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

I agree that the task ahead of me is a great one, but I will do my best to support my clause. Now to win this debate I must either prove why each religion individually fails to be moral, or show an alternative that is better. It would be impossible to point out the flaws of the thousands of religions which people cling to. Instead I will show the failure common to them all, and provide a better alternative. Now since my opponent has specifically mentioned Christianity in refutation to my clause I will deal more specifically with that belief system. 1. Common Religious Failure The failure which is shared by all religions is the basis on an objective moral standard dictated by a supernatural being. The reason this is such a fatal flaw is because all religions say that their moral code is backed by a god, and logically they cannot all be correct. There is at most one that is correct, and more probably none. For example, how could the killing of a Christian infidel by a Muslim be moral, while Jainism teaches that all human life is sacred and should be valued? The teaching of exclusiveness is the strongest point against, not in favor of belief in any religion and their teachings. The view that God creates the moral law is often called the "Divine Command Theory of Ethics." Consider the following tale. When Moses came down from the mountain with the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, his followers asked him what they revealed about how they should live their lives. Moses told them, "I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that he kept the number of commandments down to ten. The bad news is that he kept the one about adultery in there." The point is that, according to Divine Command Theory, nothing is right or wrong unless God makes it so. Whatever God says goes. So if God had decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible. 2. "Bible based Christianity is hands down the absolute best moral guide to anyone in any time past, present, future." When you say bible based Christianity are you referring to only the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, or do you include the OT also? If you include the Old Testament then how do you reconcile the genocide, slavery, and rape with Jesus' teachings in the New Testament? Did the omniscient God of the New Testament forget about what he allowed, and promoted in the Old Testament? If God can change his own rules then we no longer have an objective moral standard to live by. Should we really believe that it was immoral at one point to wear clothing made of two different fabrics as Leviticus 19:19 clearly says. Apparently shaving was a pet peeve of God's also as Lev 19:19 also outlaws this activity. The problem with these religious moral codes is that they reflect the views of a particular culture during a particular time period, and because of this cannot be expected to apply to all people, in all places, throughout all of history. They were nothing special in their time and are far from perfect now. Here are more than 800 examples of violence and cruelty condoned in the bible http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... 3. "The book of Proverbs, Psalms, The New Testament and the Ten Commandments are a better moral guide than any other religion... Even single versus from scripture if followed would be a better moral guide" Of course we can all pick and choose a decent book from the bible, or a single verse that promotes goodness, but it's the entire picture that matters. Yes narrowing the lense which you look through will obviously make it easier to prove your point. You can do this with the teachings of every religion. Now I would agree that the New Testament is, for the most part, a great improvement over the archaic OT. You cannot forget about God being willing to send all non-believers to burn in a lake of fire for eternity though. I don't believe threatening people with eternal fire is the best way to go about promoting moral behavior. Another area where Christianity and Islam fail miserably is in understanding, and attempting to control our sexual lives. Christians seem to think that just saying that the bible (Islam the Quran) says no premarital sex, or no homosexual sex, or no masturbation that that alone is enough. 4,000 years ago when there was no contraceptives, no understanding of genetics, no protection from STD's, and no medicine to treat their victims, saving yourself for marriage sounded like a pretty good option. In todayï¿½€™s world people should be properly educated with all available knowledge, and then allowed to make their own decision regarding their sexual behavior. We should not be basing our morality on the ignorant beliefs of primitive cultures. 4. The Ten Commandments are not what we should be basing our morality on. The first three are completely pointless. They refer to having no other gods, honoring the Sabbath, and not taking the lords name in vain. These are completely irrelevant when it comes to determining morality. The fourth requires children to honor their fathers and mothers, and I see no problem with that. Commandments five through eight require nothing more than common sense. They refer to not murdering, committing adultery, lying, or stealing. The final two are certainly not immoral and don't belong on such a list as this. Why it is immoral to want what someone else has is beyond me. Any person with an above room temperature IQ could improve upon the Ten Commandments in a matter of minutes. Why not add something about slavery, which we all recognize as immoral? Now up to this point all I have done is state why religion falls far short of today's standards. Now it's time to suggest a better alternative. 4. Morality, whether we like it or not, evolves as our understanding of the world around us, and life in general becomes more clear. We should not expect, nor want, our understanding of moral behavior to be the same as people who had no understanding of genetics, neuroscience, medicine, basic biology, or any proper science. Human understanding of moral behavior has increased a great deal since we climbed down from the trees, but it is far from perfect. Think about how naï¿½ï¿½ve we consider those of the 18th and 19th century when it comes to slavery, and human rights in general. It is through the study of the sciences, philosophy and ethics that the human race will continue to increase our moral understanding. 5. Now I will suggest a few alternatives for moral behavior which do not require a supernatural being. The reason I will suggest more than one is because it is difficult to rank such abstract concepts such as this. The first I will suggest is Utilitarianism, which is generally understood as the greatest good from the greatest number of people. Merriam-Webster defines is as ï¿½€œa theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.ï¿½€ï¿½ Another major contributer to moral philosophy was Immanuel Kant. Kant maintained that only a "good will" is morally praiseworthy, so that doing what appears to be ethical for the wrong reasons is not a morally good act (such as helping the poor just to get to the afterlife). Kant's emphasis on one's intent or reasons for acting is usually contrasted with the utilitarian tenet that the goodness of an action is to be judged by its results. 6. Both of this moral philosophies are more appropriate for our time because they require you to think rationally. It is a great misconception that all moral decisions fit neatly into two categories; either moral or immoral. There is, in fact, a grey area where contemplation and thought is needed. 7. More on morality regarding the current study of the brain and its effects. http://richarddawkins.net...