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. They would just lack a basis for doing good. Nonetheless, there is good examples of without religion some people would lose their moral sense. See: Stalin's murders. I said you seem to make an absolute statement about the lack of high standards of morality in religious texts. You even say that are no worthy messages of morality in the Bible. So if I find one example of a high standard moral code or a worthy message of morality then your contention is false. Here is a worthy message found in the Bible - thou shall not steal. 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. It was not an argument from ignorance. You claimed that the Bible borrows heavily from other traditions, even if this were true, this does prove it to be a fabrication. This has nothing to do with it's metaphysical truths. You seem to imply that it has a lack of metaphysical truths because Genesis has things that supposedly contradict modern science. If taken as metaphor it doesn't even contradict science and I think you are confusing scientific "truths" with metaphysical truths, anyhow. And, finally, your claim that if morality is based on religion, which is epistemically false, then that concept is self-refuting is wrong. For example, say murder is wrong. Now say some tribe thinks murder is wrong because if they commit it the victim will come back as a demon and haunt them forever and they get this knowledge from the souls living in rocks. Epistemically false? Sure, but yet they still have a true moral belief - "murder is wrong". First, my opponent just ignored the modified Euthyphro Dilemma. Second, he portrays his weak understanding of evolutionary theory, actually. To paraphrase Patricia Churchland survival-aimed behaviors are only "concerned" with the 4 F's: Feeding, Fleeing, Fighting, and...Reproduction. [1] By survival-aimed behaviors, I mean any behavior that would contribute to something passing on its' genes. Evolution would not select for truth necessarily because FALSE beliefs are just as adaptive as TRUE beliefs. Example: almost everyone agrees that religion served as an adaptive advantage in our early evolutionary history but, according to End, religion is false. See the disconnect? Only God and religion can provide an objective source of morality. God's nature by definition (in this context) is all-good. So he can set an objective standard as to what is moral or immoral and religion is just an extension and codification of these morals. All other objective accounts of morality besides God's nature fail. Nietzsche agrees, "Morality has truth only if God is the truth - it stands or falls with faith in God". [2] So, if morality is not from religion it could only be subjective and lead to moral nihilism, but subjectivism about morals is self-refuting. Therefore, it cannot be from a source other than God and religion. Now, how it maintains morality and good behavior is simple, first I would argue that most, if not all, humans have at the very least some basic sense of morality. Like stomping on babies for fun is objectively wrong. This coincides with another reason why religion and God is needed to even make sense of morality. Like Kant, I think that if good and bad people both suffer the same fate (annihilation upon death) then it is hard to see how moral behavior even ultimately matters at all. That hardly seems "fair"; it does seem as if morals are real and that they ought to matter ultimately. Now if this true it is rather obvious that good people nor bad people don't always receive their just rewards in this life. It would seem to require that their needs to be an ultimate just judge. This would seem to require religion and God. God to judge; religion to let us know of these morals.