Morality Without God

"1. I have already stated that the definition of reason includes that we realize what it is we do and do not know and except them as such, for what the are. 2. I also stated that the concept of faith is in contradiction to that. Faith being the acceptance of things as true which you do not know. 3. Belief in God requires faith. 4. Thus any moral system based off of belief in God IS invalid. So I have actually already won this debate." Okay, this is a point I wish to take. ‘Faith being the acceptance of things as true which you do not know', yes, its true. But that is like the essence of life. At every point of time, we are (inadvertently) believing in something that we're not sure is true. I trust my father will act in our best interests while taking care of the finances of our house, I have ‘faith' that my mother will cook for me this evening, I drive on the road trusting that everyone will follow the rules of driving. So, whether with strangers or with intimate friends and companions, because we cannot fully know others, faith is always a necessary component of our relationships. We cannot live peacefully, or have a qualitative life if we don't have faith, or trust. "Our relationship with God is similar to our relationship with others in the sense that all relationships require faith, and I can never and will never fully know any other person. This is because we are incapable of fully knowing others because we cannot experience all they experience nor enter into their minds to know what their thoughts and emotions are" So, again, and again I will say that you are talking about a system that is only theoretical, and has no practical application. "Alas, you make a huge fail in this argument. There, indeed, is a grand regulator. They are called the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Not a God." So, on a four- pointer road, we have laws of logic, don't we? We logically know that we shouldn't cross when the other one is crossing, but still , do we follow these logics? That was the point of my example. This has actually strengthened my argument, because ‘laws of physics and laws of logic don't stop us from overtaking the vehicle which is crossing ahead of us.", how can they stop us from overtaking our own self professed ‘logically-correct' morals? "Yes, one should. But will one? That's a question worth asking." Worth asking--definitely! Relevant to the debate? Absolutely not. We're debating on the just legitimacy of opposing moral system. Whether one choose to follow it or not says nothing about the actual system." So, you are actually saying that the system you propose is just a system opposing the moral system of God? Whether one chooses to follow it or not has a Great deal to say about the actual system. The whole point about proposing a new system is the hope that it will be better than the prevalent system. And as I have continuously proven over the course of the debate, this system is something that is best left on paper because of so much it expects out of a man/woman. And the fact that you, yourself denied the opportunity of proving the workability of this system in real life, is something I will take against you, and if you have accepted that this system is not workable, why are we still debating it? Vote CON!!!