One can have morals without God

I. My apologies; you are correct that how we came into existence influences how we live. I phrased that very poorly. What I was arguing against was your statement "if you do not have an explanation of existence itself, how can you explain morality? ". What I should have said is that, regardless of how we came into existence, the existence of moral codes is difficult to deny. And, in fact, those who believe in evolution *can* explain our existence and offer rational theories on why morals would have been a part of that evolution. Now, onto the rest of your argument: "None of these animals exhibit a sense of right and wrong or guilt associated with humans, and each of these sources confirm this." Actually, I think the sources indicate that there is a sense of right and wrong, or at least empathy: --Experiments with rats have shown that they will not take food if they know their actions will cause pain to another rat. In lab tests, rats were given food which then caused a second group of rats to receive an electric shock. The rats with the food stopped eating rather than see another rat receive a shock.--(1) And, the quote you use goes on to say "Human morality was not formed from scratch, but grew out of our primate psychology. Primate psychology has ancient roots, and I agree that other animals show many of the same tendencies and have an intense sociality." , which supports my position. II. "Let's say animals do have morals and eating offspring is moral for snakes and immoral for antelope, there is still a contradiction." There is only a contradiction if you believe that morality came from god, or is necessarily universal, which I do not. If, as I argue, morals developed out of social necessity and empathy, there are two valid reasons why there would be no contradiction. First, not all animals would possess morals; only highly intelligent, highly social or with emotional qualities would develop them. Second, since part of the basis for morality is societal benefit, the morals of each species would logically differ, as what benefits one species may not benefit the next. "But it turns out, chimps kill each other, eat each other, eat their babies, and different groups go into all out wars." Humans do all sorts or immoral things, as well. This does not mean morals do not exist, it means that certain individuals ignore them for whatever reason. "It does not sound like it. If this was the case of humans, then a society that is out of resources has the right to move into a more abundant area and kill everyone who lives there." Which was not an unusual practice until a couple hundred years ago, and is still practiced on a smaller scale. As for your Nazi example, I addressed this in the comments section. III. I'm not sure that what you are saying here is relevant. Regardless of where morals come from, there are people who behave immorally. The fact that some people are immoral has no bearing on whether morals can exist without god or not. Ultimately, this debate was about whether or not morals can exist without God or not. Whether or not my opponent accepts that morals can be viewed in other species or not, and whether he accepts that they are developed through evolution or not, I believe that I have shown that it is at least possible for morals to have come from something other than God. Add to that the obvious fact that atheists, agnostics and people with non-god-based beliefs still adhere to some sort of moral code despite their lack of god, and I think it is clear that morality can and does exist without God. (1)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...