Religion is not needed to live a moral life

Good luck on your future debates.

I of course advise accepting that premises are usually flawed, and testing your skill by arguing them anyways.

The idea that there are universal moral concepts is misleading. Although murder is frequently mentioned as universally immoral, it is actually a legal term used within judicial systems. To deem an act as murder from a moral perspective is to engage in subjective interpretation. For instance, the killing of a person for burglarizing a home may be viewed as justified by the homeowner, yet the burglar's family would perceive it as the murder of their relative. Morality is invariably contextual, not absolute.

You seem to be denying the universal ideas of morality, universals that seem true across cultural barriers, such as murder. I see your argument, but it's a bold move.

No, You can lead a moral life even if morality is not an objective reality. Subjective morality doesn't imply the absence of moral values; rather, it means that individuals shape their morality based on personal perceptions and experiences instead of an external authority. For example, Christians say that stealing is morally wrong because Christianity teaches that is a sin. That is a purposed objective moral view because no matter what, stealing is viewed as wrong.

As an atheist, I may consider stealing to be morally acceptable based on my perceptions and values. This means that regardless of my moral standpoint, I am living a lifestyle that I consider to be moral and successful.

Regarding the debate on whether morality is objective or subjective, the law of non-contradiction dictates that it can only be one, not both. Given that there is no universal adherence to or agreement on any moral concept, a universal moral standard cannot exist for objective morality or realism to hold true. In summary, while countless examples may demonstrate the subjectivity of morality, not a single instance of universal applicability exists to support the existence of objective morality.

>Also, the fact that morality isn't a tangible thing doesn't make it inherently subjective either. Mathematics is an intangible concept. That doesn't mean that the fact that 2+2=4 depends on people believing in it.

An entity that necessitates belief for its existence is not empirical. Morality exists solely because humans conceptualized it. Similarly, mathematics straddles the empirical and the non-empirical. For instance, the truth of 2+2 equaling four does not rely on belief, as it is demonstrable and applicable in reality. Conversely, the non-empirical aspect of mathematics, such as algebraic equations, does not directly correlate to real-life situations. For example, the equation 2x-8 equals a certain value and does not represent a tangible number, as 2x is an abstract concept created to address a particular mathematical problem.

In contrast, morality lacks an empirical foundation; it is a subjective notion that arises solely from the experiences and philosophical teachings of individuals.

You're missing the point entirely. My point is that for your side to be true, it has to be possible to live a moral life, and in order for that to be true, moral realism has to be true. However, moral realism can't be true if morality is inherently subjective and vice-versa.

Also, the fact that morality isn't a tangible thing doesn't make it inherently subjective either. Mathematics is an intangible concept. That doesn't mean that the fact that 2+2=4 depends on people believing in it.

I suggest researching the law of non-contradiction. For religion to be necessary for a moral life, morality would not only need to be objective but also based on that particular religion. Arguing that morality is subjective does not undermine my case because if morality is proven to be subjective, then objective morality cannot exist, and thus, the necessity of religion for a moral life would also be false.

Secondly, morality does not exist in tangible form. It is a concept adopted through personal experience or the teachings of others. As such, morality relies on individual or collective belief to exist. If no one believes an action to be immoral, then it will not be considered immoral, and vice versaThis renders morality subjective. It cannot be empirically validated as true since it is an abstract concept residing solely within human consciousness.

By arguing that morality is subjective, you're pretty much undermining your whole case. The resolution of this debate implies that a moral life is a thing that one can, in fact, lead, which further implies moral realism. You've basically Kritik'ed your own setup here.

Also, your arguments don't actually disprove moral realism. Everybody on Earth could be wrong about what is and isn't moral and morality could still be objective. If no one believes something to be true, it doesn't cease to be true.

As an atheist myself, I of course don't consider myself to be an immoral person. However, I think there is an interesting angle that one could use to argue the Con side. I'll wait to see if you get anyone that genuinely disagrees with you, but if a few days pass with no takers, I'll consider playing Devil's Advocate.

Cowardice.