Secular Morality is superior to Christian morality

The debate is closed, if you wish to challenge me, comment on the debate. Rules: Timer is set at 48 hours per turn Round 1: Pro and con both make cases for their positions. Pro must demonstrate that secular morality leads to a better and more morally correct world while con must argue that Christian morality leads to a better and more morally correct world. No rebuttals this round. Rounds 2-4: Anything goes, make any rebuttal or new argument you feel like. Round 5: No rebuttals or new arguments from pro. Summary only. No new arguments from con, but rebuttals are allowed if pro introduces a new argument in round 4. The rebuttals will be limited to the new argument. If pro does not introduce a new argument in round 4, then con may only give a summary. No politicking(Ie saying "vote pro"), that just looks stupid. Each side must offer a definition for morality and explain why what they consider to be moral behavior is good and why what they consider to be immoral behavior is bad. My opening argument: Morality is the field dealing with what we should or should not do based on the well-being of sentient beings other than ourselves. It is important to make the distinction that it is the well-being of others that is what matters in morality because otherwise purely selfish acts could be offered as morally correct. An act is morally good if its net effect is to improve the well-being of sentient beings and morally bad if its net effect is to diminish the well-being of sentient beings. This definition comports with the concept that every ethical system in philosophy is aimed toward and it is what people are referring to when they refer to morality. Any being that can suffer is a being that deserves moral treatment because the definition of a morally good act is one which increases well-being of a sentient being and the definition of an immoral act is one that diminishes well-being of a sentient being. Since sentience is a necessary condition for suffering, all beings that can suffer are sentient and thus the subjects of morality. A moral patient is a being who is deserving of moral treatment, but lacks the capacity to understand morality. Lions, dogs, mentally retarded humans, and iguanas are all moral patients. A moral agent is a being who both has the capacity to understand morality and is deserving of moral treatment. Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, and Ninja Turtles are moral agents. This is not moral relativism, I am not saying that this is morality for me or for my society. I am saying that this is the objective way to assess morality and any society that does not consider inflicting suffering for the sake of inflicting suffering to be immoral is wrong. Their understanding of morality is less than mine. Secular morality is based on something that is real and actually matters to the beings it applies to. It is evidence based. When we learn more about the capacities of others, we change our ethical standards to comport with our moral standards. When people became more aware of the fact that African Americans were not sub-human, but just as sentient as white people, the abolitionist movement began. The world at large becomes a better place in which to live if secular morality takes over the moral landscape. If everyone comes to the understanding that it is wrong to inflict suffering and good to cause happiness, then the actions taken by those who care about being moral beings will be driven to improve the lives of all sentient beings. Why is this better than Christian morality? Christian morality, and any other religious moral system, is morality that is not recognizable as anything remotely moral. The rules are simply following the orders of a dictator, god, who has been shown to be a moral monster. He committed genocide, endorsed genocide, killed innocent children in Egypt, punishes people forever for the thought crime of not believing in a being playing a never ending game of hide and seek, and much more. Aside from god being a monster, it makes no sense to peg morality on a being because of the Euthyphro dilemma. Is an act good because God favors it or does God favor it because it is good? In the first option, slavery, rape, torture, and murder all would be called morally correct if God told you to do them. In this case you are defining morality as whatever the most powerful being wants which has nothing to do with morality. Additionally, what if God and Jesus disagree on something? If morality is what a supernatural being wants and the supernatural beings disagree, then does morality become the wishes of the being that can beat up the other being? In the second option, the act's moral goodness is not dependent on God, it is good and he approves of it because it is good. He does not cause it to be good. Both systems of morality have led to atrocities, but in the case of secular morality, it is the misuse of the moral systems that led to atrocities while in Christianity, it is the correct use of the morals in the Bible that leads to atrocities.