An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God

Seeming as how Pro is confused I will explain:Pro has mistaken combining facts with morals. Morals are what you think is right and wrong, while facts are things that we know are true for example it is a fact that human breath oxygen we know this because there is evidence to support it. Anyways moving on, morals are our human interpretation of what is right and wrong. So, because they are not a fact they are subjective but they can become objective if an entire community thinks the same because that would be the ultimate truth.Pro claims me stating how a subjective code can become objective is not evidence for my side. In reality it is in fact evidence for my side due to the fact the debate is titled An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God meaning it is my job to provide a scenario in which an objective moral code can form without God and therefore proving the an objective morale code is not contingent on the existence of God providing evidence for my side.Pro continues with his tree scenario, that we all image tree differently. While this is a true fact he tries to say that because of that trees don't exist and his point is how ridiculous that sounds. How ever he neglects the fact that nobody is denying that trees exist because its a fact that trees. Therefore Pro's point does not stand. and my point stands that empathy and sympathy do disprove an objective moral code.Pro starts by saying that since a sociopath does not feel empathy therefore its okay for him to kill in our modern society which is what I was referring to. No, its would be wrong to us because that's what our laws say. However, if a group of sociopaths were the last people on Earth and they formed a morale code then it wouldn't be wrong. I agree that "the golden rule" is not a basis for a modern society for the society we live in but again if there was a small group of people and they are the last ones on Earth and they all follow the golden rule then it would be the basis.I was not saying that animals and other organism intelligently evolved I was stating that if organism gain a trait that gives them a natural impulse to protect their other special members then it is rare that it would not exist. Take for example a mother has a child, normally the mother would have a natural impulse to protect that child and they would do anything and everything to protect it. However following the Pro's line of reasoning mothers are more likely to die then the child that is untrained, unready, small, weak, and nearly oblivious to its environment.Take into account Pro's first example: "P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual tendenciesP2: I am a mammalC: Therefore I exhibit homosexual tendencies"The issue I have with this is the first line "all mammals exhibit homosexual tendencies." Assuming I am understanding this right this is saying that all mammals have homosexuals within their own species but not all mammals are gay. NO its should readP1: Some mammals exhibit homosexual tendenciesP2: I am a mammalC: Therefore there is a chance I may be homosexual. Pro's example is absurd and I don't think I am misinterpreting what he's saying because he says "The conclusion is absurd, because I am, in fact, not gay." He basically saying with P1 "all mammals are gay." Which is not true what so ever! Some are yes and that's fine, but not all mammals. Pro then presents this:"P1: Hitler, Mao, Zedong, etc. made moral codesP2: They did it without the help of GodC: Therefore God is not needed to make moral codes."1) Pro states "This, again, would be a subjective moral code - not an objective one" Irrelevant you just said that it didn't have an answer and I presented one you never said it needed to have an objective answer just an answer of why we think things are right and wrong.2) I wasn't saying that laws against rape weren't enforced I saw that according to your analyze if the law against rape wasn't morally righteous it wouldn't mean anything? And Pro then states "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." Of course it wouldn't be meaningful! Its like prohibition! If no one is enforcing a law the law in meaningless.3) Again you asked what makes the murder of the child is wrong, the society you live in says its wrong. Pro even sates "why would it have been wrong for me to murder that child?" Again because society. The out come of your specific case doesn't matter, following that logic we all should just stop all laws and everyone can do whatever they want with no consequences. Due to the fact that almost every law has let people who've committed the crime and gotten away.