A Strictly Atheistic World View Can Not Account For Morality.

Metz said, "Also this really doesn't say why Theism can actually account for universal morals. People disagree on religion. If Morals were universal then the scenario my opponent laid out wouldn't exist." I thought I made this clear in my opening statement: the God I am referring to is the Christian God. So, when you say that a theistic world view can not account for morality, because of all the different religions, then yes I would agree with you, because if there are many different religions that judge humans, then there would not be one standard to which morality is based upon. So, when I mention God I am only referring to the Christian God. Now that my view on the issue has been restated, any argument used by Metz (con), about why a theistic universe can not account for morality either; because of all the different God's derived from different religions, will be irrelevant. Since I am only referring to One religion, which is Christianity. And since there is just one God then there is only one moral standard, thus God can account for what is wrong or right. "It never says Atheism needs to account for universal morals, just morals." Okay, lets have it Metz's way, Atheism does not need to account for universal laws, just morals in general, very well. If there are no universal morals that prohibit certain acts of crime such as rape, murder, polygamy, theft, ect... then why am I obligated to obey those morals? Why can't I just abide by my own moral standards, since there are know Universal ones? For instance, I could think that its just fine to murder, rape, steal ect... because that's what I believe is right. So if there are just MORALS, to be defined by anybody, and no UNIVERSAL MORALS then who is to say that my morals are wrong? Whose to say anything is wrong for that matter? Once again the argument for an Atheistic world view on morals collapses on itself because it can not account for what is truly right or wrong. Metz said, "Its wrong because people say its wrong..." this quote is in response to me asking why murder is wrong. So are you saying that if the majority of the human population say that gays should not be aloud to marry, then that is automatically the moral standard? This is exactly my point, if a moral act is defined by what people say is moral then anything from the act of murder to a little white lie must be accepted by humanity. For instance, I could say murder is right because I said so. Also, a real life example is, 'people' started 'saying' that Jews should be considered sub human and thrown into concentration camps, but did this make it right? No, of course not. You see, I can say that Hitler was wrong because God commands it in the Bible, "thall shall not murder," its the 6th commandment. But, the best that my opponent can say, is, "Hitler's acts of genocide were immoral because the Jews were being murdered against there own will." Well, my opponent's statement just begs the question, So? Who says the Jews have a right to live in the first place? After all, millions were saying that Jews did not have the right to live. So which side is right, and why? For, to simply say that Hitler was wrong because he murdered Jews against there will is NOT answering the WHY? It only states a mere fact. Another example, John Locke, a well known philosopher who came up with idea of the Social Contract, this contract was to ensure that every human being was born with the right to live. Now, the question I have for Locke's thinking, along with anyone else who agrees with him, is this, WHY? Why are humans born with the right to live? I do not see a logical answer without God in the equation. 1. Humans don't want to be killed. 2. People, as a general rule, want to do what they feel is right. 3. Therefore people(in general), because they don't want to be killed, have said that killing is wrong 4. Therefore it is generally accepted among people killing is wrong 5. Hence killing is considered an Immoral Act. Again, not only does this example have nothing to do with WHY murder is wrong. But, what you have described here is Western Civilization for the past 200 years or so, ONLY. This certainly is not the case in the Philippines, the Middle East, or any other extremely violent area in the world. This totally disproves your point above. And not only that, but what about in past history, such as the Dark Ages where many people considered murder to be a normal act, in order to get food or money so they could fill there bellies. So, when murder became an act that was generally accepted among the people, such as in the Philippines, the Middle East, and any other extremely violent areas in the world or from times in the past, such as the Dark Ages, is it then morally acceptable to murder? I see no reason why not, under an Atheistic universe. In conclusion, I still believe that my opponent has failed to answer the why for his reasoning? For instance, everyone knows that people don't want to be murdered. But the question I am asking is, why is it wrong for people to be murdered? To say because people don't want to be murdered is not answering the question. Because why should a murderer care about what his or her victim wants if its just a question of morals and not universal morals? Also my opponent argue that a theistic world view can not answer for this question either. Well, that isn't answering the question, that's just pointing fingers. As I have said, I am a Christian and will be basing my arguments off a single religion and a single God. Now, my opponent may take this as a opportunity to criticize my religion like he did in his last argument, some what. If my opponent starts to argue that Christianity is not perfect and why should God be the ultimate judge this is still not answering the question of why anything is right or wrong to do anything. Again its just pointing fingers. Now this is something I have only touched on a little, I can say something is wrong or right because I believe there is an ultimate judge, God. This means there are universal laws of morality, that are absolute, and everyone must abide by them. In an Atheistic universe the only thing that can judge morality is humanity which I have proved is inconsistent and ultimately can not account for morality at all. Again I encourage the voters to listen to the video above it really illustrates my point. My dad also had a personal relationship with Dr. Bahnsen (the man debating in the video). My dad told me that after the debate between Bahnsen (Christian) and Stein (Atheist) they continued debating each other through emails and letters, after a couple weeks of going back and forth with their arguments Stein eventually wrote "I don't really have any answers for you, but I'm just not ever going to agree with you." Please answer the fallowing questions... 1)Why should a murderer care about what his or her victim wants if its just a question of morals? 2)Why are humans born with the right to live? I do not see a logical answer without God in the equation. 3)Are you saying that if the majority of the human population say that gays should not be aloud to marry, then that is automatically the moral standard? Thank you, charles15