The Christian bible and god are responsible for the presence of morality

Sadly Pro has not read the debate premise properly - my statement was that the complete absence of the christian bible and god would not leave a person morally void. Pro is therefore concurring with a point I did not make. Pro, in his opening sentence also states "[...] my opponent should not disregard the fact that the bible and christian principles ["] contribute significantly to the perpetual existence of morality". This is a purely subjective statement so it saddens me further that Pro thinks an opinion automatically becomes fact. Pro then reasons that 'excluding the bible would 'drastically' reduce the number of conscientious individuals'. This is again subjective. As I am an atheist, Pro argues, it is easy for me to refute their argument, yet in the next sentence Pro implies I have morality? Most striking of all so far - Pro is suggesting that to consider personal morals in a debate regarding morality would defeat the purpose of this debate. This is an absurd notion. Pro then states that society as a whole should be considered when questioning whether the bible and christian god are the sole cause of morality. At this point, before continuing, I would like to point out that Pro has faltered fatally - he says "[...] the bible does not necessarily instill moral judgment in an individual". Pro accepted this debate and took the stance that a complete lack of the bible and christian god would not leave a person morally void. Perhaps my opponent believes he is in a different debate. I will continue none the less, despite this worrying start from Pro. Now in light of the driving factor behind this debate I cannot ignore Pro's next line - "[...] to a great extent, christianity is responsible for the presence of morality". He has, once again however, inadvertently conceded this debate, based on my stance. Allow me to highlight my opponents flawed logic. Pro believes that a lack of christian belief in a non christian country makes for more immoral practices. Conveniently perhaps, Pro has completely failed to look properly at stats for the most christian country in the world - America - and has also failed to look at statistics for the least religious countries in the world. With a sense of bewilderment I will make my rebuttal. Pro has kindly requested that I mention countries and stats. He mentions the '1500' people killed by the government in Syria. He also mentions the death of children to garner sympathy for his own stance. While the things he mentions are truly atrocious - also I would invite my opponent to ponder over how I, an atheist, am capable of labelling such things as heinous - he apparently forgets that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima by America killed roughly 45'000 people instantly. Now, for the purpose of sweeping my opponents misguided argument aside, I will provide evidence. The 2005 United Nations Human Development Report shows that Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Belgium and Japan, to name a few, are among the least religious societies on earth yet have the lowest numbers of homicide per capita. The united States, in contrast, is one of the most religious countries in the world and has some of the highest numbers of homicide, rape, abortion, teen pregnancy and instances of sexually transmitted disease in the world. Three out of the five most dangerous cities to live in within America, in regard to crime, are in the highly religious state of Texas. I would like to point out that Pro has mentioned a few charitable acts and deems this as sufficient evidence that christian majority nations are most charitable. This is in fact false - the same study I have mentioned shows that countries with the highest rates of non-religiosity are the most charitable with their personal incomes. Do not be fooled. Pro has used subjective reasoning, twisted logic and false information to argue his stance. Finally, I would like to ask Pro if any good, christian acts could not be achieved through purely secular means?