Humans Can be Good Without God

Without God there is no good or evil. There are no Morals in play. Without a God there is no Atheism. Without a God there would be no United States there would be no England there would be no France there would be no World Powers. Can humans really be good without God? No they cannot without a set of rules we would be animals. Dr. Ron Rhodes has stated that "it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good." Think about it. If we have no starting line no place to set the bar then we would have never known good from evil. My opponent stated this in the first round. "If there were a God of any of the monotheistic faiths - whose existence has yet to be proven by scientific and material evidence - he should not be an example humans would desire emulate for a moral life." I say this - Why shouldn't they be followed. As a person with faith I see God as perfect, something not obtainable for me a a mere human. I would although like to try my hardest. This is the mainstream practice for all religion. All faiths with a monotheistic God try to their best ability to follow in their God rules, ways, and light. Christians - Try to be Christ like in their walk with their personal savior. Buddhist - Try to emulate the teachings and the thought processes of Buddha. Muslims - Follow the guidelines set by their God Allah and follow their major prophet Muhhamads footsteps with many rituals and holidays. Orthodox Judaism - Try to follow all rules set by God from the Torah. From circumcision to the ten commandments fasting and holidays set by God. The argument set forth by my worthy opponent is circular in nature from his responses. The simple matter is without a God how do you know that you are a good person? How do you line up with something in which you as an atheist have no line to follow. Here is Atheism by definition. Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of Atheism - archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2. a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity Again I say... Without a God there would be no Atheist. Therefore in reality yourself as an Atheist believe in a deity. You merely refute it and deny that there is one because you have found no faith. The Monkey Problem - 1. Did we evolve from monkeys? Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. http://www.pbs.org... You see science would like to make you think they have the answers. When in reality they thereselves have no evidence. The key points in this is that since we did not evolve from monkeys nor apes how do we share genomes with them if we as it says above our own species. "Scientists believe this common ancestor existed " scientists (believe) they a common ancestor existed yet this has never been proved. With this I conclude that my opponents recent study has been once again flawed. If they can say they (believe) in this ancestor; there is no proof or hard evidence stating that WE ARE RELATED TO MONKEYS.... When we are not evolved from either. So this only means one thing science is flawed. Can science calculate human morals and values? No once again. If they could calculate this we would have no Murder. We would have no sexual crimes. We would have no violence. The reason why is if we had the science we would have a system in place to control us. We would have monitors or a policing system if this was plausible. Again this is where our God and creator gave us a spirit and a free will. My opponent never even tried to state anything about how we as humans have free will. Science cannot explain and never can. Julian Baggini a philosopher and science major who holds a PhD. From the University of London stated this. "The main reason is that the very notion of a science of the self depends on us identifying its subject - the self - from the perspective of first-person experience. Science can correct false beliefs about what sustains that experience, and it can explain what makes such experience possible, but it cannot change what it means to be a self without erasing the very data it depends on." While writing his book "The Ego Trick" an interview with neuropyschologist Paul Broks stated this - "I don't think the self is ultimately a scientifically tractable question" In contention science and psychology cannot even explain the soul. You can read the whole article here - http://brandondedicant.livejournal.com... Sources that more than 5% of Sweden is Muslim. Muslim source of Islamic Sweden - http://www.euro-islam.info... A list of Mosques in Sweden - http://www.livingislam.org... A blog of Sweden being Islam's best state - http://islamineurope.blogspot.com... My original U.S and U.N backed religion report on Sweden - http://www.state.gov... Isaac Newton most certainly believed in God and never would have been Atheist. Here is a cite from a website. His writings on belief and God auctioned off in 1936 clearly showed how he adored his faith. http://www.ctlibrary.com... Albert Einstein - Considered himself religious. He even stated although not having a personal God he was looking for ONE (one as in Monotheistic) Quote On the nature of God: "That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." in my second round I have my reasoning for whom he was searching. My opponent also mis quoted my "right and wrong" I made a mistake and meant to put God is right and human is wrong. I award my opponent for catching this mistake. As I caught his using a Christian publication denying his claim. The Canine Issue - Here is a scientific study clearing this up from a very reputable source - http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Formal Archaeological Cites Of Christ as a real worshiped Monotheistic God who lived and died and arose. These are Non Judeo Christian Sources. Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112) wrote to Emperor Trajan note In the Library of the Vatican Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117) The Annals of Tacitus Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) Lives of the Twelve Caesars Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100) Antiquities of the Jews The Talmud (70 AD) The Tannaim Acts of Pilate First Apology (c. 150) Julius Africanus - Third book of the histories Thallus 52 AD. Kin Selection not Valid it is a weak theory - http://www.science20.com... Reciprocal Altruism -Contemporary debates in cognitive science By Robert Stainton page 123 once again is not evidence Google it, it will show you the truth. Sexual Selection - Is a unstable theory proved weak many times. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20088870 In conclusion I cited many sources. I gave you cause beyond reasonable doubt that without God there would be no good. Religions follow a God and Government follows the commandments given by religion. Science has no evidence that there is not a God. We do have evidence of Christ a moral God who came in the flesh. That most of the world follows. Evidence. Physical proof. Without God we wouldn't know good. Without a line that was set by God; mankind would have never had rules to follow. We would have no system without God. In conclusion we need God to be good. We cannot have morals or good without a God thank you