Religious books are the ONLY possible source of moral guidance

Yet again, my opponent has failed to prove, as set forth by the topic of this debate, that morals cannot possibly be obtained from any other source but a religious source (and more precisely the Bible). I have provided sufficient evidence to support my original argument, so I now will offer some rebuttals to my opponent's claims. "The Greeks, while not Christian or Jewish, had religious beliefs of their own, and many if not all of the philosophers you mentioned believed in a higher power. Socrates was killed because... his reasoning had led him to the conclusion that there was one God." ------------ Rebuttal 1- Greeks, Religious Beliefs, Socrates ------------ My opponent has stated that Greeks had religious beliefs, many philosophers believed in a higher power, and Socrates came to a conclusion that there is one God; therefore morals are based on religion. While the stated facts are SOMEWHAT correct and the conclusion was wrong for the following reason: A.Ancient Greeks were monotheistic and their Gods were not a source of morality, rather the Ancient Greeks had formulated their own set of morals using other sources. B.The fact that philosophers in Ancient Greece acknowledged the existence of a higher power does not suggest that they believe that higher power is in fact a source for morals. C.While Socrates concluded that there is one God behind all Greek Gods, this does not even imply that he believed that God is the source of morals, as a matter of fact we can CLEARLY see that Socrates believed the source is within us: "I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others." (Socrates) Socrates is most famous for the "Socratic Method" and for "… this, Socrates is customarily regarded as the father of Western ethics or moral philosophy." ------------ Rebuttal 2- Ethical Code and Absolute Morality ------------ In response to my opponents following statement: "The argument is that without the presupposition of a supreme being, there are no such things as morals, and thus the only morals, by definition, must be derived from a source which at least CLAIMS to be divinely inspired. The argument that the Bible's divine inspiration is in question, or is not widely accepted, does not change that fact." First, by DEFINITION morals are NOT divinely inspired (see the definition in Round 1). Second, if the Bible is NOT divinely inspired, then your argument fails. Using the Bible for your morals when you know that there is a possibility it's not divinely inspired leaves you with the problem that you might live your life with morals which are wrong. If something CLAIMS to be divinely inspired, it doesn't mean that it IS! ------------ Rebuttal 3- Bible Unchanged for 1000s of years ------------ I never suggested that the Bible has changed; I can even agree to some extent that it has not, but the interpretations of the bible have changed SIGNIFICANTLY. My point was that people reading the Bible can come to two completely opposite conclusions about a particular moral behavior, as shown in my Capital Punishment example. Not just historically, but people at the current time can conclude completely opposite moral values, on the same subject, on the same day! ------------ Rebuttal 4- Situational morality ------------ You suggest that one can reason to kill me for one's own benefit, but based on Kant's methodology their reasoning will be wrong. They couldn't have possibly reasoned correctly to kill anybody. In regards to self-defense, you can still defend yourself without killing your attacker, but in case you have no other option: A. Any action is paired with a motivation, so if you are going to kill somebody, then your motivation has to be such that ANYBODY else in the same situation can do the same action without producing an illogical moral. THIS IS VERY, VERY, VERY important! You can kill another person because they're denying your right to live, so in such situation you can ONLY kill people who are about to kill you. This can be applied by ANY person and that would not be illogical. B. One can use Kant's methods to produce morals, but we don't necessarily have to use Kant's philosophy of duty, which is an entirely different philosophy. ------------ Rebuttal 5- No morality without moral authority ------------ Moral Authority, in the sense of God or a spiritual being, is not required for the existence of morals. As I showed, and even my opponent agrees that Kant's argument is reasonable, and that morals can be derived. "What you have demonstrated is that human reasoning can often be used to corroborate actual morals dictated in sacred texts." What I have demonstrated is that people can produce morals EVEN WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING at a sacred text, so the more logical conclusion is that the morals in a "sacred text" are derived from our own logic, rather than from a higher power and the "sacred text" actually corroborates the fact that we can use our own logic and reasoning to produce morals. "Logic itself is thrown into question by the non-existence of a Creator, who DESIGNED logic for some productive purpose." Perhaps the Creator designed logic so we can reason our own morals… But this requires that you believe a Creator actually did something, of which you, nor I, have any proof. Again, the more logical thing to believe is that logic is a product of the evolutionary process. But evolution, nor creation, is the topic of this debate! ------------ Rebuttal 6-"Without a moral authority, there is no such thing as right and wrong in the first place" ------------ I think I have already provided enough evidence to show that moral authority is not required in order to know what's right and wrong. On Christian motivations: What we get from the Bible is that if one acts morally, then they'll go to Heaven, and if they don't act morally, they'll go to Hell. Obviously the motivation is to go to Heaven and stay out of Hell for the sake of one's own benefit! People are enticed to act morally by offering rewards, much like you would offer your dog a treat for doing something right! The effect is similar! Moral vs Immoral Motive: I hope you see a pattern in my arguments by now and you could predict that I would say "reason" and "logic". "If morality is determined by motive, who determines which motives are right and which ones are wrong?" See Rebuttal 4 for that answer. The motive has to be such that everybody can apply it in the same situation without a contradiction. ---------------------- CONCLUSION ---------------------- I have demonstrated that our religious heritage has nothing to do with producing morals, an example of which are the Ancient Greeks, who did not believe that their Gods provided any moral guidance and still had morals which are even applauded today. While my opponent is arguing that morality is logically inseparable from belief in a higher power, he has failed to provide ANY logical reason which would lead us to believe so! My opponent would like us to think that without God, without "ultimate truth", we have no reason to act morally, but I disagree. Personally, I believe that people are selfish, that's why the Bible also gives us selfish reasons to act morally (i.e. avoid hell or go to heaven). In reality if we should act morally because it will benefit EVERYBODY around us, which will consequently benefit us as well! This will lead to EVERYBODY'S maximum benefit! This is a logical conclusion! If a person is TRULY selfish it has an interesting side effect: morality! Morality helps us fulfill our desired to live good by ensuring everybody around us lives good, too!