An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God

First, to deal with my contradiction: I misspoke. That statement should be changed from "While it is true that humans can feel sympathy and empathy and they can help us form our own personal moral code, they in no way impact the existence of an objective moral code; they do not show that one exists, which is the topic of this debate."to"While it is true that humans can feel sympathy and empathy and they can help us form our own personal moral code, they in no way impact the existence of an objective moral code; they do not show that one can exist without God, which is the topic of this debate."On the important matters:Con states at the beginning of his argument: "While I agree with the Pro on what objective means the point I was making was that morality is subjective and therefore an objective moral code can be created but without a god. HOWEVER, in order for this code to happen the population must be smaller then it currently is and there must be some sort of propaganda in which to brainwash the people to want and follow this code."I must be confused, and not understanding what this statement means, so Con correct me if I am wrong. How can you attain an objective truth from anything subjective? If Con is suggesting that if everyone in a community had the same subjective moral code, then somehow that subjectivity would become objectively true, than that is absurd. Did the Sun fly around the earth before the 16th century? No. It did not. Everyone on the entire planet thought it did, but it did not. Again, with the definition of objective in mind, it does not matter what people think. What people think is completely and utterly irrelevant to truth. I'm sorry I'm using so much bold, but I simply do not know how to get this point across in simpler terms. Con states: "As for the Pro's counter-argument that empathy and sympathy do not impact an objective moral code the point is is that they in fact do, due to the fact that there is no evidence that a moral code exists."Again, this is just as absurd. No amount of subjective thought could ever even hope to begin to cause anything to exist or to not exist in the real world. The fact that there is no evidence that an objective* moral code exists does not mean that the subjective moral code replaces it as being objective. Con states: "Evidence that one does not in fact exist is that because human morality is subjective and not everyone shares the same set of morals." Con later on told me that the argument is not about whether or not this objective code exists, but whether it's existence is contingent on God's existence. I understand that Con said this after his statement concerning how a subjective code becomes an objective one without God. This statement effectively says nothing to promote Con's point because claiming whether or not a subjective moral code does exist does not disprove the idea that an objective one does not, or that an objective one does not have to rely on God's existence. Similarly, if we observe a tree, what we are doing is creating a subjective image of a tree in our heads. Different people might have different ideas of what a tree is but the fact that we have subjective ideas of what trees are does not disprove the fact that trees do exist, or even that they might be different from your individual subjective tree.My point stands: empathy and sympathy do not impact an objective moral code. Again, to be clear, what people think does not matter when one is talking about what is objectively true. Con states: "Pro also states "However, empathy for a family losing their pet does not tell us why it is wrong to harm that pet." If anything empathy is the opposite of that statement. Empathy explains why its wrong to harm other things because we can place ourselves in that exact situation so that's why we feel that its wrong to do that to anything."I believe Con missed my point. Imagine someone who does not feel empathy, a sociopath. Is it wrong for him to kill the dog? Obviously not, if empathy is the basis for an objective moral code. In this scenario, it can be clearly seen that empathy does not provide a basis for objective morals because there are those amount us who do not have empathy. An objective moral code would say that it was objectively wrong for him to kill the pet regardless of what he thought. Also, Con's statement presupposes the existence of a "golden rule," something that is not the basis for an objective moral code. I can explain this in more detail if Con would like, but I have faith that Con can understand in light of our discussion why the golden rule is not a basis for an objective moral code the way God is.On the topic of evolution, admittedly, this was a red herring for both of us. The short answer is to this is understand how traits evolve and are passed along. I will go in to more detail simply for the purpose of showing how natural election occurs. However, this has little to nothing to do with the argument. It came from the original point Con made concerning a natural instinct to help others of our species, and instinct which is just historically and practically non-existent. Even if it did exist it would not provide a godless foundation for objective morals, keeping in mind our definition of objective. However, I will entertain this sprout from the argument.Con makes it seem as though animals intelligently evolved. This is not the case. Animals do not "learn" to survive in their environment when concerning the evolution of a species over thousands of years. No intelligence is required. How traits are created is through error. When DNA replicates, it doesn't happen perfectly. When these new traits are beneficial to the environment, the individual with them has a higher likelyhood of reproducing, so the trait is carried on. If a trait is no longer required, that means that individuals without the trait have just as much a likelyhood of reproduction as individuals with the trait. Eventually, it is possible that a trait dies out because it is not needed, especially when you consider the people with the urge to help others are periodically dying because they put themselves in danger to save others. This shows that traits, especially traits that endanger ourselves, have a high likelyhood of dying out.In the modern day, there are great examples of this. If you're ever been to China, you would know that drivers have no regard for their "human brethren". They will run you over. Being a pedestrian in China is one of the scariest things I've ever done. Crossing roads is scary because unlike in the West, drivers don't care about you. This huge split in the conscious thought of two sides of the world shows that evolution is not the culprit behind the idea of group survival, it is culture. In specific, Greek and Judeo-Christian culture that the West was essentialy built on.Again though, this is not a useful part of the debate. It does not help either of us prove our points.Back on the topic of our debate:Con states: "the main point I was driving was that because morality is subjective people can for m their own form of a moral code. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Castro, and on, and on, all manipulated peoples view on morality forming their own set of moral codes none being the same. So I am saying that yes, anyone can make a moral code a moral code. Therefore is a moral code not contingent to the existence if God or a god."This is a deductive argument presented with false equivocations and indescript points. Meaning, your deductive reasoning is based on not defining your premises as well as you should. Another example of this would be:P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual tendenciesP2: I am a mammalC: Therefore I exhibit homosexual tendenciesThe conclusion is absurd, because I am, in fact, not gay. The problem with this logic is not in the form of the argument, but rather with the specificity to which we defined "mammal." In P1, mammal meant "all mammalian species" meaning that some of all of the species exhibit those tendancies. In P2, I introduce a different ontological definition: the scientific definition only.Likewise with Con's argument. Con basically forms the argumentP1: Hitler, Mao, Zedong, etc. made moral codesP2: They did it without the help of GodC: Therefore God is not needed to make moral codesThis is a false equivocation. Hitler, Zedong... formed subjective moral codes, while it is my contention that God is needed for an objective one. This argument is therefore not sound.Pro's responses to my original arguments1)Con states: "An atheistic view gives an answer for what is good and bad. It is all based on our perspective on the world" This, again, would be a subjective moral code - not an objective one2)Con states: "So, all laws against rape would mean nothing if there weren't morally righteous?"Well, as I said before, there are two conditions possible for laws to have inherent value. 1. They must be morally righteous. 2. They must be enforced. In response to Con's point: If that law against rape was not enforced, Yes! That would not be a meaningful law! Being "Morally righteous" means whatever the law is outlawing is actually morally wrong, e.g. rape. If rape wasn't actually wrong, no law would have the right to say not to unless it was backed by a justice system.3) Con states: "Society says its wrong."Society also said that kiling people was right under Castro. If society is the basis for any moral code, it is not an objective one, since different societies have different values. What society does not do is lay out what is true and what is not. Going back to the point I made earlier, the whole world thought the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun rotated around it before Galileo. This fact does not mean that either of those contentions were true.Con states: "Within the society you live it tells you that killing a young child is wrong because they know how it would feel to be that child's parents (Empathy)" This is based on emotion.