An atheist is unethical for the mere fact that he is atheist.

I am for the resolution that an atheist is unethical for the mere fact that he is atheist. I have some contention with the definition of ethics provided by the instigator, so I ask my opponent to accept the following definition: Ethics: the branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of actions and the goodness and badness of motives and ends. This is point 3 of my opponent's definition. I exclude the other points because it creates a very broad definition of ethics. In particular, point 2 in my opponent's definition suggests that morality is relative, which I intend to argue against. 1. Morality is absolute. The only reasonable approach to morality is that it is absolute. Relative morality is a self-contradiction. It takes the position that morality can differ from one entity to another. The entity might be the individual, a society, a legal system, or what have you. The problem is that relative morality implies that one entity cannot morally condemn the actions of another entity, which is an absolute position. Thus, for relative morality to be true, it must rely on the absolute morality that one entity cannot condemn another. If, however, one entity is allowed to condemn another, than we must appeal to a morality outside the entities in question, which contradicts the very notion of relative morality to begin with. The self contradicting nature of relative morality is sufficient to refute its claims, yet it has another problem. Relative morality cannot account for actual history and human experience. Every time a minority group condemns the ruling class, it appeals to absolute morals. Ask any person if it would be morally permissible to kidnap children so long as it was legally sanctioned and the response would still be a resounding no. People take a relative moral position insofar as it suits their own agendas but will abandon it once it operates against them. Relative morality is both irrational and unable to account for human experience. Absolute morality, on the other hand, has neither of these problems. To illustrate this point, my opponent believes that morality is "solely the product of education" from "a wide variety of resources. " Note first that he does not substantiate this claim, so I can only guess that this is a presupposition of his worldview--a truth about reality that in his view needs no explanation. Under this line of thinking, a society that educates its members to steal whatever they need from others cannot be condemned. My opponent will likely defend my silly example by saying that a more educated society will know better. But differently educated societies will eventually conflict on an ethical level, and the only rational course of action then will be an appeal to a morality outside of education, i. e. , absolute moral laws. 2. Moral laws are immaterial. If morality is absolute, then we can appeal to individual moral laws (as people often do despite their worldviews). Such laws must transcend matter and energy else they be rendered arbitrary and no longer absolute. Any law, be it moral, logical, mathematical, etc. , must have the property of being immaterial. Take away the immaterial nature of any law and we must claim that it is found instead in matter or motion, such as in the electrical impulses of human brains. But if laws are nothing more than synapses firing in our brains, then they cannot be absolute. Instead, they are relative to a person's biology and we are back to the problem of relative morality. Therefore, morality must be metaphysical. 3. Christian theism is the necessary precondition for absolute moral laws. An immaterial and immutable God is the necessary precondition for immaterial and immutable moral laws. No other worldview can account for both properties. In denying theism, the atheist has few choices. If they adhere to naturalism, which most atheists do given their appeal to science on most matters, then they presuppose that metaphysical entities cannot exist, thereby relying solely on morality as being a convention of mankind. Some atheist may choose a dualistic world view, but dualism cannot guarantee immutability, since there is no way to know what the non-physical realm is without some sort of revelation. In other words, the dualistic worldview would say about morality, "your guess is as good as mine. " Either way, true atheism cannot account for moral abstract entities. There are even certain theistic worldviews that cannot account for immaterial and immutable moral laws. For instance, Allah is rather capricious given Islam revelation and so cannot account for the law-like nature of morality. This is why I specified Christian theism, since the Christian worldview assumes a God that does not change and exists outside the natural order. I concede to my opponent that unicorns are not a necessary precondition for absolute moral laws. 4. Atheism denies its premises when engaging in ethics. Atheism cannot rationally account for moral laws. As soon as an atheist takes any absolute moral stand, they deny their worldview by appealing to immaterial and immutable laws. In other words, atheists unconsciously borrow the theistic worldview whenever they engage in ethical behavior or thinking. My opponent says atheists can be ethical. Indeed one who calls themselves an atheist can be ethical, but I've shown that in so doing, they are no longer atheists. A true atheist cannot be ethical. To adhere to pure atheism without self-contradiction necessitates an amoral position. In conclusion, an atheist is unethical for the mere fact that he is atheist. On a side note, my opponent says, "If anything a modern day religious person is unethical. " I ask my opponent to substantiate this claim with evidence. Otherwise, he is engaging in simple name calling and should retract this statement if he wants to compete for the conduct vote.