We can have as much morality without a God as we can have with one - SWITCH

My apologies for the forfeiture. I'm afraid I gave up prematurely on having it out in this debate. My opponent asks what moral act a theist may do that an atheist cannot! I'd like to ask what this has to do with the point? I'd also be quite delighted were it revealed that the ability or inability to answer their question is deeply revealing, because I believe I have just the thing for it. A theist, in expectation of heaven, may give their life for another. It's a sacrifice of a kind, I suppose. But hardly the sacrifice that an atheist can make, of their life for another, with no expectation of anything after to come. But this, is also NOTHING compared to the sacrifice that a theist can make: their soul for another's well-being. A theist can, for the sake of another's happiness, act in full expectation of being eternally tortured for it, a theme presented in Mark Twain's "What It Heaven or Hell." I do hope, in the interests of fair play, that you'll reveal why this question was meant to be meaningful, even though I may have satisfactorily answered it. It is written: "This entire debate relys on there being a universal morality for all people. A "higher law." There is no proof of a higher law. " I'll not quite call this a "gotcha," ladies and gentleman, but I call your attention to it. The man has held as proof that morality does not come from above the absence of proof that morality comes from above. Didn't he? Isn't that a fair representation of his argument? And it's a fine one. But it's not the debate we're having! We're arguing if theology CAN add morality, in theory. It was hardly expected that we would prove the existence of a higher law to do so. And so, in the not-quite-gotcha, my opponent has implicitly suggested that IF there WERE a higher law, then it WOULD add morality, my exact position. Surely were it otherwise, they would have said that it did not matter whether there was proof or not that a higher law existed, for it would add no morality either way. Instead, they feel the need to argue that there's no proof such a law has been given, in implicit recognition of the fact that if it HAD BEEN given , it WOULD have increased how much morality we can have. But that is MY position, not THEIRS. I repeat, I argue not that there necessarily IS a higher law, but that if there WERE, it would increase how much morality we can have. You've heard it from both sides now, ladies and gentleman: if only there were a higher law, it would increase how much morality we can have. The debate is done. Morality: what is right and wrong. The case has already been laid before you, ladies and gentleman, produced quite adequately by both myself and my opponent! Humans will produce their own answers to what is right or wrong. Brilliant! What shall we call it? What a useful idea; it simply must have a name. Moral relativism, perhaps? I do love to coin a phrase. The addition of a universal law can only re-establish morality where it has been dissolved. Where my opponent has said people may do whatever they please and it's moral, we can now say that people MUST DO WHAT IS MORAL if they wish to be moral. And a knowledge, a steady and sure, unchanging knowledge of that morality might come from above. And so stands the point: We can NOT have as much morality without a God as we can have with one