God must Exist for Objective Moral values to Exist

Pro has demonstrated based on what he wrote, that YES in fact we do need to believe in a "personal" deity(s) in order to understand good and bad (he reiterated this twice). He failed to demonstrate WHY this is needed, when I plainly provided information showing that as a SOCIETY we have based our morality on EXPERIENCE, to which my opponent mentioned " I said that morality is based on personal experience. As I addressed previously in my opening statement, every human being knows..."etc. Science has HELPED in our further understanding as to WHY such good or bad morals are to be considered in order that our society can PROGRESS and simply we can get along. Well-being is simply summarizing the "golden rule" that my opponent likely believes and attributes it to his demi-god, Jesus. "Do unto others as you would like to have done to yourselves" is a universal basic social understanding that helps us make decisions that contributes to human well-being and makes for a good healthy society. I would like to address the Corn illustration that pro used and basically state that this is a poor attempt to dismiss human well-being. True Corn needs vital elements in order to grow into a healthy edible food, but we're not food (for some animals and cannibals we are). Science over the last 200 years has made strides on medical and social progress. They have made us understand that what we as a society would need to do in order to not live in a chaotic environment. This is what I mean and this example demonstrates how when a society ignores basic scientific understanding that contributes to human well-being, there are fatal consequences that will happen. An 8 year old Yemen girl is married off to a older man in a country that upholds religious ideology over factual scientific understanding of human well-being, which does contribute to understanding good vs bad morality. This young girl of 8 dies on her wedding night, but why? Because science has shown over the last 200 years that deflowering a young girl of that age is dangerous because her body isn't fully developed to handle such stress. Yet, this type of culture was supported and adhered to by the same people that are written in the bible. (address this in another debate) (2) This is a common "dodge" attempt that even my opponent used here to not admit that he is basing his reasoning not on factual information but rather his religious ideology. He openly admitted twice that we do need to consider a "god" in order to understand morality and basically be held accountable toward this "deity". Pro said: " If God does not exist, then you as a human being do not have a moral accountability. "...."Only with a moral law giver can we make any claim to good and evil, since it is who he gives us a moral conscience to differentiate between good and evil". Again he failed to make us understand as to WHY we need to address a deity and WHO this deity might in fact be. Since he doesn't want to address the example I've taken from his book of multiple choice, I will then point to factual historic examples. One such example of stunning human progression and scientific understanding, is the dark ages where the Catholic church suppressed knowledge from the masses and instead fed them superstitious ideas. This approach has led to them not understanding basic hygiene to which contributed to the black plague that nearly wiped everyone out. Also, since they believed in the power of God, priest would place their hands on the sick, which obviously didn't heal the individual and at the same time infected and killed the priest. In more recent memory, we had the pilgrims trying to create a society based on religious ideology which contributed to innocent women being put to death on false accusations namely being called witches. A silly concept taught in the Christian-Judeo supposed holy book. These are only two out of a wealth of examples from history that shows that if we are to place our understanding on religious ideology to help us make moral decisions, we can fail as a society for providing true good moral standards. Lastly, pro stated " I said that morality is based on personal experience. And plus the bible says the Law is written on everyone's heart. That means that everyone knows right and wrong." Again he trying to point one opinion over a wealth of other religious opinions and doesn't demonstrate why this needs to be adhered to over others. (3) The Stalin example that my opponent provided doesn't demonstrate atheism or true Dawrinism, and not to take up too much time, I will simply address a few points. In another debate I addressed this issue with Stalin and Hitler where I made mention simply that they were insane individuals but what made them worse was that they had power. There are people who suffer insanity who wouldn't care at all for human well-being, and most of these people are in hospitals for the mentally disturbed. If these individuals were born today, they would have been categorized as being mentally insane and thus placed in special care. Hitler for one admitted in several letters and speeches that he was in fact a bible believing Christian doing the work of God by ridding the world of Jews who he blames killed his savior. "Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism - leading to policies designed to make the weak perish - is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a naturalistic fallacy, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society." Stalin was a Marxist with his own slant on the philosophy, a slant he used to justify the killing of millions of Russians. "While it is certainly arguable that communism would be untenable in a theistic climate - making atheism necessary for communism - the apologetic fails because atheism isn't sufficient for communism; fires only start in the presence of oxygen, but no fire has ever said to have been caused by the presence of oxygen. Indeed, (weak) atheism can't be considered sufficient for any action." "Furthermore, there is the concurrent claim that the USSR was an atheist nation. While the Communist Party suppressed religious fervor, it did so only out of jealously of loyalties. The Communist Party demanded loyalty to itself above all others, even above God. Russia has always been an intensely religious nation. They consider the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be equal to the Vatican's Pope; or even above the Pope. To claim that Russia became atheistic overnight in 1917 only to emerge deeply religious in 1989 is incredibly ignorant." Stalin's history is not clearly known seeing that he suppressed information about himself and there are very few documents that have survived that provide some insight to his life. Little is known about Stalin's life until the age of 44 when he became the head of the Communist Party. In conclusion, we are accountable to ourselves and in the society that we live in. As a society, based on experience and science, we understand so far what is morally acceptable and what is not morally acceptable in order to contribute to human well-being. Well-being is the foundation as to what we as a society decide what is morally good and morally bad. Scientific studies and medical advancements has made it possible for us to make rational decisions that helps our progress become a better, fruitful, coherent, and respectable society. Sources: Wikipedia Iron Chariots Rational Wiki