Morality comes from religion.

I would like to remind my opponent and the audience that my stance in this debate has been that morality does not come from religion. Never have I claimed that it is impossible for an individual to BECOME INTRODUCED to a particular sense of morality through a religion, which is what my opponent has been arguing. However, an introduction to a sense of morality through a religion does not necessitate that the sense of morality originated from or "came from" that religion. Contrary to what my opponent has stated, all of my arguments still stand and I have ignored none of his points; rather, I have systematically refuted them. I will do so again: 1) your question about an individual coming to believe that morality is "what God wills to be good or evil" contradicts the way in which I have defined this debate. I have already excluded objective morality from being brought into this debate in order to ensure that we can remain on topic with a well-defined debate. This debate is premised upon the definition that morality is subjective; therefore, your question is off topic and irrelevant to this debate. Pro asks, "how could someone who is detached from religion possibly come to believe such a thing?" I do not have to argue that it is possible for an agnostic or atheist to hold religious beliefs in order to support my stance on the resolution. I only have to argue that it is impossible to prove that whatever moral codes they have developed originated from religion. 2) You claim that "once the religion has begun, people who then follow that religion use it to base their morality on." I do not disagree with this. An individual who converts to Christianity, for instance, may become introduced to the moral code that homosexuality is wrong through Christianity. However, does this mean that the moral code "homosexuality is wrong" originated from the religion of Christianity? No, it certainly does not. An individual who has never been introduced to the beliefs behind Christianity in his life may still come to believe that homosexuality is wrong. This individual did not need a religion to develop this sense of morality – they merely needed to know what homosexuality means. Often, all an individual needs after learning this definition is a gut reaction that says to them "no, that's wrong." No religion involved. 3) One's moral sentiments may very well change upon adopting or rejecting a religion, as pro asserts. But, again, this does not at all mean that morality comes from religion. When a secular person converts to Christianity, they may become introduced to the moral code that homosexuality is wrong. But the fact that this moral code may be developed outside the bounds of Christianity – as in the case of an atheist believing that homosexuality is wrong – supports the contention that morality does not come from religion. Certain senses of morality may be introduced to a person through religion, but "introducing" and "inventing" are not one and the same. In this debate, pro has shown a misunderstanding of what it means to "come from" something. In order for morality to "come from" religion, morality must be shown to only exist in the presence of religion; otherwise, how could it come into existence? I, however, have demonstrated that it is entirely possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion; thereby, morality does NOT come from religion. Thank you.