Theists are no more moral than the irreligious

Its tempting for me to go ahead respond to this particular way you have brought up the slavery issue that appears in the bible a number of times. That you ask in specific context with our topic on the objectiveness of morality. I do very much enjoy debates on the objectiveness of morality on just about any day. However I must remember the specific line of argument I have chosen to take this debate. And with my line of argument its not in my interest at all to rebut you right now and defend what I personally believe in, that morality is Objective. This is because the unique case I have been making this whole debate as I said before rest on me showing that you, from your own perspective, your own starting point preconceived notions, your own axioms that is God does not exist, should not rationally view morality as objective. By your arguments, you have conceded this point and failed to argue against my actual argument that uses that point. You have agreed with me on this, by stating it is your view morality is not objective and by arguing against the idea of it ever being considered objective. And why would you think of morality as Objective? I don’t expect you to, which has been my point. You rationally should not think of morality as an objective concrete thing. The thing you should have challenged me to answer (from your side of the debate) was not “if morality is objective when was it most ideal?” but rather you should have asked “Why must an non-objective morality be considered less real than an objective one?” You see while the first question (the one you asked) does have to do with a disagreement that we hold with each other, it is not strictly the debate at hand that we are having now. The second one that I suggested is the very debate we have at hand. I pride myself on my effort to keep each debate focused and not to stretch out an inch more than required from the debates resolution. It is the beauty of having a resolution, the opportunity to drop all other disagreements we might have all over the spectrum of any given issue or set of issues and just put all our efforts into tackling one. And I pride myself on my ability to argue devils advocate and how I use that skill to help me with my efforts to keep each debate focused, and to utilize devils advocacy arguments to better use the Socratic Method. This is because it allows me make arguments starting from your own premises that I do not and probably will never agree with to take on just one individual point that you have set up based on those earlier premises. I removes the need I disprove the foundation of your entire way of thinking I’d normally have to satisfactory defeat to get a shot at refuting something you concluded based on your foundation of thought. And that is what this debate resolution is all about. About one foundation of beliefs (irreligious) against another (religious) on a particular issue (morality) I have argued…. a) From my own starting foundation axioms, I do have rational grounds to believe in an objective morality b) From your own starting foundation axioms, you do not have grounds for an objective kind of morality, but rather it rationally leads to a non-objective kind of view on morality. c) And that only an objective morality can be considered ‘real’. The non-objective kind cannot really be considered a ‘real’ thing even from its own standpoint. These 3 things are the only points I have tried to prove and argue this entire debate, with a few deviations from this to directly answer some of your arguments I felt was a little relevant to our debate. At this point in the debate you have conceded I have some sort of grounds for belief in the existence of morality (point a), you have conceded your own view is of a non-objective morality (point b) and you have failed completely to specifically address the argument that objective morality is concrete and ‘real’ by definition and non-objective morality is not concrete or ‘real’ by its own definition (point c). So thus, I rationally should win the debate as you have either agreed with my main arguments or dropped them all together by not responding to them. What you have done is…. a) Attack the ‘evolvedness’ of Christian morality in old testament times, something which from your perspective should be considered an irrelevant thing considering your arguing that morality was what ‘man evolved’ at the time and morality is not objective and is subject to change over time. b) Repeatedly attempted to one particular ‘religious’ mindset (mine) as getting its teachings from other ‘religious’ mindsets even though supposedly your arguing against all of them together compared to the ‘irreligious’ c) And argue our morality that ‘evolved’ as a result of our ‘selfish gene’ is not objective, which is a truth about the rational ends of your beliefs I was trying to build to showing anyway. I would like to think after this debate, you will learn to focus your arguments on the issue at hand, and not the other issues that while you like to argue them too there just not the issue at hand at the moment.