Actually, no, you're not. I did a considerable amount of formal debating throughout my school and college career and this precisely the opposite of what we were told to do. You are not supposed to make it personal, precisely the opposite. Making it personal demonstrates an inability to tackle the issues at hand, which are not the ethos or character of the person you are debating, but the basic, empirical information you are using to expound an argument.
Then whoever taught you gave you a very incomplete version of what debate is all about.
Stars, I couldn't give a flying crap whether someone like you calls me a sower of injustice and inhumanity.
I am not calling you a sower of injustice and inhumanity. What I’m saying is that under your current belief system, if someone calls you those things, you’d have no way to prove them wrong. That is the ultimate failure of the concept of subjective morality. It disallows any definite praise or criticism of a person’s behavior.
At the end of the day, we all base our behavior on what we believe to be right, including you. You believe that god has handed down a set of moral absolutes, which are intrinsically right and infallible. However, the existence of your god is not beyond doubt (at all), so the moral “absolutes” you perceive him as having given you are not in fact absolute at all. You can argue until you’re blue in the face, but until you can provide irrefutable proof (or better still, your god does) that he even exists, you are in precisely the same morally relativist boat as everybody else.
Moral objectivism can exist even if God does not. All religions teach basically the same morality, with only superficial differences between them (see the index of C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition Of Man” and the first three chapters of “Mere Christianity”). All these religions have different ideas about who God is and some declare God irrelevant. Yet the morality is strikingly similar everywhere you go. That to me is the best case that morality is objective. So no Gracie, you are wrong about this.
Why should I accept as final the decrees of a god I see little evidence for? I do not see reason to believe in god
What about those of us who do see evidence and reason for God? Why are we wrong?
As for human rights… well, at its’ very core it is pragmatism. In its’ absence human society is purely dog-eat-dog, so we have established a set of basic criteria to which each and every individual is entitled. Personally, I think it’s important because it protects those who are without other recourse to justice, and I am not willing to wait around for a frankly erratic (if we’re going by the Bible) deity to materialize and correct all the misbehaviours of the human race. humanity is forced to – gasp! – do something themselves to prevent our social structure from devolving into a state of anarchy. I value harmony and tolerance in society in general, so the protection of individual rights is important to me.
Why is it morally right to be pragmatic, just, tolerant and harmonious? Why is it morally right to want to protect individual rights? You’re just relying on your own subjective interpretation of reality for all these things whereas I seek to go beyond that and see what is objective and universal. You also fail to heed the wisdom of the Biblical saying “Trust not in your own understanding.” That verse doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be critical thinkers (we absolutely should); it means that human beings are fallible creatures who make lots of mistakes, so it is better to trust in the one who says he's infallible and has the historical record, fulfilled prophecies, etc. to back that claim up. I will not accept “because I personally think it’s right” as a defense of what you believe. Also, the fact that you use “anarchy” as a synonym for chaos makes me think you don’t know much about politics.
The God you speak of is a straw man. Christianity doesn’t teach that God intervenes in the world on a mass scale to correct injustices. Christianity teaches that the instructions for justice can be found in God’s Word, which He revealed to the Jewish people over the course of 1500 years. What you’re saying is akin to criticizing a basketball coach because he doesn’t wander onto the court in the middle of the game to assure his team is doing their lay-ups properly, sometimes shooting a few of his own. He gave us our instructions and it’s our job to follow them. If we followed them 100% of the time, we would have a perfect world.
I know what I was like as a Christian, and at the end of the day I had to do the hard work of questioning my faith alone. I do my best to care for those who need it, including spending time volunteering in Africa, and to be quite honest that’s a hell of a lot more than I can say for many of my old church compatriots.
I notice you're using this rhetoric several times: "I used to be bigoted and insulting until I realized the 'truth' of secular humanism and only then did I truly open my heart and let compassion to overtake me." I don't know what Christianity is like in Ireland but Christianity in America doesn't resemble that at all. The churches here, regardless of if they're Roman Catholic, mainline, evangelical, etc. all put a huge effort into humanitarian endeavors, both improving poor people's lives and bringing the Gospel to them (less so the mainlines). Statistics show that religious Americans, both Christian and non-Christian, are much more generous than secular Americans. Atheism in America seems more focused on attempting to prove the believers wrong rather than making the world a better place, even though they think this is the only life we'll have! Even if what you say is true, Christianity is in some ways a series of ideals to live up to. Failure to live up to ideals does not invalidate said ideals.