Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

== Response to Questions == 1. By stating such a claim [secularism can find ways to determine moral codes of conduct applicable to all people without showing a preference or tolerance for one religious perspective over another], are you implying that secular ethics cannot conflict with religious ethics? Thereby making this resolution redundant? ----> No, secularist ethics can absolutely conflict with religious ethics. I pointed out that they don't always have to (for instance both secular ethics and religious ethics typically advocate non-violence), however, there are many pertinent cases where religious and secular morality conflict. There are also many cases where religious people tend to feel one way, but that doesn't mean their preference should be applicable to law. For instance, religious people tend to be pro-life whereas many of our current laws are pro-choice. Religious people also tend to be against euthanasia which is also legal [1]. In short, I never implied that secular ethics do not or can not conflict with religious ethics, therefore my point wasn't redundant at all whatsoever. 2. Do christian religions today apply such Old Testament law as you mention? ----> This question needs to be more specific; I have no idea what law(s) you are referring to. Moreover, it doesn't matter what certain Christians in particular believe. This resolution is about prioritizing religious ethics - not necessarily Christian ethics. Even if Christians did not apply Old Testament law... which many do [2], all of the criticisms and arguments of favoring religious ethics over secular still apply. 3. Is logic always correct? If you apply logic to every problem you encounter, can it not lead you astray? did not Aristotle assume that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones? Isn't Aristotle one of the most renowned political philosophers in history? ----> Logic is the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. Seeing if theories are logical or not is one way to determine the validity of those assertions. One question I plan on asking you is whether or not there is a better method for observation, and to give one example of where logic actually failed. Your example regarding logic and Aristotle is entirely irrelevant given it has absolutely nothing to do with logic in the first place. Aristotle never applied our logical laws to his theory. He was handicapped by the fact that he had to use a deductive method of inquiry instead of an inductive method. Today, we know that an inductive (sometimes called scientific) method is most appropriate for the study of nature. Aristotle didn't know that - in fact, the inductive method wasn't invented for 2000 years after his death [3]. Moreover, the only reason one would even suggest following religious ethics is because they have come to the conclusion that if god exists it's LOGICAL to do so. If you plan on advocating abandoning logic, then you'd also have to abandon every conclusion you've ever come to considering the use of logic is paramount in reasoning of any kind. 4. Let's say God does exist, and that he did give us laws to follow. Should we then follow His laws, if he existed? ----> This is a ridiculous and irrelevant question that ignores all aspects of reality. If it was able to be PROVEN without a doubt that god exists, then many of my original arguments would be for naught. However considering that this is not the case, then it becomes an entirely irrelevant hypothetical scenario. Even if I were to say "yes" in response to this question, it would be entirely inapplicable to the debate at hand considering we don't know god exists, we can't prove god exists, etc. I can just as easily say to Con, "Let's say we have proof that god did not exist. Should we follow religious laws if we knew god did not exist?" The same hypothetical question is entirely useless to the debate from both sides. 5. Is it POSSIBLE that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Quran are true? Is it even infinitesimally possible that ONE of them is true? ----> Isn't it POSSIBLE that unicorns exist? Isn't it POSSIBLE that Santa's reindeer can fly? Isn't it POSSIBLE that god does not exist? Isn't it POSSIBLE that you're a flaming homosexual and haven't realized it yet? An infinite amount of things are possible yet once again these hypothetical questions are irrelevant considering the universe's innumerable possibilities. Moreover I'd argue that neither of the aforementioned holy books are reasonable because of all the logical breaches in text. For instance, the Bible says that Jesus died, rose and ascended into heaven (a logical impossibility) among many others. And finally you'll notice that even if one of these books are true as my opponent implies, all of my arguments from the first round would still apply considering there would still be Christians even if the Quran was "true." 6. How can you prove that no religious book 'portrays God's desires'? ----> God was not responsible for writing any holy books. There is not one shred of evidence that god had a guiding hand in writing any religious texts aside from personal testimony which is completely unreliable. How can you prove that god's desires are portrayed, and if so, in which book? Once again these are nothing but hypothetical questions that do not have any bearing on my arguments. 7. Are religious ethics NOW telling us to condemn Galileo, justify slavery, kill Jews, and oppress Homosexuals? (Note, discouragement and disapproval is not oppression. Neither is protesting.) ----> First, there are a handful of religious beliefs in the world outside of monotheism. You cannot possibly pretend to know what all religions advocate. Since this debate is about applying *religious law* and not necessarily Christian law, you don't know that there are no oppressive religious beliefs out there. Second, there are still A LOT of absurd religious claims and beliefs that stand entirely contrary to science much like people stood against Galileo. For instance, over 95% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution, yet Christians still rally against it despite the plethora of evidence and the fact that it stands as a cornerstone and foundation of all modern science [4, 5]. This proves that people still advocate accepting faith and fantasy over evidence and logic, meaning my same concerns still apply. Religious people also believe in a bunch of other non-sensical things like choosing prayer over medicine [6], etc. Additionally, protesting and other hate speech reinforced by RELIGIOUS HATE GROUPS [7] is indeed offensive, intrusive and oppressive in that they advocate inequality and bigoted attitudes and legal policy against innocent individuals they simply disagree with. They also wish to enact oppressive laws by only electing people who share their bigoted views [8]. 9. Cannot secular ethics have devastating effects? Utilitarianism tells us that if we have a choice in letting 10,000 people die, or killing 9,999, we should kill the 9,999. Is this a devastating effect? ---> First, not all secular ethics are utilitarian making this once again a completely useless question. Second, that example doesn't even make sense. In one case you're losing 10,000 people and in another case you're losing one less than that. You're implying that saving one more life is devastating? That makes no sense and is insufficient as an attack on either utilitarianism OR secularism. 10. Once again, if God DID lay down laws to these effects, should we not follow them? ----> Please extend my answer regarding why this question is both absurd and useless from #4. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com...