A Strictly Atheistic World View Can Not Account For Morality.

I will start with the three questions my opponent proposed to me at the end of his last argument. 1)Why should a murderer care about what his or her victim wants if its just a question of morals? There are, obviously exceptions to my rule of moral deterrence. But remember my proof established it as a general rule. This has nothing to do with Atheism at all, when someone murders someone they are not in a state of mind that would disregard any moral background whatsoever. Even if we assume a theist stance, these people have committed a sin, so therefore God as much fails to uphold morals as would Atheism. Also the Psychological consequences would be felt later as philosopher and psychologist Fyodor Dostoevsky laid out in his book Crime and Punishment. 2)Why are humans born with the right to live? I do not see a logical answer without God in the equation. I hate to say this but its the shocking truth... We are born with the right to live because we have a will to live. If nobody wanted to vote would it be considered a right? This will to live is also not traceable to god, but to the fact that humans are just animals with the ability to reason. Unless my opponent wishes also to deny evolution and biological fact then this has to be accepted. The most primal instinct of live is to preserve itself. This is where morals come from as I have repetedly argued. Humans judging others and therefore judging themselves. 3)Are you saying that if the majority of the human population say that gays should not be aloud to marry, then that is automatically the moral standard? This is Mob rule, not necessarily morality. But not to criticize to much but I have that the same would be said of God. If the Bible says it then its wrong, which seems to be a common belief about gay marriage. As I said The base of Morality is humans, Gay marriage does not threaten anybody, so it is therefore it is not sought to prevent like killing would be. People Judge others in Gay Marriage but it does not affect them so the link between natural morals is flawed. A society may come to the belief that gay marriage is immoral, but it is not intrinsically immoral, and this seems to be what is happening in the world today. Now on to the remaining arguments: "Since I am only referring to One religion, which is Christianity. And since there is just one God then there is only one moral standard, thus God can account for what is wrong or right." This really doesn't mean that everyone would follow this God, so are these people immoral? People believe do different extents, and so therefore have different morals even assuming the same God and religious texts and Church structure. In order for God to be as great a source for morals as my opponent claims we would need to abandon any remaining Autonomy and become almost robotic in our beliefs, an act which is, ironically, immoral in either world. "So if there are just MORALS, to be defined by anybody, and no UNIVERSAL MORALS then who is to say that my morals are wrong? " Not defined by anybody, defined by humanity. Humans Judge, you are judged by your fellows, you judge others and so judge yourself. Every step of the way there are checks. " If there are no universal morals that prohibit certain acts of crime such as rape, murder, polygamy, theft, ect... then why am I obligated to obey those morals? Why can't I just abide by my own moral standards, since there are know Universal ones? For instance, I could think that its just fine to murder, rape, steal ect... because that's what I believe is right." First, I Never said Atheism CAN'T account for universal morals merely that it was not my burden to prove that it did. Also, you can have your own moral standards, I know many people that have there own and are not killers, for example I think we have a moral obligation to fairness and to help people, I have friends that have a more sink or swim attitude. These morals can be relative, this is part of what shapes humanity, to accept that all morals are dictated to us really destroys that humans element. However when we get into killing, people judge more carefully, people are afraid. For the sake of protection and for moral order HUMANS establish moral rules, such as that against killing. Atheism can account for Morality because it was humans all along that accounted for morality. "Who says the Jews have a right to live in the first place? " They do... They have a will to live that is as strong as that of any other. This turns Life into a right intrinsic of humanity. Thus when the Jews were killed Hitler was taking an intrinsic right and the act was thus, immoral. I already addressed the other problem at the beginning. "everyone knows that people don't want to be murdered. But the question I am asking is, why is it wrong for people to be murdered?" You gave me the answer right there. This bring me back to the same Will to Live argument. It is wrong because people have a will to live. Because they have this will it becomes a recognized right to live. Thus when someone violates this right the act is immoral in most circumstances(there are exceptions to every moral idea). Voters, When you are reading this debate you need to think about whether or not you would logically do some of the things my opponent has said in his examples, and whether you would want them done to yourself. You also must recognize that Murder's generally have an altered or disturbed state of mind that could be influenced by such things as Alcohol that means in Either world these people don't respect morals. The key question here is: Did my opponent prove that without God morals COULD NOT exist? Or did I prove that morals COULD exist in such a world. Remember the resolution asks could, which means "is it possible" Thanks, Metz