Atheists are less moral then Christians.

tmac - Nice second round. I noticed that you didn't address the notion that I attacked regarding Christians being more moral out of "fear of God", should I assume you concede this point to me? "This is a distinct difference between an atheist and a secular humanist. You definitely can be both. I would say that a secular humanist is just as moral as a Christain.... The fact is that atheists have no moral basis. Secular humanists do. " Indeed, there is a difference between atheism and secular humanism. Atheism is a philosophical view (at the very least) and Secular humanism is a moral philosophy that upholds reason and ethics, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision making (the definition in itself disqualifies all Christians). You proceed to point out that they are compatible with each other and even claim that secular humanists are just as moral as Christians! Don't you see how this supports my whole argument? Secular humanism is primarily composed of atheists, in fact, the largest secular humanist organisations in the world is, Any guesses? Yep, thats right. Norway's Human-Etisk Forbund, which has over 69,000 members. I feel like your response here suffers from a lack of revision because even the most casual reading of this argument reveals its contradiction. It makes me wonder what you think Atheists are if not secular humanists? Malicious people with no sense of right and wrong? Clearly atheists have some sort of moral zeitgeist given the fact that atheist countries are so much more peaceful then their Christian counterparts. If so, it must be rooted in some form of secular humanism. Don't you see how your argument sort of implodes on itself? "The golden rule,which you so believe in has its base in religion all around the world.. including Christianity. you are proving my point.... Any atheist who claims to have a moral foundation is usually just westernized/judeo-christianized." Proving you point? No! Wow, I'm actually doing quite the opposite. Let me explain. The golden rule, and indeed most basic themes of moral behavior, have existed for long before Christian/Judeo tradition. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, is one of the earliest known sets of written laws that dictated ways of living that were ethical. It was made over 1700 years before Christianity came along! So to suggest that atheists with a moral foundations are just embracing Christian tradition is a big joke. Christianity is not original, it uses teachings from its predecessors and it is ridiculous for you to assume that general morality is "usually just" influenced by "westernized/judeo-christian" ideals because they aren't Christian ideals. It is a universal sense of morality that has been adopted by many religions that pre-date Jesus and his friends. "All of you statistics just prove that the people who pretend to be true believers or dont even so commit crime and do bad things." This comment is also particularly problematic because you have created a false dichotomy (this seems to happen a lot on debate.org) between believing in God and doing bad things. You imply that "true believers" don't commit crime and that if you are committing crime you are probably not a 'real' Christian. A Christian is someone who accepts the existence of a benevolent and omniscient God and believes in the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ. These beliefs lead to Christians embracing a moral code to follow as best they can (a standard of sorts), with the hope that such behavior will be rewarded in the afterlife. This is not to suggest that an inability to follow this code of ethics disqualifies you as a Christian. I was brought up Catholic and part of the Catholic tradition includes a sacrament called Reconciliation. God recognizes that we are not perfect so he lets people tell priests what they did wrong and they get forgiven after being given a penance. This whole notion is ridiculous to me because how could the priest possibly gauge if the person is at all genuine or sincere? But thats another issue all together =). The point is that immoral behavior is expected by the Church, 'cause nobody's perfect! It is not a matter of people "pretending" to be true believers, they can believe in God and be a Christian but still do bad things. Does that make sense? "But, real christains know that some of the bible is just old, conservative traditions of the past that are not moral. The bible is a tool to help individuals learn how not to make the same mistakes as the past." I think this is a misrepresentation of "real" Christians and the role of the Bible in Christianity. It is much more then an old and conservative tool to keep people from making the same same mistakes as the past. Christianity regards the Bible, as an authoritative scripture: written by human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore for many Christians is the inerrant Word of God. The existing debate is whether the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally or in a more abstract way. I just think its a weak argument to attempt to downplay the Bible's importance to Christian tradition, its not really something you can effectively debate. "my only real argument is that there is a much higher chance of a christian being moral than an atheist because the learn more about the bible, trust in it more, believe they have a reason to act good, and are more forgiving." Does learning more about the Bible really make you more moral? I provided examples that sometimes the Bible isn't a very good guide and, even by your own admittance, promotes morality by threatening hell as an alternative which isn't a healthy motivation for truly moral behavior. This whole claim that Christians are more forgiving is the most recent addition to a bunch of generalities/assumptions that you have made this debate. Debates are two opposing views arguing their respective claims through the use of supporting facts and claims. If you'd rather not use a statistic, thats fine, but please use something! An anecdote, analogy, personal observation, anything! You can't just assert something without any factual context, it just serves to undermine your credibility. I look forward to your final round. I can only hope you don't introduce any drastically new arguments but at the same time I think you have no other choice. Either way I hope the voters see your claims for what they are, generalities used to rationalize degradation for a group of people. Its been a pleasure - good luck on future debates. I hope we can debate again soon! -connor