I am a Thiest obviously and if you can tell me right from wrong without having a dangerous loop hole I will convert to athiesm please be open minded and don't be afraid to express yourself :) God bless
I accept the debate. Thank you for the opportunity, Pro. As con I accept the responsibility of proving how humans may foster a moral compass and may respond in the most ethical ways possible to certain circumstances without requiring the complex of a God.
 Provision one is nothing more than a simple explanation of 'Secular Morality' - the idea of one's ability to adapt to their environment tolerantly and capably without responding to situations through religion. This includes the absence of religion in the justification of denying homosexuals rights, in denying people of other religions fair treatment, and being generally intolerant of minorities marginalized by religions.
While some people believe religion is required in order to live a life of ethics and morality, some may disagree. And the below rationalizations often utilized by Secular Humanists (belief in equality and tolerance of all religious practices and faiths):
- It is not wildly unknown or commonly unheard of that the teachings of religion can be quite controversial, and many religious denominations vary in their own teachings. Yet for hundreds of years, the teachings of Christianity and other alike religions have often been found to teach misogyny and violence to their followers. In the following link are seven different examples of how following the Bible can turn one 'immoral'. http://thewisesloth.com... presence of any violent or unethical depictions of other human beings or how to treat them in these 'holy books' clearly shows how even religious texts can be 'immoral'. If that example wasn't enough, here are more examples: https://www.secularhumanism.org...;
- A major factor of religious/non-religious debating is how accurately the disciples of many Abrahamic faiths actually practice these faiths, and whether or not they coordinate with the teachings of their religion according to the corresponding book or scriptures. In Christianity, there are many holes that need to be filled in order to interlink the word of the Bible and the religious practices. For instance, many verses of Leviticus prohibit the acts of cuting hair, getting tatoos and shaving. Yet many followers of the Christian faith are more than willing to perform these such forbidden acts. It is also described that one will be made unclean when coming in contact with a woman on their period - in fact they may not be in the same house or within the vicinity of the person; yet many Christians fail to properly practice these key components of the faith as well. https://www.biblegateway.com...
- Religions have also been a key rationale for starting wars, genocides, or committing hate crimes. And even in the twenty-first century, many politicians and world leaders oppose simplistic ideas (such as gay marriage and seperation of church and state) due to the fact that their religions teach them to oppose these things. Religion has been used as a tool to justify bigotry in life for many years, and continues to be such. Hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) which took the American south for many years, and still has a strong presence in such red states, is a major example of a hate group which has used their religion to excuse their actions against humanity - including murdering, raping, burning and crucifying their victims. Throughout history, literal genocides and crusades have been launched in the names of religion, which doesn't seem very moral nor rational. http://www.religioustolerance.org...
 However, referring back to Pro's original contention - that one requires religion to have a moral compass - basic biological and psychological science can prove this statement wrong. And I will be utilizing such science to support my claims.
- Psychology and philosophy have both vested compassions into research of how nurture and nature can affect one's moral compass; but most science has concluded that 'moral development' is most reliant on the factor of nurture - how one's parents raise them to behave and think. For example, if a young baby is born into a wealthy family (for the purpose of this discussion, they are 'Baby A') that teaches them to hate the poor, they will grow up hating the poor, until they have an experience or get better educated and this shifts their mindset. However, depending on how long their indoctrination has lasted, and how engraved the propaganda is, they may forever shut out any reasoning ever brought to them and continue on their crusade against the poor. Now, if Baby B is born into a rich family that teaches them to be generous to the poor and spread their wealth, they are likely to do so unless they also have a life-changing experience and their opinion shifts. This is moral development based on one's upbringing. https://en.wikipedia.org...
- Many of the world's progressive and prosperous nations of the twenty-first century are also non-religiously affiliated in the federal level (they are state secular or state atheist). Many of these nations legally approve of homosexual marriage, are against the drug war, and have some of the greatest education systems and labour participation each year. Sweden is in fact a country of predominantly atheistic citizens, and its government is secular humanist, yet its economy is one of the most dominant in Europe. Many Greek and Roman scientists and philosophers have also religiously avoided condoning or inciting religious beliefs - their work remained more objective and impartial, as they didn't have any need to speak of religion or use such as a rationalization toward the future nor their plans. Many intended to instead spread the new ideas of 'life without God' and 'exploring with science'. http://atheists.org...
- The world's scientific and medicinal developments in history were done by atheists (namely), most of them challenged by religious people. I'll bet it passed your head in history class, but before atheistic scientists studied microbiological particles, humans in most European civilizations thought that all human ailments and illnesses fell on the doings of evil paranormal phenonmena, including demons and angry spirits haunting for one more chance at life. But once science was used to explore these ideas, people grew in their knowledge of things like malicious bacteria, which actually had been to blame for such diseases.
This concludes round one of my argument. I await your rebuttal, pro.