Without God there is no reason of morality

On I: Sounds like a plan to me. On II: My opponent makes a point of designating himself as a non-religious Christian, but never bothers to tell us what that means to the debate. When I used the term "religious," I was pretty clearly referring simply to the dichotomy presented by viewing morality as a product of God or not a product of God. As he states, this debate is pretty obviously between a Christian and an Atheist, so I don't understand why this qualifier was even necessary. Furthermore, evolution is not "a method by which to explain seemingly unexplainable natural phenomena" because it's an evidence-based scientific theory of development. Religion was born of our inability to scientifically explain these things. Evolution is the work of credible hypothesizing and the resulting data collection and observation. Furthermore, I'm really hoping that, at some point in here, my opponent intends to prove that God actually exists… On III: What I pointed out was an instinctual pull based on genetics. All animals exhibit the same species survival traits that human beings doing, but as a Christian you cannot claim that God instilled the same moral code in all other animals, as it would fly in the face of your doctrine (basically, everything "known" about God is clear on the fact that animals do not comprehend moral codes). You also cannot claim that morality is universal, especially not the codes espoused by dogma like the Ten Commandments, because you clearly can't prove that to be true. And, despite your claims that we debate issues like homosexuality and abortion because we are "morally damaged" by Adam and Eve's fall from grace, it's not. You fail entirely to explain the rationale behind this at all. Why, if there is a universal moral code, do we debate moral issues at all? Furthermore, which issues are above debate? I bet I could find examples of entire societies that debate the moral issues which you say are beyond question. Lastly, if things like stealing, murder, and adultery are always wrong, and we know it deep down, then why did God and Moses need to bang out the Ten Commandments in the first place? If that's all imprinted already, no need to mass inform, right? So, unless you are talking about me, an atheist, being informed by God via direct revelation of my moral code, then God had no hand in my ethical development. On my opponent's "syllogism": A2. Randomness does not equate to nothing. We see "random" chemical reactions in nature all the time, but the substances that reacted together existed prior to the reaction. Randomly does, on the other hand, obviously imply a lack of intentional design. A3. To a certain extent, human evolution could be considered random at some points, but that's a gross mischaracterization of evolution. The difference is simply that God didn't go "abracadabra" and a human popped out. The evolutionary constraints that led to human beings were relatively finite in that, based on the environment and the traits that led to maximization of species survival, human development was naturally guided to the stage it has remained at for quite some time. A4. Again, the use of the word "random" is incredibly misleading in terms of human brain function. The chemical combinations available to the brain are finite and incredibly meaningful to the function of both mind and body. A5. Sigh…some ideas could be classified as random, such as those in sleep or absent-minded thought. Other ideas, as I'm sure my opponent is aware, are quite deliberate. Has my opponent never planned a trip, or contemplated the frailty of mortal beings, or logged into a computer? Is he suggesting that every thought in the human head is a product of chance? A6. Morality is hardly random. As I am contending, it is a product of the indirect but powerful link that we have, as animals, to our instincts. Morality is simply our rationalization of our basic genetic urges. Moral systems have taken millennia to develop, and it would be incredibly hard to prove otherwise. Ethics are an evolving system in all societies, much like every other institution formed by humans. In summation, that whole quasi-syllogism thing that my opponent provides is based on a number of false assumptions that my opponent cannot warrant, even on the best of days. On the existence of a single, absolute moral standard: Why does morality need to be universal or absolute? He said something about "pushing the boundaries," My opponent has a complete lack of warrants for this assertion other than the syllogism he provides, which is incredibly inaccurate. Shifting morality is the rule, not the exception, and if my opponent wishes to contradict me on this point, he would basically need to prove that all human beings have operated by the exact same moral code since they were "created. " Furthermore, he's encouraging religious hegemony by claiming that the Christian standard is the only absolute moral standard we should follow, but that's another can of worms that we can open if my opponent so chooses. Bottom line: there are plenty of observable instances that my opponent cannot account for of codes of morality developing independent of the standard that he has set for "God's acceptable moral standard. "