Morality comes from religion

"Again, just because morality comes from religion it does not necessarily follow that without it there people would lose their moral sense. " That is how I defined it in both the previous rounds. The assertion morality comes from religion means that without religion, we would have none, which you even said in your own words; "Only god and religion can provide an objective source for morality." I stated earlier that rejecting god doesn't mean that the atheist falls into moral relativism. Now: you tell me to see Stalin's murders. Very interesting. Stalin, like Hitler and like Mussolini effectively attempted to put a totalitarian state. What does Stalin do? Well, he has heresy hunts; searches and sweeps for whoever may be spreading revolutionary or heretical ideas. Now THAT, I'm sorry, you cannot call secular. Anyone who understands twentieth century history understands that Fascism is essentially the Catholic Right. Anyone who understands twentieth century history knows that Japan's ruler, Hirehito, wasn't just a charismatic leader but a god himself. In North Korea, there exists several myths about Kim Il sung and Kim Jong Il. These, although not monotheistic per-se, reflect exactly the same principles as religion always has historically; it attempts to silence opposing views, crush free speech, limit inquiry and skepticism and control education. Don't go fooling yourself by saying that that's not what religion has done wherever it has gained total control. This is what Orwell meant when he stated that all totalitarian regimes are in essence theocratic. Now, yes it does say in the OT that you cannot steal. But what about when murder and taking of the livestock of the other tribe is ordered? You see, cherry picking gets you nowhere, and is sign that your source for morality isn't from religion at all. Yes I did write that there are no worthy moral messages in the Bible. I should have proof read. There are indeed, just as much as there are atrocious ones. You mistype as well : ""You claimed that the Bible borrows heavily from other traditions, even if this were true, >this does prove it to be< a fabrication. "" ""What makes it a bare assertion is that you provided no evidence or proof of your contention, not that I am of unaware of the lack of metaphysical truths. "" This is much like telling someone that the Canadian flag is red and white, without providing an image of the flag. "You seem to imply that it has a lack of metaphysical truths because Genesis has things that supposedly contradict modern science. " No, not supposedly. At the time, like the Babylonian view of the universe, the earth was flat, with celestial bodies of light and a dome-like solid sky. Today, Jews of Christians discard its explanatory part and keep any figurative meaning from the story. You can do the same with any creation myth, but don't you go and say that it 'supposedly' contradicts modern science. Now your example about murder-reincarnation-demon is clever and it had me stumped for a second, but there is a key difference between your analogy and religion/god. Namely; as you even repeat in your closing paragraph, god provides a source of objective morality. This is what it means to say morality comes from religion/god. And here is where the problem becomes apparent; to say morality comes from religion is to assert that god / religion or one god / one religion is actually correct. Because by your own statements, it would be self-refuting to say religion and god are man-made, but god gives us objective morals. You indeed assert that god has a nature, and it is good, and that he alone can give us an objective code. For your position to be correct, god would have to exist, and not be merely a human construct. And this is why by showing that god is man made that one effectively destroys the proposition that morality comes from religion.