The Instigator
Solomon_Grim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
silvertechfilms
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
silvertechfilms
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,870 times Debate No: 34344
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (49)
Votes (2)

 

Solomon_Grim

Pro

This debate will be based around the idea that atheism does not provide a good moral design.

Moral- being about good living and acting.
silvertechfilms

Con

The Bible contains;
-Slavery
-Rape
-Genocide
-Stoning the women if divorce occurs

"In the third chapter of Romans, Paul offers this astounding justification of falsehood: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" According to Paul, a man is not a sinner if he lies for the glory of God. In this matter the apostle to the Gentiles has the hearty concurrence of many modern preachers. In. II. Corinthians, 12, 16, Paul writes: "Being crafty, I caught you with guile" --that is to say deceit, falsehood. A book that upholds lying in this way, sets the example of falsehood by justifying it, and so makes itself the enemy of truth, Hence, as the Bible condones the use of falsehood in teaching, it is a dangerous moral guide."

Most attacks are caused in the name of religion.

I know many atheists, we are good people. Just because we don't believe in your God which there is no evidence for, doesn't make us bad.

--source of quotation---
http://fundamentals-freethought.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. I wish you luck.

1. The bible contains many things that is not condoned by God due to the fact that it is both a religious book and a history one. I will start with the problems you have with it.

A. Slavery- The idea of slavery in the bible is usually very twisted. We think of slavery as being very brutal and violent, but it wasn't always like this. In the bible, it tells slave owners to be kind to their slaves and not to be violent. Plus, being a slave in those days was just like being a lower class worker nowadays, if not better. Slaves in those days were given food, shelter, and yearly clothing for them and their families. It even shows that some of the slaves in those days chose to stay with their slave owners for life since it was promised to provide these needs.
http://www.bible-researcher.com...

B. Rape- Some of the new versions that are awful ( cough cough NIV), it does actually let rapists off rather easily. However, if you look at good translation such as KJV, you see it is not the same. Deuteronomy 22:25 clearly says if a man rapes a woman, he alone shall die.

C. Genocide- This comes from the old testament I assume when they were told to destroy the towns. Now, the definition of genocide is destroying an entire nation, race, or culture, so is this truly genocide which is done in the bible? The nation of Israel never destroyed a town that they did not fight, so this could easily be seen as acts of war to prevent future wars. They were in the wilderness for forty years, and they knew where their nation would be, so would you want forty years' worth of enemies coming back when your nation is settled?

D. Stoning after divorce- I couldn't find any verses supporting this other than stoning if she had cheated. Sorry.

2. Romans 3- this verse does not say that lying is acceptable for God. Actually, it says the opposite. The verse you gave is Paul comparing goodness to evil. It even says in the eighth verse that should we do evil things for i think you look ugly and smell bad rewards? No, and that you will get your punishment. This is where the verse" there are none righteous, no not one" comes from.

3. 2 Corinthians 12:16- this verse does not support lying in teaching, but just that he had did something unexpected. If you look in the next few verses, you find that Paul had sent Titus and someone else to check up on them unexpectedly to make sure that they had not fallen into sin.

Now, I will bring up problems I have with atheism morals.

First off, I do believe that many atheist are nice people due to their consciousness, but their morals are not many times.

1. Without a God to give morals to you, how can you possibly decide what is moral. Do you choose them for yourself, or allow the majority of people choose. How is it that atheists get their morals.

2. If atheists choose their own morals, than they can easily make it comply with anything that they do. They can easily draw the lines of being moral at their heels. So, in their eyes, they can be moral in anything.

I know it is rather short, but I will go much more in depth in future rounds after getting your ideas on the previous two. Thanks.
silvertechfilms

Con

You don't even need to mention the morals of the bible. Just say that the mere concept of not beliving in a deity = poor morals is ridiculous, not to mention that pro has no reasoning based upon it nor studies showing this.

Here is a list of famous Atheists. [In no particular order]
1. Democritus
2. Diagoras of Melos
3. Epicurus
4. Theodorus
5. Andrew Carnegie
6. Ivan Pavlov
7. Sigmund Freud
8. Clarence Darrow
9. Richard Strauss
10. Katherine Hepburn
11. James D. Watson
12. Peter Higgs
13. Warren Buffet
14. Carl Sagan
15. George Carlin
16. Bruce Lee
17. Richard Dawkins
18. Stephen Hawkins
19. Brian Eno
20. Steve Wozniak
21. Jodie Foster
22. Russell T. Davies
23. Mark Zuckerberg
24. Sean Carroll
25. Chris Martin
26. Eva Green
27. James Cameron
28. Keira Knightley
29. Penn Jillette
30. Sarah Silverman
31. Jamie Hyneman
32. Helen Mirren
Debate Round No. 2
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for you post.

I just added in the morals for the bible since you mentioned it in your first post. Also, you did not answer my comments on atheism, so I will expand my explanation of it.

If atheists can decide their own morals, than there are no morals, just preferences. How can we say something is immoral if everyone gets their morals by themselves? We can't rely on a single person deciding, since that is kinda called a dictatorship and is frowned upon.majority can be messed up. We would have conflicting morals. Also, majorities can always be twisted around. Hitler technically had a majority by getting his own people in charge.

Also, you imply since the people you mentioned achieved great things, it means they are morally correct. There have been many awful people who achieved things in his or her life.
silvertechfilms

Con

What about Hitler? Hitler was a Catholic, does that make him a good person since he believed in a God.

A Moral is an opinion of what is good.

You also contradicted yourself, He says that if one person decides what is right or wrong, then it is a dictatorship, therefore bad. According to you, one person (God) should decide what is right or wrong (AKA this is a dictatorship by his definition, which is wrong). Doesn't matter if its a person or a God who makes the rules, it would still be a dictatorship.
Debate Round No. 3
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for answering back.

My opponent wrote the following argument:

" What about Hitler? Hitler was a Catholic, does that make him a good person since he believed in a God.

A Moral is an opinion of what is good.

You also contradicted yourself, He says that if one person decides what is right or wrong, then it is a dictatorship, therefore bad. According to you, one person (God) should decide what is right or wrong (AKA this is a dictatorship by his definition, which is wrong). Doesn't matter if its a person or a God who makes the rules, it would still be a dictatorship."

I will now answer all of these points as they are given.

1. " What about Hitler? Hitler was a Catholic, does that make him a good person since he believed in a God."

I'm not debating if believing in God or not makes you a good person, I'm debating if religious morals are better than atheist ones. I can say I am an atheist, and then go blow up a building. Does that act make Atheism bad? Of course no. It makes that one person bad. All cultures, ethnics, races, and countries have had bad people in it. The Bible obviously says that murder is wrong.

2. "A Moral is an opinion of what is good."

To Christians, and other religions, their morals come from a set source. Secular views are different. Opinions can change through the years, so we can decide what is right to us. Now, this is where it gets bad. If we decide what is right and wrong for us, who can say differently. The school shooters decided that it was right what they did. People who cheat on their spouses can morally say it was right. How can we say that there is a right and wrong, if we draw the lines of correctness at our heels.

3. " You also contradicted yourself, He says that if one person decides what is right or wrong, then it is a dictatorship, therefore bad. According to you, one person (God) should decide what is right or wrong (AKA this is a dictatorship by his definition, which is wrong). Doesn't matter if its a person or a God who makes the rules, it would still be a dictatorship."

This is wrong. You are putting God and people on the same level. God has been shown to have perfect morals, humans not so much. It is almost like saying that a judge and a prisoner have the same power, and that both of them can reside over a case. This is obviously absurd. God and humans do not have the same level of correctness about them.

4. For my final statement, look back to number two, as it will reveal my thoughts. Humans can not decide right and wrong since it will eventually get to the point when there will be no right and wrong.
silvertechfilms

Con

I have morals, all atheists have morals. I believe you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm anything in the process.

Many secular views have been incorporated into Religion throughout history.Such as celebrating Christmas on 25th.

The entire idea of Christmas was derived from the Roman festival 'Saturnalia'.

If God is so perfect then why would he send you to Hell? Why not give substanical evidence for his existence.

What are "perfect morals", Can you define this, What exactly are they? Give me an entire list.

"For my final statement, look back to number two, as it will reveal my thoughts. Humans can not decide right and wrong since it will eventually get to the point when there will be no right and wrong." I'm Human and I can decide right from wrong. I know not to steal anything, I know to not kill anyone, I know not to harm anyones property. None of this proves the existence of any type of God.
Debate Round No. 4
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for your side. I will examine each statement.

1. "I have morals, all atheists have morals. I believe you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm anything in the process."

It does say in the Bible that everyone is born with a sense of goodness inside of them. This is why we don't have to be taught right and wrong a lot of times when we are young. However, the Bible also says that your goodness can be seared if you go against it for so long. We do see this also. Yes, there are both good and bad Atheists and Christians. The difference is this; when a Christian does something wrong, he can be shown why he is wrong through his religion. When an Atheist does something wrong, it is up to him if it was wrong if he decides his own morals.

2. "Many secular views have been incorporated into Religion throughout history.Such as celebrating Christmas on 25th.
The entire idea of Christmas was derived from the Roman festival 'Saturnalia'."

However, this does not change Christianity itself. Many Atheists can agree that the Ten Commandments is correct. So, does that mean that Atheism has many religious thing in it? Does it make it less Atheist?

3. "If God is so perfect then why would he send you to Hell? Why not give substantial evidence for his existence."

Sin has to be punished. If someone kills your kids, and then the judge doesn't punish them, is that right? We as humans sin, so we must accept forgiveness. Also, maybe there is evidence for God, you just aren't accepting it. Many Atheists trust by faith that evolution and the big bang is true, but denies anything about God. What's the difference between trusting some people about science and some people about religion.

4. "What are "perfect morals", Can you define this, What exactly are they? Give me an entire list."

If you can't name perfect morals, what do you think every person on the planet can have morals that are good?

5 "For my final statement, look back to number two, as it will reveal my thoughts. Humans can not decide right and wrong since it will eventually get to the point when there will be no right and wrong." I'm Human and I can decide right from wrong. I know not to steal anything, I know to not kill anyone, I know not to harm anyones property. None of this proves the existence of any type of God."

There was a case a little while ago. A man raped a woman several times in the night due to the fact that she was drunk. When he got arrested, many people came to his defense saying that it was the woman's fault for being drunk. That man thought that it was morally correct to rape that woman when she was drunk. If morals truly are created by each person, than this man was morally " correct". He followed his own moral, so how can you say he was wrong?
silvertechfilms

Con

He claims that both atheists and christians can do bad, but you go on to say that with a christian, god will just show them the right way, while an atheist must find the right way on their own. You suggest that weakness and dependancy is better than self-fortitude and independant problem solving. There is no such thing as "good morals" or "bad morals"
It truly is just one big opinion.

Here is a list of sins that will supposedly have you sent to Hell;
-Mixing fabrics
-If an ox gores someone, the ox shall be stoned to death.
-You must not boil a kid its mother's milk.
-Four-legged fouls are an abomination.
-Those with flat noses or damaged testicles must stay away from the altar.
-Mixing seed when sowing fields
-Breeding cows with diverse species
-Ye shall keep my statutes.
-Masturbation
-Homosexuality
-Women not dressing modestly
-Crafty conversation
-Abortion
-Offending a child of god
-Deceiving a child of god
-Not spanking a disobedient child
-Cursing
-Drugs
-Touching a woman while she's on her period.
-Allowing a woman in church while she's on her period.
-Not killing your neighbors for working on the sabbath.
-Adultery only by looking

-Aaron must wear a bell whenever he enters the holy place or God will kill him.

What about all of the lost books of the Bible?
-Book of the Covenant
-Book of the Wars of the Lord
-Book of Jasher
-The Manner of the Kingdom / Book of Statutes
-Book of Samuel the Seer
-Nathan the Prophet
-Act of Soloman
-Shemaiah the Prophet
-Prophecy of Abijah
-Story of Prophet Iddo
-Vidions of Iddo the Seer
-Iddo Genealogies
-Book of Jehu
-Saying of the Seers
-Book of Enoch
-Book of Gad the Seer
-Epistle of Corinth
-Epistle of the Ephesians
-Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians
-Nazarene Prohpecy Source
-Acts of Uziah
-The Annals of King David
-Jude, The Missing Epistle

There are many more books missing, and many books that have been changed and removed from the Bible over time.

[]
http://www.answering-christianity.com...
http://www.answering-christianity.com...
Debate Round No. 5
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Victorian 3 years ago
Victorian
I think that this debate got off topic from the beginning because it began with accusations that the Bible is not morally sound, which is an entirely different issue from whether or not atheism provides good morals.
Posted by ArgentStorm 3 years ago
ArgentStorm
Solomon: I would very much like to debate this with you. Message me if you're interested.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
WOW
For a debate with the title "Atheism ideology does not provide good morals."

this seemed to switch to a different topic.
Posted by jay_kang 3 years ago
jay_kang
" Do they make laws according to the Bible? No, society elects representatives who make laws. Do we put killers in prison because God said so? NO, we do it because we want to make sure they don't harm anyone else. Do we prohibit smoking by minors under 18 because God told us to?"
This writing is the best! Moral(and law, custom, any system) is made from not God, but reason of people. People have taught people to reasonable thinking. Because of prevent someone who you argued one
Posted by CanWeKnow 3 years ago
CanWeKnow
I didn't say that it was unrealistic for people to justify their actions. Self-deceit is one of the easiest forms of deception. I was saying that society isn't composed of PSYCHOPATHS who have chemical imbalances and were raised in abusive environments. You are talking about a very tiny minority. A few people may be able to justify their actions to themselves, but that doesn't change how justified it is to the rest of the world. When you justify something you give reasons why something is the case. Nobody is forced to accept those reasons as valid just because you thought them. The Bible gives good morals if you ignore the bad ones. Atheism doesn't give anyone any morals. Atheism encourages you to find your own sense of morality. It can be from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. It doesn't matter where you get it from as long as you find good reasons to follow them. I have said this so many times already, but morality isn't an absolute that can be defined by one person. Morality is defined by SOCIETY as a whole. Society decides what behaviors are harmful to the majority and what behaviors aren't. How do you think laws are made? Do they make laws according to the Bible? No, society elects representatives who make laws. Do we put killers in prison because God said so? NO, we do it because we want to make sure they don't harm anyone else. Do we prohibit smoking by minors under 18 because God told us to? No, we do it because it's harmful to their health and they aren't old enough to make the right kind of decision yet. The moral nature of our laws doesn't come explicitly from God. Some of them may have been inspired by scripture, but they were then examined for benefits and costs TO SOCIETY. If you want to make your case then you have to say that society can not provide good morals or laws and WHY this is the case. It isn't enough to simply assert it. You have to prove it.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 3 years ago
Solomon_Grim
To extreme to be realistic? Obviously, people kill other people, and some of them work very hard to make it the perfect murder. They have judged the benefits versus the consequences if they get caught and find that the benefits of killing the person is greater than not. It's not unrealistic to say that people kill other people will always give an excuse to themselves to make it moral to them. Plus, the Bible still gives good morals. There are no moral problems in the Bible.
Posted by jay_kang 3 years ago
jay_kang
CanWeKnow> I agree with you entirely.
Posted by CanWeKnow 3 years ago
CanWeKnow
There isn't any reason why dynamic morals are bad. The BOP lies with you. You are presenting examples that are way too extreme to be realistic. No person who has normally functioning brain chemistry and was brought up in a normal environment would think that killing is moral. Atheists don't make up their morals based on whims. Atheistic morals examine the benefits and consequences of each action and present the best choice. Also, as I said before, what is moral for one person does not make it morally correct in SOCIETY's eyes. This goes both ways for Religion and Atheism. What Religion may define as moral may not actually be moral. What Atheists decides is immoral may not actually be immoral. Morality is, was, and never will be absolute. Why do you think the Catholic church tried so hard in the Vatican Council II to reform their laws? Because morality was changing and in order to survive they had to adapt.
Posted by CanWeKnow 3 years ago
CanWeKnow
There isn't any reason why dynamic morals are bad. The BOP lies with you. You are presenting examples that are way too extreme to be realistic. No person who has normally functioning brain chemistry and was brought up in a normal environment would think that killing is moral. Atheists don't make up their morals based on whims. Atheistic morals examine the benefits and consequences of each action and present the best choice. Also, as I said before, what is moral for one person does not make it morally correct in SOCIETY's eyes. This goes both ways for Religion and Atheism. What Religion may define as moral may not actually be moral. What Atheists decides is immoral may not actually be immoral. Morality is, was, and never will be absolute. Why do you think the Catholic church tried so hard in the Vatican Council II to reform their laws? Because morality was changing and in order to survive they had to adapt.
Posted by jay_kang 3 years ago
jay_kang
You argued a very extreme examples. If you and another want to kill me, that is not be the moral, but psycho. Moral, custom, and law formed from accumulation of thought of people who are educated.
If you and another want to kill me, and if you and another believe that it is moral, Who agree with that?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
Solomon_GrimsilvertechfilmsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out numerous common examples of in adequcies in the Bible, while Pro tried to defend Israelilites committing "provoked" genocide to "prevent" future wars.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
Solomon_GrimsilvertechfilmsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's theories were somewhat decent, but pro failed to provide an material evidence that atheists were morally worse than the religious, while con pointed out many moral inadequacies in the Bible.