The Instigator
Excubis
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
logicinlife
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Atheist have more morality than Christians.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
logicinlife
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 747 times Debate No: 71475
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Excubis

Pro

The premise that atheist have no moral ground because they do not know Christ. I find this premise fallible, in so many ways. I in fact believe Atheist have a higher moral standing than those driven by Christianity.

Round 1: What is morality?

Round 2: Does this originate from God.

Round 3: Summary and closing arguments.

* All articles, studies ect... need to be referenced.
logicinlife

Con

I look forward to this spontaneous debate, which hopefully I do not butcher. I am merely playing by the rules as presented by Pro.

Pro, makes the claim that "Atheists have more morality than Christians" and in Pro's opening statement he says that "Atheists have a higher moral standing than those driven by Christianity."

Since Pro makes such a claim, he must provide evidence for his claim and I will be countering that evidence.

As I am refuting his claims, and there are no claims regarding what morality is in round one, Pro must move on to round two according to his outline. According to Pro's rules he has failed to define what Morality is in round 1, and I urge readers to consider this when voting for Con, me.

Though, keep in mind that neither does answering the question, "what is morality?" nor "does this (morality) originate from God?" support Pro's claim that Atheists have more morality than Christians.

Pro also has the burden of displaying evidence regarding to whom the atheists have a higher moral standing to, other than himself, that is; his personal view on the matter.

I will be defining morality since Pro has failed to do so. And since Pro has left no definition to refute, forfeiting round one, we will therefore use the definitions I provide.

We will assume Morality is something that is either good or bad to make things simple. I have met the criteria of round one and will further refute the claim that "atheists have more morality than Christians" by using the definitions I have provided for us and by using my bible as a reference.

In Christianity, Jesus Christ, in Mark 10:17-18 said, "As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 18And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." So only God is good.

Pro is placed in quite the pickle here. If nobody is good except God, than the only morality we have left for humans is bad. But what does scripture say regarding everyone else? "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) To simplify sin, sin is doing something that is wrong to God, who is the only one who is good, which makes sin bad.

From the definition of morality that was presented in Round 1 according to Pro's model we can see the following:
1. Morality is Good or Bad
2. Only God is Good
3. All have sinned (wronged against God's goodness)
4. Therefore we are all bad and God is good.

From this we can see that atheists and Christians alike have the same amount of bad morality. The scripture here makes it clear that regardless, ALL have sinned.

The standard is God who is good morally, which means that atheists, as Pro claims, cannot have a higher moral standing since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Since Morality is defined as Good and bad, and God is Good and we are Bad, there are only two standards; you are either good or bad. To clear up confusion that may arise, for Pro may claim that atheists can surpass God's standard because I did not define God, we are speaking (clearly/obviously) of the Christian God.

Definition of God: "The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

As you see, not only do neither atheists or Christians have more morality than the other, but neither atheists or Christians can have a moral standing that is remotely close to God.

This is my conclusion for round one.

I bid Pro good luck in supporting his claim that, "Atheists have more morality than Christians" using the formula presented in round one and using the definitions I provided.

Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 1
Excubis

Pro

Unfortunately this is my first debate on this site and attempted a edit but alas I was too late.

Definition of Morality: principle and beliefs that indicate good and bad behaviors.

First I would say true morality is not divinely inspired it is subject to social workings of individuals within a society. Why is it that the far majority of tribal societies(hunter gatherers) existed in relative peace for thousands of years without a christian influence. This is not to say they did not at times fight, kill, or steal from each other, yet they still existed in an area without wiping out one culture for another. Can a people coexist without the Christian gods guidance of morality? Apparently so Australian Aborigines existed a together for tens of thousands of years with out such an influence and by comparison to other aboriginal groups they were quite peaceful and accepting. It should be noted the first recorded genocide is found in the bible:
Deuteronomy 20:17 "Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you."

Does my opponent accept this as moral because a God commanded it to be so. Yet for it to be moral by god one must first believe there is a God and to an observer outside of this doctrine would they see this act as moral? Morality is not divinely inspired, it is innate to all social creatures on this planet. Does a wolf kill one of it's own pack when game is hard to find. This is a moral act not based on just survival, so therefore morality is a natural state with no need for God to inspire it.
logicinlife

Con

"First I would say true morality is not divinely inspired it is subject to social workings of individuals within a society."

Pro makes a claim here, but fails to provide evidence that morality is subject to social workings of society. Pro also uses the term, "true morality", which I will ask that Pro define. To counter this argument that "true morality" is subjective here I will simply leave a hypothetical: Firstly, can "true morality" be TRUE morality if it is subjective? And secondly, if Nazi Germany won WW2 do you think everyone, around the globe, would agree that killing African Americans and Jews was right? And if I steal your wallet because it isn't wrong to me, does that make it right for you?

"Why is it that the far majority of tribal societies(hunter gatherers) existed in relative peace for thousands of years without a Christian influence. This is not to say they did not at times fight, kill, or steal from each other, yet they still existed in an area without wiping out one culture for another. Can a people coexist without the Christian gods guidance of morality? Apparently so Australian Aborigines existed a together for tens of thousands of years with out such an influence and by comparison to other aboriginal groups they were quite peaceful and accepting."

Pro here draws quite a bit of assumptions, and seems to forget that if morality is NOT subjective than Christianity makes an effective case against this argument. Christians (those they dispute over trivial things and doctrine) agree that having a Moral Law Giver (God) produces Moral Law. That is; the sense of justice, right and wrong in people. Without any evidence to back up Pro's claim that "TRUE" morality is relatively true, there is no argument here.

"It should be noted the first recorded genocide is found in the bible:

Deuteronomy 20:17 "Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.""

Interestingly enough Pro has accepted the use scripture in this argument, which therefore further demonstrates that my case in round one of this debate is set in stone. Pro goes on to say, regarding this lonely verse that isn't swimming in context (which should also be considered),

"Does my opponent accept this as moral because a God commanded it to be so. Yet for it to be moral by god one must first believe there is a God and to an observer outside of this doctrine would they see this act as moral? Morality is not divinely inspired, it is innate to all social creatures on this planet. Does a wolf kill one of it's own pack when game is hard to find. This is a moral act not based on just survival, so therefore morality is a natural state with no need for God to inspire it."

My opponents argument has completely fallen apart in this paragraph when he fails to recognize the historical context. But instead of going into the Hebrew word for "destroy" here, I will actually just take it apart based on Pro's previous statements.

My opponent goes to support subjective morality, but implies that this passage is immoral, if morality is subjective than this case is irrelevant. Since subjective morality is based off of ones opinions and emotions we can conclude whether or not Pro, himself, deems this event as wrong morally to be irrelevant.

Pro insists that Morality is not divinely inspired and makes a fatal mistake in his arguments. Pro states, "Morality is not divinely inspired, it is innate to all social creatures on this planet." Interestingly enough, Pro makes this statement that Morality is innate (natural) to all creatures, but does exclude human beings here? Pro made the statement that, "First I would say true morality is not divinely inspired it is subject to social workings of individuals within a society."

Pro has claimed that Morality is natural (or a natural state) to all social creatures on this planet, yet declares that morality is subject TO social workings of individuals within a society. Pro cannot seem to agree on his own position here, either morality is a social construct (in my own words) or it is a natural state. If morality is a natural state than Pro must also show us where Morals are given to us since he merely insists that morality is not divinely inspired.

Pro makes the claim that morality is a natural state, but without suggesting any alternative that he doesn't contradict himself. Ultimately his argument is, "I know what it is not."

Pro has not shown that morality does not originate from God as his outline says he would. Pro has merely displayed that he can make the claim that he would say morality is not divinely inspired. "I would say true morality is not divinely inspired." Pro's conflict in himself as to whether or not morality is a social construct or innate has shown there is not a case here.

Secondly, based off of everything Pro has said, he has failed to demonstrate how his case proves his claim that "atheists have more morality than Christians." Consider this; Based off of Pro's conclusions so far, the Old Testament has multitudes of "principles and beliefs that indicate good and bad behaviors" which has been passed down for generations over thousands of years. By excluding Christianity as a source of morality Atheists in fact have LESS morality than Christians. Pro's definition of morality: "principle and beliefs that indicate good and bad behaviors." And in fact, in the Old Testament alone, there are 613 laws. Regardless if we observe them all, we HAVE them all. If you take Christianities influence out of society, that makes atheists roughly 613 laws short of catching up to Christians and that is only including the Old Testament.

With all of this mentioned, I urge Pro to rethink everything presented and also urge Pro to consider the following, for his benefit: what is good and bad, and where does it come from? How can you define good and bad?

I have refuted Pro's arguments and refuted his resolution in an additional way according to His definition of morality, which I will remind you, wasn't presented in the correct round. I urge the readers to consider this when voting.
Debate Round No. 2
Excubis

Pro

Excubis forfeited this round.
logicinlife

Con

My opponent has forfeited, vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by logicinlife 11 months ago
logicinlife
@codingsource, thanks.
Posted by CodingSource 11 months ago
CodingSource
@logicinlife...you are really good!
Posted by really12 1 year ago
really12
Isn't the theory of evolution open to interpretation and therefore is not a credible source?

Why else would we be having this debate?
Posted by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
I could keep going, but you'll confidently and conveniently side step what I say, as you did whenever I asked you for proof regarding your emotional claims and subjective assumptions against original sin.
Posted by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
Also, how poor is your logic, "it is not a credible source because it is open to interpretation", everything is open to interpretation otherwise the breakthroughs we have right now regarding the failing model of the Big Bang theory wouldn't exist. You are not a credible source because you are open to interpretation. My interpretation is that you're bias and subjective, and I deem you less credible since you make the claim that you are objective. According to your own logic, despite your negative presuppositions and clear inability to be objective regarding possible circumstantial evidence for God, reality is not how you wish it to be.
Posted by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
firslty, evolution cannot explain morality. So take your "objective" reasoning and conduct the research. Secondly you contradict yourself on several levels. You appeal to "reason" of your "objective" mind yet display clear subjective, emotional bias on this matter, with no evidence to back it up. How convenient that you all of a sudden won't debate the bible whenever you can't back up your claims. Take your bias, logical fallacies and side-stepping and reevaluate your reasoning, which is contradictory. You have an opinion on original sin, so what? You can't back up your negative presuppositions, so what? You're wasting your own time. So again, you've displayed you have an opinion, so what?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
I will not debate the bible as it is not a credible source because it is open to interpretation. The story of Adam that I made comments on are my interpretation of that story.
As for my understanding of morality, I use reason not faith. A man's mind is his tool for survival, and like all tools, it must be used properly. Our minds manipulates knowledge, and knowledge can only be obtained through reason. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles.
Having a god as an arbitrator of morality will only work if a person believes it that god, where as reason is absolute, making it true whether you believe in it or not. Reason does not contradict, so only reason can be objective and faith can only be subjective.
As for the origin of morality, it would be arrogant to claim that I know something no one knows. However if we look to science (our first and best source for knowledge) we find that the best hypostasis is that morality like us has evolved over time.
Posted by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
"To punish the children for the crimes of the parents is not a moral act." - do you have evidence that God punishes children who cannot form concepts that are as complex as salvation and redemption?

"Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge"he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil"he became a moral being." - Evidence that it is a myth? Also; the act, was an act of disobedience. We have intelligence and a mind because we have an intelligent designer, he did not acquire a mind, but acquired awareness of evil through disobedience. You make a lot of claims that really have little, if any, foundations. A moral being? Please, do explain.

"He was sentenced to experience desire"he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, and joy." - He received consequence for his actions, is this immoral? Would you not have Stalin or Hitler punished for their actions?

By the way, by what authority do you claim morality? Judge morality? Originate morality?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Original sin is the doctrine that man is born evil. The term comes from Christianity's belief that Adam, the first human created by their god, ate an apple from the tree of knowledge, and forever after, all humans have been born guilty of the crime that Adam committed.
To punish the children for the crimes of the parents is not a moral act.
Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge"he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil"he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor"he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire"he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, and joy.
Posted by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
JBphilo,

1. Because of the circumstance of my opponent's mistake, I merely used scripture in hopes that my opponent would go to scripture, so that I could confirm that it was a source worth using. If my opponent, in round 2 used scripture, than he confirms it is a source that can be used in this debate. It is simply a tactic, but I agree with what you're saying.

2. The doctrine of original sin states that sin is virus-like and that we are born with sin including generational sins, and even though babies seems to have a dormant virus for awhile, this concept ensures that all are born bad naturally. I'll have to look into it, though. As for my view on morality, I merely simplified my view because my opponent made some mistakes. Again; this is merely a tactic. Proving that my simplification is only tactic, when speaking on Sin; there are over 27 hebrew words in the Tanakh to describe sin and I address all of those words when considering morality. That doesn't include the 12 different words in the New Testament. Sin actually has more implications than people realize. As you can see, my version of sin is simplified simply because Pro left me no reason to go that far in this argument.

3. This statement does two things (1) Assumes atheists aren't drawing their Morals from a Moral Law (the christian's reasonable argument on the matter and assumes (2) that Christians are only moral because of heaven. I didn't convert from atheism because of Heaven but because my reasoning and observance at circumstantial evidence led me there. Not to say there is concrete evidence, but to say that there was enough evidence that appealed to me to have faith in christianity. Going to (1) The argument from Moral law is simply this; If morals are objective, which we will assume since I don't want to debate in the comments, and there is a moral law, than there has to be a source for those laws. There is A LOT more to this particular topic, but I simplified it here.

Thank you!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
ExcubislogicinlifeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by TheAdamb99 1 year ago
TheAdamb99
ExcubislogicinlifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture