'bout Old Testament absurdity! Many Christians have never read the whole Bible, and are not aware of the moral teachings that are found in it. Let's look at some. Exodus 23:19 tells us we cannot cook a baby goat in it's mother's milk. Do you worry about keeping this commandment? Gen. 17:14 tells us a child is to be punished when his parents neglect to have him circumcised. Is that fair? Ex. 20:8-11, 31:15-17, 34:21, and 35:1-3 tell us that no work may be done on the Sabbath (Saturday) not even the lighting of a fire. The penalty is death. Do you recommend that we kill people who light a fire in their fireplace on Saturday? Lev. 3:17 tells us that we may never eat fat. So how is it that we eat hamburgers without guilt? Lev. 27:1-7 tells us that males are more valuable than females. Do you agree? If you are female, do you think males are more valuable than you are? No? Than these verses are mistaken, aren't they? Num. 5:12-31, tells us that if we suspect our wife has committed adultery, she is to be tested by making her drink water mixed with dirt. If she gets sick, she is guilty. Do you recommend that we implement this test procedure? Interestingly, there is no such test given for men. Is this fair? I could give many more examples. 3. Some may say the New Testament supersedes the OT, and is a Better moral guide... Not so fast. Matthew 23:1-3 says, "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore [all that they tell you, do and observe], but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." In this passage Jesus explicitly states that his followers should follow the teachings and laws of the scribes and Pharisees so it looks like we're back to inspecting the make-up of our clothing, and stoning for adultery. 4. As I stated in my original argument, the bible does not offer any teachings in either the OT or NT that we wouldn't expect from someone living during that time. Both writings are obviously writings of the time, and neither moved us beyond one of the most critical moral questions of our past, slavery. The bible fails miserably when it comes to the question of slavery. Any Christian or Jew opposed to the practice of slavery holds this view [despite] not because of the teachings of their holy book. To illustrate all one must do is actually read the text. Eph 6:5 says, "Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Eph 6:9 "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." Not do not practice slavery for it is an abomination, but treat your slaves well. Is this really the best that an Omni-benevolent god can do? 5. In my opinion Christianity is the most moral of the worlds religion's, but as I have shown even it falls far short of the moral teachings of secular philosophy. Teaching a child, without any evidence, that they will go to hell if they don't follow certain ancient belief systems is immoral alone. See this debate http://www.debate.org... Many of the teachings of Christianity are valid, but it is not because of a supernatural basis. Their soundness is derived from logic, evidence, and reason and those that aren't logical nor reasonable are subliminally disregarded by the followers. Our moral philosophy should only include that which we have a logical reason to follow, such as not murdering, or stealing. 6. In a secular society it is not possible to put forth one system and claim that it is the epitome of moral teaching, but I have already listed two philosophies that are worth living your life by. That is the problem with religion, it tries to make everything black or white without recognizing the grey area where many decisions must be made. There isn't always a good answer for everything. Consider the question of the runaway train. The train is barreling down on a group of 5 people, and you can throw the switch to divert the train, but it will kill one person. Nearly everyone has an answer for this question, but most will agree that there isn't one good answer. A more real situation is that of homosexuality. The bible is explicit in its condemnation of gays, and therefore cannot be open to scientific research and modern discoveries. Whether it's a choice that people make or not should not reflect on its morality in my opinion, but suppose there is a gay gene. Should people really suffer the wrath of God because He created them in that way? Reasons such as this are why we should not be basis our moral systems on the beliefs of 40th century B.C.E. cultures. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are both good alternatives to a religiously motivated moral system. 7. Utilitarianism from the Encyclopedia Britannica "...an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong independently of their consequences. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive." 8. Kant's ethics are deontological, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotional feelings or end goals. All actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle; it is this that the moral worth of an action is judged according to. Kant's ethics are founded on his view of rationality as the ultimate good and his belief that all people are fundamentally rational beings. Simply put, the test is that one must universalize the maxim and then see if it would still be possible to perform the maxim in the world. Such as, I am going to kill anyone that displeases me. This maxim would not be sound. Please specficically address the points made in both of my arguments