No reason to embrace either premise.

Premise 1 - If there is such a thing as an objective moral standard, the moral standard is independent of any thing as a matter of necessity. Whether you argue that we need god to tell us what this is to understand it would be irrelevant, but we certainly wouldn't need a god simply because there is some objective moral standard. This would be akin to saying that we need a god to be able to understand a fact about the Universe which again is just patently absurd. 

I can make all sorts of factual statements about the Universe. The sun exists. Apples grow on trees. The Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. 

Premise 2 is incoherent to non-Platonists. To say that something abstract, such as "objective moral values" exists is to confine your entire argument to Platonism. Since I'm not a Platonist, I can simply reject this prima facie. I do not think any of these statements make sense - "number exist", "circles exist","inches exist","colors exist" - you may think they do make sense but that only makes you a Platonist. Unless you can convince me Platonism is true I do not even need to entertain your premise.

I think this is one of the worst arguments for the existence of god because it takes something completely independent of the idea of god and tries to jettison god in there. It's also easily dismissed by non-Platonists as well as non-Cognitivists, which I sometimes I embrace as well. Metaethics is a tough nut to crack. =)

How do you know exactly those galaxies have planets with sufficient resources to sustain life? We only have our data which came up with 40 billion supposed planets that can maintain life. Which will obviously decrease if we observe the planets better. If they are still considered planets that is. Second, we haven't found any aliens yet despite all the billions if not trillions of dollars that we spent observing space light years ahead of us and all the different type of planets there is. Not that it will disprove god, but shows how lucky we have to be if everything was up to chance. Finally, we were able to observe the fact that Pluto wasn't a typical planet because it didn't fit every property of a typical planet. Once we realize that there are other objects in space in Kuiper Belt that are similar to Pluto we were able to observe Pluto better and put it in perspective. Observing doesn't mean just directly looking at something. Sometimes we have to look at the full picture to observe something. For example, you have to observe the brain, heart, ect to know how an arm or leg works. So it proves scientists didn't observe everything correctly. And I bet there will be more major changes due to Scientists not knowing everything right now. Which is fine, because we as humans aren't perfect and admittingly we have spent a lot on our space program lately.

Your belief in natural selection isnt required, it is backed by science.

USA's contribution to science has nothing to do with religion, you are conflating two seperate constructs which is a logical fallacy.

On my phone as I wont have access to my computer, so kept the reply short and sweet.

*******************************

As for the moral argument... We get our morals through general experience, it is called empathy, common sense, compassion.

I.E. We dont go around stabbing everyone because... We wouldnt like it i return.

But if you get your morals from the Christian Bible that promotes things like sentencing homosexuals to death, stoning of children, slavery, women serving men, not allowing for divorce, genocide... List goes on... Doesnt bode well for religion and the moral argument.

The quest for an objective morality is interesting. I don't know whether I could convince you -- or anyone -- of my own code of morality, but I'll share that the Christian God (for instance) does not measure up to it. He is vain and petty and blood-thirsty. If he existed, he would be regarded more a devil than a god. A tormentor of men, not a savior.

So if objective morality does exist, and if my own morals reflect that objective morality (which is itself a whole can of worms), then I disagree that the existence of a god (here if we are supposing the Christian God) has anything to do with that objective morality.

But I disagree that men get their morality from gods in any event, whether those gods are supposed to exist or not. Men did not learn that murder was wrong from some received stone tablet; we learned it was wrong through observation over time ("wrong" here meaning antithetical to human life, pleasure, and happiness -- which comprise our source of value) and when it came time to mythologize, we put words like that in the mouths of our supposed ancestral lawgivers. We gave morality (such as he has any) to God, not the other way around.

Yeshua is coming back soon. Just in time before technology gets out of control. read your bibles folks. If your an atheist you need to do more research humble youself before God. Yeshua will come at the last Trump. He is our lord and savior. eternal hell fire is no joke.

Isn't eternal torture a bit harsh of a reaction for not believing in something that cannot be proven?

You are clearly wasting your time. The theists in this thread are only interested in anecdotal evidence and logical fallacies to prove their point while ineptly failing to counter yours. (You, pemalite, and a few others). They have not succeeded in disproving your stance and have done a poor job explaining/justifying theirs; at this point they might as well be trolling because they seem to only be interested in wasting your time and are succeeding. 

I once had a 6 month long debate with a very intelligent friend of mine about religion with essay-long rebuttals shared every week and what it boiled down to was her saying she 'believes that God is real because the bible says so and since the bible has some elements that match with real world history and it was written by God himself, it must be infallible'. Very disappointing, because she was in the medical field and was otherwise very intelligent but utterly failed at utilizing logic to justify her stance. 

My point is, once someone has decided they believe in a God, there's very little you can do to shake that faith. No amount of logic, reason, philosophy, or science will make them waver when their own mytholgy has a built-in catch-all argument in "God works in mysterious ways and is infallible". Needless to say, there's a reason I don't bother debating with them any longer. I ask questions hoping for them to maybe come to terms with their fallacious viewpoints, but that clearly doesn't work. Point is, actively debating with theists is a waste of time and will only serve to frustrate you. 

i don’t believe in god or any gods for that matter. main reason being i find it too outrageous that humankind would be so right about the value or purpose of their existence. i also find it impossible that if a being like god existed they would care what us lowly humans are doing.

in my mind i find it highly likely that we’re just as meaningful as the rest of the universe. that is to say, we exist, but for no special reason. existing is pretty magical i must say. i’m content with the thought that my existence is some weird exception to the rule of the universe. meaning that consciousness is precious, and also infinitely small compared to the vastness of time.

1. We have to prove that life can be on an "icy" planet with solid evidence.

2. Again, we have to have proof. It should decrease significantly because with all the technology we have we came up with 40 billion and no life. There is more to it regarding the planets.

3. We haven't proved there is life on the moons yet or life outside earth. Moons are more unlikely to have life compare to planets. It's all just speculation.

4. This statement was me just being snarky. I was poking fun at scientists always changing their beliefs despite acting like they know it all.

5. Yes, it is chance. If we go by what scientists believe. Remember the butterfly effect how one small change can change the future significantly. Meaning life could've been stopped very easily. Supposedly 99.9% of species went extinct. 

6. We observed Pluto and the other planets better by taking a look at Kuiper belt objects and taking a look at Pluto. There is a lot of comparisons to be made between the two in some ways.

7. I actually want a space force. We need equipment to protect our satellites and future projects. Imagine if our satellites are destroyed then what? No uber, no internet and no porn. World would be sent into chaos. Also, military spending regarding technology has always benefited us greatly. I just don't want to spend money on useless wars or equipment that we don't need. If it's technology hell yeah. I want the ability to control the weather so we can stop natural disasters and I believe we might be able to control it with space technology.

Edit: I see that you think I am a waste of time. Good bye then :(

If you weren't being such a hypocrite, refusing all elements of proof given to you while simultaneously offering none to the contrary, then this wouldn't be a waste of time. You have no interest in debate, you only appear to wish to push your agenda and be right despite being utterly outmatched by others in this thread who are providing far more substantial and respectable counterpoints. 

The hypocrisy is what gets me the most, though. You demand absolute proof of what scientists theorize but don't seem to think that God or any god-like being demands equal proof? you're quick to dismiss scientific claims which are unprovable but still have no problem insisting that God just 'is' and that, philisophically, god 'has to be'? Nope, sorry buddy. That's not how you debate, that's how you push a faulty worldview. 

The difference between science and religion is that Science doesn't claim to have all the answers while providing many of them while religion claims to have all the answers while providing none. 

Edit: Furthermore, I just looked at all of your points and actually facepalmed. It's almost like you don't understand the purpose or process of the scientific method or something. "Poking fun at-" scientists for "Changing their beliefs when they think they know everything" is both a gross misunderstanding of how science works while also ironically a clear example of how science works. It's almost like you actively resist and hate the idea that people could change and update their views or understanding as they learn more about the world or conduct more thorough experiments. It's almost like the very idea that new information could alter one's perception of the world offends you. If that's the case, then it's no wonder you are on the wrong side of history.