"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.