Moral Values and Duties Cannot Be Objective if Atheism is True

Fair enough.The amended motion: "Moral Values and Duties Cannot be Objective if God Does Not Exist," is acceptable. Just as I feared; I was hoping that you weren't proposing a classic William Lane Craig - Christian Apologetic kind of argument! This is why I was deliberate in pointing out that your definition of Atheism was incomplete as it didn't include the fact of people in the world and throughout history who have been completely without any conceptual notion of a god or gods within their cultures and nevertheless engage in behavior in which ethics and morality can still be evaluated. This is still the case even with the amended motion!If there are people completely devoid of God within their culture and still nevertheless behave and navigate the world with a moral compass - then clearly inserting a god or gods to create a foundation for moral values is not requisite.Moral and Objective philosophy is tricky.. but I don't think it wise to simply insert, say, the God of Abraham (an Iron Aged god of war) into the moral clockwork as an invisible arbiter of moral truth (Which is curious because in other moods the God of Abraham is also particularly fond of genocide, slavery and human sacrifice) [3].I'm chomping at the bit here with rebuttals - but out of fear of violating the debate format and breaking the rules, I will stop here and give my opening statement and make a case for morality apart from theology.Natural MoralityWe can find examples of genuine moral behavior in animals, and we can use it as an example of moral behavior that does not require a belief in God [1]. Michael Schermer describes some animal behavior as premoral sentiments - behavior in animals that is shared by humans which include: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group [2].Animals such as Capuchin monkeys and dogs also display an understanding of fairness, refusing to co-operate when presented unequal rewards for the same behaviors [4][5].We find examples of genuine morality among animals especially in a group setting. What we find is a system where members of the group use praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment to alter the dispositions of other members of the group. More importantly, they provide a model for creating human communities in which moral behavior can be promoted and immoral behavior inhibited without a belief in God. Specifically, one uses social tools such as praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment to create in community members desires that produce behavior helpful to others, and aversions that reduce behaviors harmful to others.We observe animals like Koko the Gorilla, who has been taught to communicate through Sign Language, express and clearly understand emotions like laughter and sadness and explain that these experiences are "bad" and "sad" or "good" and "happy". These behaviors are indeed premoral behaviors shared within Human experience (See Koko cry when her cat is killed, attached video). Sam Harris, probably one the top working philosophers and neuroscientist in America, argues that our moral compass is predicated on Human well-being and concern for minimizing suffering. He contends that humanity has reached a point in time when science can have an impact on the well-being of others.Sam goes on to to explain how science can answer moral questions and be a basis for understanding moral normatives (See Sam's TEDTalk, attached video).Sam's work, The Moral Landscape, provides a working thesis as a scaffolding to build an understanding of moral values and duties derived out of a scientific understanding. If morality and natural Human empathy are predicated on a concern for well-being and minimizing suffering then this allows a basis to understand morality and ethics objectively. Moral values can be reduced to facts [6].Issues with Objectivity:This idea will become more relevant in the later rounds but I would like to mention it now in order the the reader understands that this is an on going area of study within philosopher apart from religious philosophical ideas about morality. Simply put, in General, I'm unaware of anything that is truly "objective" but that isn't still also filtered through our own subjectivity. This includes science! This isn't to say there aren't purely objective facts. Rather, this is to say that humans cannot escape their subjectivity. Even when we take a scientific measurement we still have to use our brains to interpret the data!So it is very odd to posit a religious notion - of a god - and use this to establish an "objective" foundation. It really doesn't establish objectivity nor does it bypass human subjectivity. I will get back to this when we allow for rebuttals in the next rounds.http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...Cited Source References:[1] The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins (1976)[2] The Science of Good and Evil, Michael Shermer (2004)[3] Sam Harris quote[4] http://www.primates.com...[5] http://www.pnas.org...[6] The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris (2010)