An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God

While I agree with the Pro on what objective means the point I was making was that morality is subjective and therefore an objective moral code can be created but without a god. HOWEVER, in order for this code to happen the population must be smaller then it currently is and there must be some sort of propaganda in which to brainwash the people to want and follow this code. As for the Pro's counter-argument that empathy and sympathy do not impact an objective moral code the point is is that they in fact do, due to the fact that there is no evidence that a moral code exists. Evidence that one does not in fact exist is that because human morality is subjective and not everyone shares the same set of morals. Pro then states "They do not show that one exists, which is the topic of this debate." When in actuality refraining to the title of this debate "An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God." The real topic of this debates is that in order for a moral code it exist there must be a God. Even in the Pro's first round statement "I define "contingent" as something that occurs or exists only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on. For example: if (if and only if) a then b, b is contingent on a." Contingent is defined as 1. dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something notyet certain; conditional (often followed by on or upon) Example: Our plans are contingent on the weather.Meaning that the main point of this debate is that if a moral code is to exist then a God must exist. If we were to debate a debate titled "Does a Moral Code exist?" Then that would be the topic of this debate but it is not. Pro also states "However, empathy for a family losing their pet does not tell us why it is wrong to harm that pet." If anything empathy is the opposite of that statement. Empathy explains why its wrong to harm other things because we can place ourselves in that exact situation so that's why we feel that its wrong to do that to anything. Pro stated this:"I ask Con to evaluate what it is that retains traits in the run of evolution's course, and to realize that looking out for the others in your species is something that is not a trait that developed any time recently, and has had plenty of time to die out. The reason for this is that once a species has survived the first steps (not dying), the need to procreate becomes the more pressing matter, with the ones who are most able to procreate being the ones whose genes are passed on. How is looking out for each other helpful to our individual procreation? In response to the second half, when Con says "you do that not because God is telling you that its right you do it because its what you do" - Whether or not God is actively telling us all what to do is not what is being asked. We are asking whether or not an objective moral code can exist without his existence, not whether natural moral urgings can."So this is my response: We always have had developed the urge to defend our own whether it be our children or our neighbors. The Pro speaks as if to say after an organism passes through that particular phase the organism does not continue to have that trait or experience. When organisms go through the process of evolution they learn and adapt new ways to survive and thrive in other words if an animal evolves through a stage it still retains the information gained through that phase, the animal doesn't lose it as soon as it reaches the next phase. (I am referring to the sentences "I ask Con to evaluate what it is that retains traits in the run of evolution's course, and to realize that looking out for the others in your species is something that is not a trait that developed any time recently, and has had plenty of time to die out. The reason for this is that once a species has survived the first steps (not dying).." Pro further goes to state that after this is learn the need to procreate takes over for importance. This is true but like I stated before just because something else becomes more important doesn't mean the other thing is lost or forgotten. Even if enough time is possible it doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Moving on though Pro states "How is looking out for each other helpful to our individual procreation?" Well, if you want to procreate you need other members of your species to survive, is the short answer. The long answer is that human and other animal have a natural urge to protect their own community members so they wouldn't necessarily be doing for themselves but rather for the procreation of the species. So, if you would want the most members of your species to survive to continue the species. Much like if you were to take a mother Bear's cubs and then she attacked you she, has a natural impulse to protect her young because she knows that they are the future of her species. Next Pro states "Con states: "When this type of debate comes up people on the opposing side like to say 'Well, if there no punishment for bad things such as sin then what's wrong with thing like Hitler's concentration camps or religious persecutions or etc. etc.'"Yes this is what I would ask, and it would be a valid point. Con's response is: "Someone like Hitler and the Nazi party were brought up believing Jews were evil and that it was their religious/righteous duty to kill/ stop them at all cost. Meaning that what their doing wasn't wrong to them." The Pro states this as if its one sentence after another when the after my first sentence of ""When this type of debate comes up people on the opposing side like to say 'Well, if there no punishment for bad things such as sin then what's wrong with thing like Hitler's concentration camps or religious persecutions or etc. etc.'" I then stated "The problem with this is that your taking someone's societal influence and different moral up bringing to your own, and the problem with that is that you can't really begin to understand why those things happen (And obviously if you can I'm not speaking to you.) Anyways when you get someone with a different moral upbringing what they do seems wrong overall when in reality there's no real issue with it because there is no whole world morality because the world is so diverse." the main point I was driving was that because morality is subjective people can for m their own form of a moral code. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Castro, and on, and on, all manipulated peoples view on morality forming their own set of moral codes none being the same. So I am saying that yes, anyone can make a moral code a moral code. Therefore is a moral code not contingent to the existence if God or a god. Now Pro continues and contradicts himself with the sentence 1. "While it is true that humans can feel sympathy and empathy and they can help us form our own personal moral code, they in no way impact the existence of an objective moral code; they do not show that one exists, which is the topic of this debate. "But then states this sentence 2. "We are arguing whether or not God must exist for there to exist and objective moral code."These are not the same thing seeming as how one says we arguing if a objective moral codes exists while two is saying we are arguing over whether or not God must exist for a moral code to exist. Moving on to Pro's own arguments 1.A theistic view of the universe has an answer for what is good and what is bad, while an atheistic view does not 2.In a theistic view, morals would be enforced by the justice of an afterlife. In an atheistic view, morals would not be enforced because no such afterlife exists.3. A quick thought experimentMy responses:1. An atheistic view gives an answer for what is good and bad. It is all based on our perspective on the world. As I stated before There is no Objective moral code because everyone has different morality therefore you can't say that the Maoist killings were objectively bad because it varies who you ask.2. In order for a law to have meaning it must be morally righteous." So, all laws against rape would mean nothing if there weren't morally righteous? I'm pretty sure that if religion never existed people would still say that rape is an unspeakable act that should be prevented. Same for murder, Arson, and etc.3. Society says its wrong. Within the society you live it tells you that killing a young child is wrong because they know how it would feel to be that child's parents (Empathy). It matters what you do because you realize this is your only life so when you die you want people and your decedents to remember you as a reasonable decent man rather than an obnoxious sociopath who killed, raped, and violated everything he could because there wasn't a reward for just not being a complete jerk.