People can be moral without religion.

I will start by thanking Con for accepting this debate. My opening argument will be the contradicting definitions of objective and subjective morality.

Opening argument: Objective morality means, and I quote, "Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion. What Is Objective Morality? (verywellmind.com) In contrast, subjective morality is, "Subjective morality is the idea that there is no single right and wrong morality, but the idea that morality can vary based on factors like genetics, your environment, or which society you live in." ethics - Morality is subjective? - Philosophy Stack Exchange Both definitions cannot exist empirically. For morality to exist objectively it must not be subject to our perceptions. And for it to exist subjectively nothing in morality can be justified by rational thought. Endless evidence shows that we as humans can Justify themselves based on our own subjective viewpoints. The same cannot be said for objective morality. Nothing can be proven morally wrong universally.  There is always a contradicting opinion on all matters of morality. Therefore, people can live morally without a religion because they only need to follow their own sense of morality. Not the moral orders imposed by religion.

2nd argument: Religion is not a solid base for morality on an objective level. One reason for this is that the rules it imposes is never strictly followed. For example, in the Bible it is said to love your neighbors. However, history shows that to not be the case. During the time of the black plague. Jews, who were discriminated by Christian society prior, were blamed for the outbreak of the disease and entire communities were massacred as a result. Persecution of Jews during the Black Death - Wikipedia What good is a religious moral order that claims to be factual when it can at any time stop being factual at one's own convenience? There is no greater hypocrisy than to claim to follow an objective standard only to subjectify those very standards to suit their agenda. 

3rd and final argument:  In order for it to be required for people to need religion in order to be moral. Morality must be proven to be objective. However, since I have proven that morality cannot be objective due to the fact that objective morality cannot be proven. Religion is not needed for people to act and live in a moral manner. Additionally, religious values on morality are almost never truly followed. Rather they exist only at the convenience of those who claim to have them. Morality is subjective in nature and so is any moral order imposed upon be it by religion or anything else.  

"Nothing can be proven morally wrong universally."

It goes by the definition of "morally ". I look at right and wrong as just that. There aren't different types. Like 2 plus 8 is 16 is wrong universally. We can observe other things regarding people, actions and functions and calculate to figure incorrectness or validity. It doesn't just stop at math.

 "There is always a contradicting opinion on all matters of morality. "

Not unless the opinion is shared among those that believe in the same values.

"Therefore, people can live morally without a religion because they only need to follow their own sense of morality. Not the moral orders imposed by religion."

People do have personal religions. In fact, having your own opinion is your own set of beliefs. So in fact some sort of religion is always present even if you're the only one practicing it , see.

"Religion is not a solid base for morality on an objective level. One reason for this is that the rules it imposes is never strictly followed. For example, in the Bible it is said to love your neighbors. However, history shows that to not be the case. During the time of the black plague. Jews, who were discriminated by Christian society prior, were blamed for the outbreak of the disease and entire communities were massacred as a result."

All this is an example of people being flawed. Not said religion. Biblical scriptures speak about lukewarm people. The religious ordinances and tenets aren't lukewarm. 

You have many church going folk and others that don't practice what they preach . But that's an individual disciplinary issue. You have some congregations that are very strict and or militant in what they believe and get ridiculed for it. You have what they call "cotton candy" preachers. The ones that preach actually according to scripture straightforwardly, no holds barred, demonstrate and represent what standing for the faith on the faith actually looks like correctly.

"What good is a religious moral order that claims to be factual when it can at any time stop being factual at one's own convenience? "

I'm not going to guess what this is asking. I'm not sure. Maybe draw an example of what you're talking about.

"There is no greater hypocrisy than to claim to follow an objective standard only to subjectify those very standards to suit their agenda. "

This is what true non apologetic ministers preach about. But the blame is on the person or persons . Not the belief system itself.

"However, since I have proven that morality cannot be objective due to the fact that objective morality cannot be proven. "

Circular reason.

"Morality is subjective in nature and so is any moral order imposed upon be it by religion or anything else.  "

I believe the way morality is used in this context it's referring to dogma and opinion based on personal disgust and taste . For example, ketchup is wrong to consume because it tastes nasty. It's wrong to eat meat because I love animals. I believe that's how you're using the term morality.

I do agree if that was all there was to it, there would obviously be no common standard or unbiased foundation we can argue from.

Argument 1: Con tries to argue that morality can be perceived as universally wrong in the same way that some math questions can be seen as wrong universally. However, this is a failed comparison because math and morality are completely different subjects. Furthermore, Con claims that morality is not subjective if others share the same opinion. What Con does not understand is that even when an opinion on morality is supported by others, there are always people who oppose what the majority think. arguing that morality is objective because some math problems are objective in nature or that the opinion of the majority makes morality objective is a weak and terrible argument. Morality is subjective by nature because no universal agreement exists to make it objective.

I agree with Con that there are church members who do not practice what they preach. However, that only serves to strengthen my point. Since religious principles are not objectively followed by those who claim it to be needed to live morally, we can live life without religion and still be moral. 

Argument 3:  Con has not addressed the main points of my discussion. I have pointed out that people can be moral without religion because morality is subjective. I have also pointed out that those who use religion as a moral framework often do not follow them, which eliminates the need for religion in the first place. Con's only form of a counter argument is to compare morality with math and claim that because some math questions are objective that morality is too, the argument makes no sense. Con argues that the flaws of the people are to blame but not religion itself. However, this point has nothing to do with the idea that religion is needed to be moral or not. 

Conclusion: I have provided evidence that supports the argument that religion is unnecessary for living a moral life, Con has not presented any argument with evidence that supports the argument that religion is needed to live morally. Until Con can actually address the points I made, and counter them, everything they said should be considered irrelevant. 

"Con tries to argue that morality can be perceived as universally wrong in the same way that some math questions can be seen as wrong universally."

 

Not exactly. Please quote where you got this from. 

"However, this is a failed comparison because math and morality are completely different subjects."

I certainly made no such comparison. Feel free to actually quote me so the things that you say are backed up and you avoid being charged with misrepresentation. I know I said we can figure incorrectness which is universal . In math we calculate which is universal.

One thing you're going to have to do is go beyond the surface. I'm not talking about what you're conventionally thinking about ethics and cultural morals in some dogmatic pithy teachings. I'm breaking down beyond culture lines, dogmas and feelings and getting to the order of the things, laws, fundamentals, what came with the universe. It's universal. Everything in the universe is cause and effect, actions of do's and don'ts to get one effect and another. So this all is broken down mathematically and scientifically.

From a scientific law that explains everything about light, energy, chemicals, cosmic elements, minerals that construct many things including people that do and don't do things on a daily basis to keep their heart beating, a certain number a minute, to numbers measuring pressure and all other mathematical numbers, number of cells, number of ounces of water, etc. 

All of these details are assessed, validated and calculated for a cause that leads to another cause that just makes the difference between the do's and don'ts in effect of our very existence all regulated within the universe. It's universal.

"Furthermore, Con claims that morality is not subjective if others share the same opinion."

You can quote where I made this statement. I'm just going to ask you to quote or it's just a claim of yours and not my exact words.

One thing you notice with me, I quote and respond to your exact words. I don't add or take away.

"What Con does not understand is that even when an opinion on morality is supported by others, there are always people who oppose what the majority think."

 Either way, who on earth that is old enough to have an opinion doesn't believe in it? When the opinion of a person has FAITH in what is right, there's no separation of faith and that.

What is religion? A faith, something you strongly believe in typically backed up by action.

"arguing that morality is objective because some math problems are objective in nature or that the opinion of the majority makes morality objective is a weak and terrible argument. Morality is subjective by nature because no universal agreement exists to make it objective."

I don't know what you mean by "some math problems ". Math is universal period. The morality you're talking about is subjective. The morality you're talking about.

There is universal agreement that 2+2 is 4 like fire will burn like fire will burn you to death. There's universal agreement how to add 4 . There's agreement how not to add 4 . There's agreement of the constructive effect to stay out the fire and on the destructive effect upon going into it .

I never made a statement about a popular vote on morality. I tell you, live debates would do understanding some justice.

"My point was never about the perfections or imperfections of the religion and its rules. My point was that religious teaches that are claimed to be objectively moral are not followed to the letter and are therefore subjective to those who want to follow them and those who do not. I would like to remind Con that this is a debate on morality, not perfection."

As long as you are not trying to argue that because people fail to adhere to their religion, it makes the morals of that religion no good, no problem.

"I agree with Con that there are church members who do not practice what they preach. However, that only serves to strengthen my point. Since religious principles are not objectively followed by those who claim it to be needed to live morally, we can live life without religion and still be moral. "

There are those that follow religious tenets as well as those that don't. So what? Big deal.

Every person of age with an opinion lives according to what they believe is right or wrong. Still religion. It may not always be the dogmatic nominal religions you have in mind. Still the basic principle of belief and practice. 

Even atheists have religion.

"Con has not addressed the main points of my discussion. "

I have. Otherwise you wouldn't be quoting my responses addressing what you've said responding to them. You may be not satisfied, don't like the responses but they are what they are.

"I have pointed out that people can be moral without religion because morality is subjective."

According to your idea of morality and religion.

"I have also pointed out that those who use religion as a moral framework often do not follow them, which eliminates the need for religion in the first place. "

 

It does not call for elimination. I just went over this but I'll make clear once again. Just because you have people that choose not to follow rules, doesn't make the rules unnecessary. By that logic, throw out the laws of the land. We have criminals. Doesn't mean we abolish laws.

If you ever cared to notice about what is preached in religion, one of the biggest parts, is the disobedience to the law and penalty. So people not following the law or rules comes with it. Please throw out this argument.

"Con's only form of a counter argument is to compare morality with math and claim that because some math questions are objective that morality is too, the argument makes no sense. "

You don't even have the argument correct so of course it doesn't make sense to you. Instead of fumbling with it, don't be afraid to ask for help in understanding it. Otherwise just leave it alone as it goes over your head.

"Con argues that the flaws of the people are to blame but not religion itself. However, this point has nothing to do with the idea that religion is needed to be moral or not. "

Yet you bring up people failing to follow their beliefs so having beliefs are unnecessary. I clearly refuted you so you continue to waffle.

"I have provided evidence that supports the argument that religion is unnecessary for living a moral life, Con has not presented any argument with evidence that supports the argument that religion is needed to live morally. "

Ok I believe in not murdering people. I believe in being a law abiding citizen. Therefore I have religious beliefs to be a " moral " person. By the way it's a universal moral law that killing unnecessarily brings about non existence. Which is objective. That's true no matter who you talk to and I am a citizen that abides in that . I live and believe and practice that. I practice my religion.

"Until Con can actually address the points I made, and counter them, everything they said should be considered irrelevant. "

This is the invincible ignorance fallacy you're committing by dismissing my points saying over and over I didn't address anything.

Take the fingers out your ears.

Nothing like refuting them so bad in a middle of a debate , you run them off.