Religious books are the ONLY possible source of moral guidance

It is my position that a prerequisite for the existence for morals is the existence of God. The only legitimate basis for any moral system MUST be knowledge obtained from God Himself. The argument is simple, and revolves primarily around the definition of morality. What my opponent and those who are reading this debate must understand and learn to accept is that whatever sense of morality we still possess as a society is a direct result of our religious heritage. Most of us were raised to accept the fact that certain things were right and certain things were wrong, the difference is that some of us were not told why. The result is that, while all of us possess a moral sense to some degree, many of us take it for granted as something we "just know." Most of us "just know," for example, that murder is wrong. We would say that "murder is absolutely wrong." But what does it mean to say "absolutely?" To say something is "absolute" is to say that it is fixed, unchanging, and ultimate. The existence of morality, then, hinges on the existence of an ultimate truth, something that does not change. Unfortunately, atheism rejects this possibility. All that exists is the physical, temporal world. There is nothing inherent in matter and energy which can determine what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong. There is only matter and energy. This does not mean that atheists cannot be "good people," only that whatever moral sense they have did not and cannot arise from the facts of the physical universe. Whether they realize it or not, their sense of right and wrong originated with religious faith. It is essentially a "rip off" of sorts. I know you reject the authority of scripture, but this reminds me of some verses in 2 Timothy: "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; HAVING A FORM OF GODLINESS, BUT DENYING THE POWER THEREOF" In other words, people in the last days will possess a kind of morality, but refuse to give credit where credit is due, believing it to proceed from some goodness within themselves and rendering them impotent. Sounds like Timothy was reading our mail. It is up to my opponent to demonstrate the following: How, without the existence of an all powerful being, can there exist such a thing as "right" or "wrong" in any true sense. If there is no God, then who are you to tell me that it's not wrong to kill people? If I say it's okay, then it's okay! In other words, without God, the highest moral authority is ourselves, and what we determine by our own reason to be right and wrong. To this you might reply that right and wrong is determined not simply by human reason, but what the majority of people accept as morally acceptable. If this is the case, though, then the murder of 12 million innocent people by the Nazi regime was morally acceptable, because the majority of Germans regarded it as morally acceptable. They thought killing Jews was perfectly reasonable. You may then say that everyone knows instinctively that killing is wrong. Unfortunately, if we're all the result of evolution, a random and pointless process, whatever instinct we possess on the matter is the result of biochemical reaction which facilitates social behavior, not an arbiter of moral truth. When someone tells you that something is morally wrong, the logical question that follows from this statement is "who says?" We instinctively appeal to moral authority. The only legitimate authority on moral issues can be He who established what is right and wrong, God, and the only true moral code is that which He gives us. All others are transient, subject to change and personal opinion, have no binding authority, and are, therefore, not morals. While you and many other atheists still possess a form of godliness as it were, there is a whole generation of kids that has come to the same conclusion I have. If evolution is true then there is no God. If there is no God, then they can do whatever they want. They understand that morality is contingent upon the existence of a supreme moral authority, even if my opponent refuses to acknowledge this. Since God is the only legitimate source of moral truth, then the only way to obtain that moral truth is for him to impart it to us. Thus, the only legitimate source of moral guidance is a religious text which at least claims to be infallible and divinely inspired, i.e. the Bible.