> Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a foundation on which to base rulings.

I don't want to claim all are vague. Many are. If the foundation though is based upon an arbitrary claim of a god and unprovable claims that such god spoke to someone and gave us some rules then I cannot subscribe to that concept because any other concept with arbitrary rules is equaly valid and I wouldn't know which one to choose. And if I can't know which one to choose then that means there is no right or wrong choice, it is arbitrary.

> By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular.

Correct. Some choices are sound and some not. A society needs to make a decision about each rule they impose in isolation and not based upon for example what a single person said was right or wrong. A good set of core rules for a society will naturally emerge after some time completely without religion. You can see this because completely seperated societies come up with same or similar rules but can have completely different religious believes or can be completely secular.

> We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place.

Life expectancy and quality of life has improved drastically in (not only) western countries over time while at the same time turning more secular. Thanks science! You do not need religion in order to have a well functioning society. The western countries are not perfect - there's a lot wrong with them. Like the racism in the US for example. But there is also a lot wrong with for example middle eastern countries. What's up with all the fighting between religious groups there? I neither live in the west nor the middle east btw and don't think I have a bias because I don't count myself as part of either.

> Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides.

The concept of good and bad is the concept of morals. Morals can be deduced from logic and does not require religion. "We should do X because Y". The better we can explain Y, the higher the chance of someone subscribing to the logic and doing X. If Y is "because it is written in some book that some dude was told this by god" then many people might rightfully claim that they don't see the reasoning. I really really don't want to live under a religious authority that can impose arbitrary rules on me like that I have to pray five times a day and must not eat pork because I see zero logic behind that. Just to be clear: I don't want to single out Islam here but I am taking it as the example because I am argueing with you and you believe in Islam.

The fact that some atheists said or did something that most people will agree is wrong does not mean all of atheists are wrong in the same way. That's the same mistake the presenter in that video made. There are good atheists and bad atheists. There are good theists and bad theists. You cannot claim from any of these that either secularism or theism is good or bad.