One does not need to believe in "God" to be moral.

Now on to my rebuttal and arguments. Contention 1: There must be a standard for morality. I agree with this statement. There must be, and there is, a standard for morality. Contention 2: God is the standard for morality. But I disagree that a belief in God is the standard. Looking back on history, before Christianity was the "dominant" religion (it is not today, but for the purpose of this argument, I'll only focus on it), society existed and functioned well. If we look at pre-Christianity empires, such as the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, etc. we can see that these empire functioned so well that they were able to expand their influence across much of their respective regions. This was all done without a belief in God, but belief in societal morals that were enforced by their respective religions. We can also look farther back, before organized religion, to the first humans on the planet. They may have lived immoral lives by today's standards, but eventually they gathered around similar moral guidelines set by their culture. These morals came in to being without the influence of Christianity and God. Therefore, the standards of morality were not and are not set by God, but by the society in which one lives. As for your point at the end of Contention 2, morality can only exist in sentient beings. The concept of morality is a very complex thing. It goes far beyond instinct, which many animals live by. In order to be moral, a being must have the intelligence to communicate thoroughly with others and, as one of the requirements for sentience, must be self-aware. If we look at a wolf, for instance, we can see a great amount of intelligence. Wolves effectively hunt as a pack, communicate well with each other, and have a well-established hierarchy. But they are not sentient. They still rely on instinct (though to a lesser extent than a frog, for example). A wolf will sooner turn on its own kind for survival than it will stop to think "I shouldn't kill my kinsmen. " The very fact that humans are sentient and capable of that split second thought, "Is this right? " sets us apart from animals and thus we cannot be compared to wild animals when searching for the standards of morality. Contention 3:No mankind can live a "good" life I will agree with your statement that one's action reflects one's morals. We can both agree that lying is wrong, but as such, lying may not always be immoral. Allow me to present a hypothetical situation. You are held hostage by a terrorist organization. They are interrogating you for the location of some nuclear weapons. You know where these weapons are located, but you also know that, upon gaining position of said weapons, these terrorists will use them against your fellow countrymen. Is it moral to tell the truth and allow citizens to die, or is it moral to lie and prevent the deaths of many? While this example is extreme, I believe it shows that, although lying may be "wrong," it is not always immoral. Mankind is indeed flawed, but these flaws are what make us human. "To err is human. .. " No single person on this planet can claim perfection and outright morality. But this is not because mankind is inherently immoral without God, this is because, as I stated in round one, morals vary from person to person. What I see as moral on one issue, you may not. Therefore from your perspective, I am immoral. Mankind is inherently immoral because mankind does not have a set of morals that unify every individual. Conclusion Mankind is only immoral because mankind cannot agree on morals. But, in an attempt to unify everyone, society has set forth general morals that everyone living in said society agrees upon.