Morality comes from religion

I agree, an atheist does not necessarily have to believe moral subjectivism if they reject religion and God, but they will have no basis for pretending to have objective morals without either one is what I contend in this debate. Like I said, there are good examples of when an atheist rejects religion and God leads to they lose their morality such as Stalin. Now, is my opponent really trying to say that Stalin exhibited characteristics in his rule of akin to when the religious persecute? Maybe, superficially, however Stalin was secular to the core. There is nothing MORE secular and couldn't be farther from religion than communism. Some communistic regimes, such as Stalin's, were even explicitly atheistic. Stalin was ideology was based on Marxism-Leninism [1] and everybody knows Marx's famous quote, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." [2] The ideology is rooted firmly in eliminating religious beliefs. "Stalin persecuted religion in the Soviet Union, and by the 1930s the Russian Orthodox Church was near-extinction: by 1939, active church parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had were destroyed, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938." [3] It strains credulity to it's breaking point to suggest that this had nothing to do with his atheism and lack of morals. "You see, cherry picking gets you nowhere, and is sign that your source for morality isn't from religion at all." HOW, End?! How does this signal that I get my morality from something other than religion or God?! It says "thou shall not steal", and you conveniently provided no examples of where stealing was approved of by God. I am not cherry-picking at all, End. I was merely providing a counter-point to your claim that the Bible has no worthy moral messages nor does not have morals of a high enough standard. As I pointed out earlier you confuse metaphysical truths with scientific "truths" - they are not the same thing. You contended that religion has little to no METAPHYSICAL truths. Metaphysical truths are statements that I could not avoid believing to be true, "at least implicitly, if I were to believe or exist at all; or, alternatively, they are the statements which would necessarily apply though any of my experiences, even my merely conceivable experiences, provided only that such an experience was sufficiently reflected on." [4] A scientific truth like how moon is not the source of it's own light is not a metaphysical truth. I'd also contend that my opponent makes it sounds as if it is some new ad-hoc rationalization to not take Genesis literally. It is not. Many early church-fathers didn't take Genesis literally. [5] I'm puzzled - Con never pointed out any flaw in my demon analogy about how beliefs could be epistemically false yet lead to true moral beliefs but yet he claims there is a significant difference somewhere. Yes, Con, is quite correct in saying that my argument would only work if God actually existed and he is also quite correct when saying that it would be self-refuting if God and religion are man-made. But, notice what he did here; he begged the question. Con automatically assumes that God is a human construct and then goes on arguing from that point that since there is no God and morality exists then morality MUST not come from religion and/or God. It's a rather circular argument. He provided no reason to believe that God does not exist. While I, at least, provided a sketch of an argument that could be used to justify a belief in a God and a belief for the contention that without religion there would be no morality. I will also take the opportunity to point out as well that my opponent completely dropped his contention about morality having a basis in evolution. I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting and speedy debate! Good luck in all your future debates, End!