Morality only truly exists without God.

"You have the burden to prove that morality can exist without warrant! If I say that it is wrong to dance and you tell me it is not - who is right? We both appeal to the same thing - no-thing." This is true, and applies to every religious argument you can ever have, not excluding this one. "My point is that moral objectivity and moral obligation exist with God." You've proved this by saying without God, there would be no way to judge good or evil. But can't that be described by society? If you commit a crime, society will judge and shun you. So if what you're arguing is true, then without punishment, there would be no morality, not without God. "What are these moral deeds? How do we define moral deeds? Where do they come from? Why must we obey them? And how are they universally applicable? Morality without warrant is no morality at all!" As I've said, moral deeds are defined by what society believes are right and wrong. Moral deeds are not universally applicable, with or without God. Judaism and Christianity have different ideas of right and wrong, the United States and Afghanistan have different ideas of right and wrong, because they have different societies, as well as the United States. Islam and Christianity have the same God, but different beliefs, so it can't be God that's the authority on good and evil. "And God does not necessarily influence the Christian. The Christian may very well do things simply because they are right – without God's influence. HOWEVER, the Christian has warrant to call the thing in which he has done "right." So the Christian does right without the influence of God, meaning God does not define morality, so they're doing what's right with the absence of God to make that decision. "How do you know they were immoral? What standard of morality are you judging them by? You are assuming that an objective standard of morality exists, but you are not giving any warrant for its existence!" I'm judging them by the morality that you and I are familiar with: modern American society. If I cheered two people on to murder each other, that would be considered immoral. "So morality did not evolve? Humans only evolved to fulfill that morality?" No, morality has evolved to conform to society. "Rightness must have a source if it is to actually exist – and just as heat has a heat source – rightness must have a right source. God, is defined as perfectly moral, the only plausible source of rightness. Heat becomes less as it distances from the heat source. These levels of heat imply a source for that heat. Just as levels of right, imply a source of rightness. Therefore, before my opponent can be correct about morality, he must first define the warrant to call something either "right" or "wrong." Can you prove that righteousness has a right source? Just because God is perfectly moral does not make him the only source of righteousness. It's a very philosophical question, you can say that God is the warrant for morality, and I can say that Mohandas Gandhi was the source of morality. What's the difference? "I do not kill because it is wrong. I can call it wrong because God has commanded it as such. An atheist does not kill because it is wrong. The atheist has no warrant in which to call it so. True morality can ONLY exist with God because there is an objective standard in which to determine "right" and "wrong." An atheist does not kill because society has commanded it morally wrong. Society MAY also be an objective standard that determines right and wrong. Also, I'm indifferent as to where you believe morality comes from. It exists. That's all we can prove. We can not prove its origin, and the origin does not matter... everyone has a standard of right and wrong, even if they are from different religious backgrounds.