Morality only truly exists without God.

The given definition of morality is "the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. " 1. Warrant for right and wrong My opponent suggests that without God true morality can exist. My opponent must explain the warrant he has for calling one choice "moral" and another choice "not moral? " If morality is being in accord with the standards of right conduct, I ask my opponent: how do we know what these standards are? Where do they come from? And what is the warrant to call them so? There is no one moral code that is deeply entrenched within the human mind as to be universal and unquestionable. We find that the concept of morality differs between cultures; even within a given culture there are sub-cultures who fight against the unspoken agreement and try to redefine moral terms. Different cultures have different moral codes. Which culture is right, and by what objective standard to we judge them by? My opponent has furnished no such standard. Rightness must have a source if it is to actually exist – and just as heat has a heat source – rightness must have a right source. God, is defined as perfectly moral, the only plausible source of rightness. Heat becomes less as it distances from the heat source. These levels of heat imply a source for that heat. Just as levels of right, imply a source of rightness. Therefore, before my opponent can be correct about morality, he must first define the warrant to call something either "right" or "wrong. " Example: If I went up to a certain person and said, "Do not lift your arms above your shoulders because it is wrong. " He would most certainly respond something like, "Why is it wrong? " How do we determine whether or not this action is wrong if I have no warrant in which to call it so? 2. My opponent misunderstands Christian morality My opponent suggests that the reason a person who believes in God cannot truly be moral is because they do not do wrong things simply because they are wrong, but because God told them so. The problem is that Christians practice morality the way in which my opponent says is not possible. Christians do things because they are right, and they do not do things because they are wrong. The ONLY difference between a Godhave and a Godless is that the Godhave has warrant in which to call things right or wrong. Good and Evil do not exist without God because we have no measure to judge them as such. If we cannot be good without God, then any idea of objective morality cannot exist. Because objective morality means that it is right or wrong independent of whether someone thinks it as such. Those who participated in the anti-Semitic atrocities of Nazism thought what they were doing was right, but even if the whole world thought it was right, if God exists, an object standard to know that it is actually wrong exists. If no such standard exists, we cannot call it wrong! Example: I do not kill because it is wrong. I can call it wrong because God has commanded it as such. An atheist does not kill because it is wrong. The atheist has no warrant in which to call it so. True morality can ONLY exist with God because there is an objective standard in which to determine "right" and "wrong. " Conclusion: My opponent's points cannot stand because he has given no warrant for calling some things "right" and other things "wrong. " My opponent's points cannot stand because those who believe in God also do things simply because they are wrong. Indeed, if God is not, everything is permissible.