Faith determines facts. It is good to remember this when debating from a moral or religious standpoint to a person that has none or even a different set of reverent values. Even then you must understand that someone who holds no faith, as to say an atheist or agnostic belief, still has some even though it may not be of Divine Intelligence. An atheist follows the same set of codes as that of the Judeo-Christian faith though it may be seen in a different spectrum.
The first common in faith is a set belief that is followed with rigor and fortitude. Ultimately all beliefs rely on faith, which defines itself as trust is something that has no proof. Monotheistic religions accept the belief of God, which according to true and hard science of secular theory, has no hard proof. What can be known by senses or mathematical equations is only true to science gives atheists their beliefs that they are willing to defend rigorously, even at the cost of contradicting their said beliefs. Every theory towards the creation of the universe and human existence using only secular thought has been proven false or re-theorized to the point that all formulas and study are taught with equal value in college classrooms.
As stated, secular foundations of science, that is to say their faith, are rooted in arguable truths from certain perspectives only. Monotheistic religions have one value in common and that is to present a Final Judgment for transgressions at the very end of a person’s existence. Accountability for actions secular theorist and relativists explain as nothing more that atoms colliding or animalistic instincts. This gives reason to eugenics or homosexuality and a number of many other decisions, or what is reasoned to be sin from a faith based perspective. To argue for Intelligent Design would be to finally accept that humans have an immortal soul and thus proving religion and faith are correct. Very few scientists have argued the proof of God through science to the point that it is nonnegotionable, but if it were to happen it would cause a cataclysm through education that offers only real science proven by math alone.
Faith has the advantage of reasoning through its own design, but the beliefs the secular almost always contradicts itself with its own facts. Pain versus pleasure has been placed over right versus wrong by past philosophers, usually of the empirical disciplines bringing the human race to nothing more that an advanced species of mammal that evolved through the ages from amphibians or reptiles. Again, it is easier to accept that all pleasures can be indulged in without consequence than it is too accept accountability. These ideas are abstract and difficult to argue until you see the fruits of said beliefs. If humans are nothing more than mere mammals then Darwin must be right, and movements to apply eugenics, that is the “cleansing of the species”. When approached with this ever occurring ideology through our ages, the secular theorists tend to cringe and give the blame to men of Faith when it is in fact the very idea of evolution by Darwin that such systematic killing was allowed.
So, when arguing faith based opinions, it will do good to remember that the opposing side if secular, accepts their “faith” with the same rigor and reverence as those following the Judeo-Christian belief. To affront them in their own arguments, it will do well to hold them to their own set of values and standards which always tend to prove themselves wrong. Simplified logic always suffices in such matters. If systematic extermination is wrong, as any secularist would agree, how is it different from rinsing one’s mouth out? The slaughtering of livestock or even mowing a lawn? The would deduce it isn't as evil as killing a human, which in they see their own folly of belief structure and do either one of two things: argue illogically for their own belief or they reassess what they already know. This can carry on to the more serious social debates such as infanticide or euthanasia.
As for the matter of pain versus pleasure, again it can be argued by relativism; what is good for me may not be good for them or visa versa. The amount homosexuality that has happened in history is nonnegotiable however with conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as Islam, it is identified as unarguably immoral with exact punishments in the Abrahamic faiths. Modern acceptance of such acts are made through ideas that there is a notable or unexplainable reason such a desire would happen. Sex causes extreme pleasure through orgasm, though the method it is achieved is relative according to anything but people of Faith. The empiricist view of pain versus pleasure finds foundation until, once again, it is presented with its own set of beliefs and values that unhinges it through practical dialogue. One of such stance would argue that same sex acts are nothing immoral. “Do what makes you feel good.” is the rallying cry of the homosexual movement and those that support them. While it is morally desirable to extend knowledge of Faith in hopes of producing the sight of folly in such acts, it is often without fruit since the lack of Faith in the person cannot compete with the physical feeling of committing such acts. For the case of debate though, logic will overturn and rightful argument on the part of the secularist opinion.
If it is good for a man to commit acts with another male or woman to female, through no other purpose than pleasure why is it wrong? It has no scientific value of procreation, nor does it equal even the modern norms of the majority, regardless of the amount of Faith a person has. It is a singular choice that has developed through thought, desire and experience which for secular reasons still evades modern science. No identifying “gay gene” has ever been found even though it is highly theorized. To produce these acts as the norm, be it for pleasure only, gives profound reason to other acts that are deemed repulsive in all cultures. Pedophilia is given right a way, since the it is considered a treatable sickness as opposed to choice and bestiality fortunately is still well hidden. These ideas exist, but when presented to a secularist will always be condemned as the acts they are. What is “pleasurable” now holds no proof, and the person who argues from that point of view again has the choice of acquiescence to Faith or they contradict their own logic by supporting immoral acts. Also it would be good to remember that if they accept not their own beliefs, that is to say such acts are acceptable in both cases of eugenics and homosexuality by relativism then they must have gotten their values somewhere else, which is the Judeo-Christian perspective they claim to take nothing from in the first place.
With the above said approach to arguing with the secular it is always important to allow them to contradict themselves wrong than to use a Faith that they do not believe in at that present moment, for such belief would have no taken them to their chosen set of values in the first place. As Christians we find our duty to instruct the ignorant and through proselytizing we bring the lost to Christ, but also we must understand the Almighty gave us a logical brain and to not use it in full capacity is a folly in itself.
