Morality does not come from any religion.

First of all, I would like to let my opponent know that any and all informalities are forgiven. Rebuttal Number One: “Religions adoption & exploitation of our naturally occurring morality, likely done so to add weight to the given belief system, is not proof of creating the original morality that they reinforce. Hence the morality came from another source and Religion plays on it. ” This is just another theory that my opponent offers that has no factual backing behind it. There’s a problem with this line of logic. I could give any personal theory I wanted to and say that it is true. For example: It is possible for cows to fly, but they don’t do it in front of humans. White isn’t the absence of color, it’s actually all of the colors put together. These claims sound ridiculous. That’s because I have no facts, data, evidence, or tests that support these claims. The same thing goes for my opponent’s claim. He’s claiming that religion plays on the morals that come from other sources, but he never explains why or how. My opponent didn’t specifically pinpoint how all of the Ten Commandments came from other non-religious sources. I could list more moral standards of other religions, but I don’t need to. I have showed that one religion has morals, and my opponent hasn’t showed how they were derived from non-religious sources. I have met my burden of proof. Rebuttal Number Two: I will not copy and paste my opponent’s entire quote from Marc Hauser, considering it’s too long. However, I will comment on it. “do people with a religious background show different patterns of moral judgement from those who are atheists or agnostic? The answer is no. ” This isn’t proof that religion adopted their morals from non-religious sources. It just explains that atheists/agnostics and religious people might share the same beliefs. However, religion adopting non-religious morals isn’t the only possibility. Non-religious morals could’ve been adopted from religious morals. I’m not here to defend that statement. I’m just stating that just because atheists/agnostics and religious people share the same morality, that does not mean that religion adopted their morals from non-religious resources. “But the intriguing thing is that when you can conceal the dilemma in terms of the real role case and give a kind of an artificial dilemma that captures some of the crucial ingredients, there does not seem to be differences between people with a religious background and those without. ” This quote is along the same lines. Hauser is using an “if, then” argument. “If atheists/agnostics share the same morals, then religion adopted their morals from non-religious sources. ” But I could easily claim: “If atheists/agnostics share the same morals, then non-religious people adopted their morals from religious sources. ” This doesn’t make my claim true. My claim has no evidence behind it. Likewise, the insinuation that Hauser makes has no evidence behind it, and therefore, his claim hasn’t been proven to be true. Now, I will analyze my opponent’s claim. “I understand and contend therefore that we all share the same sense of morality as we evolved it together, it is no wonder that Religious people deny this as the science vs religion divide makes them feel understandably threatened in their beliefs & there is psychological value in the beliefs held. This does not change the fact however that there is significant evidence that people behave in a moral way with or without Religious teachings and that evolution and group theory provide a logical and evidenced based proposal that i believe reinforces the argument "morality does not come from any religion. ” This entire claim is a giant theory with no backing. He talks about how religious people deny that they and non-religious people share the same morals. Not only does this not have any evidence/logic behind it, but it doesn’t have any relevance to meeting his burden of proof. He talks about evidence that all people have the same moral standards, but he offered no evidence in any of his arguments. He talks about how the evolution and group theory provide evidence to meet his resolution, but he doesn’t show why. Overall, his claim had multiple statements without any backing. Conclusion: My opponent hasn’t met his burden of proof. He hasn’t shown why morals don’t come from any religion, or why religion adopted morals from non-religious sources. I have responded to everything my opponent has said. I also offered an example of morals of Christianity, the Ten Commandments. My opponent didn’t show how these morals were taken from non-religious sources. Overall, my opponent hasn’t shown the reasoning behind any of his claims.