Atheist have no Morals
Debate Rounds (3)
I am an atheist and I'm moral, but those two qualities are mutually exclusive. I'm not claiming atheists can't be moral, I'm claiming that rejecting a god is neither rejecting or accepting morals; the rejection of a god has no morals (I'm not saying it is immoral).
Since atheism only answers the question of what you believe, it doesn't answer the question of what you think is morally correct. Every atheist is different, and they all believe different things, including what is morally right and wrong. The only thing they share is the disbelief of a god/gods, which provides no set of morals, not because they are rejecting god, but because accepting morals is a different activity than believing in a deity.
To claim that atheists as a whole have morals, is to change the definition of atheism to mean more than lack of a belief in god.
People who don't collect baseball cards have morals. This should seem like a non sequitur, because collecting baseball cards answers the question of whether or not you collect, not whether or not you have morals. Sure, some people who don't collect baseball cards have morals, but it isn't the fact that they don't collect baseball cards that makes them moral.
So please demonstrate to me that rejecting the god claim results in having morals. I also believe that even though I'm the pro in this debate, the burden of proof is on you, because I'm rejecting the claim that atheists have morals. You need to demonstrate that they do as a result of not believing.
Anyway, as I see your point about how Athietism is the disbelieve in God, not the acceptance in morals. But there are also a lot of things that don't change in definition just because of one thing. To say "humans have a brains", does not change the definition of "human" the definition of human is still a "human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien". Claiming humans have brains doesn't change the definition to
"a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien. P.s, they have brains"
It is just simply a fact that we have come to know. Saying a room has a bed in it doesn't change the definition of "room" . The definition of room is still "a part or division of a building enclosed by walls, floor, and ceiling." Do some Atheist kill people for the wrong reason? Yes, but that isn't the majority. It its said that out of the 10% population of American Atheist, only 0.254% are in prison.
Now what does this prove? That at least a majority of Atheist, in the States at least, have a moral base, or that percentage in jail would be much, much higher. Now that other 99.746% are mostly religions , these so called, moral leaders in the world. We like to say that because you belive in a God, you have morals. But then how come this large population is religious? Just to clarify, not all of these people in jail did things that were necessarily immoral, but they still broke that law, which I would say, would still be frowned upon by their church, synagogue, etc.
Another thing is that I never said everyone signal Atheist had morals, I was contradicting the statement that absolutely no Atheist have morals, which is belive in some Christains eyes.
Your analogies seem incoherent and unrelated, but if I may paraphrase...you're saying that the definition of human requires that they have a brain so mentioning it post script is redundant? I don't understand the analogy. Are you saying that the definition of atheist requires morals therefore mentioning it post script is redundant? Please clarify.
Then out of left field you say "It its said that out of the 10% population of American Atheist, only 0.254% are in prison."
Great, except for the fact that this number, though I would like to brag about it, is deflated. So many inmates wish to show their releasers that they've changed, or turned a new leaf, and a very convincing argument is that they've devoted themselves to doing the good, or god's work. So it may be that more than .254% of atheists go into prison and convert to a religion for a better prospect of freedom, thus the number is affected.
Again I hate to defend the religious, but there are so many religious people, that their numbers of immoral people are inflated. Like in China, 99% of inmates are of Chinese origin. Are Chinese less moral than the other racial populations in China? No, there's just so many Chinese, that it follows there are so many Chinese inmates.
Again, atheists have no moral set. Yes, it could be that atheists are largely aware of morals, because they are constantly attacked by the religious for not having god as a moral compass, but alas there is no atheistic moral. There is a belief or non belief in god, and there are things that are moral or immoral.
Please demonstrate that there are morals specific to atheism, and refrain from trying to prove religions to be immoral.
By proving religions to be immoral, you do not prove atheism has morals.
Only-Human forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a round; Conduct to Pro. No significant S/G errors. By standard debate protocol, when Pro accepted the debate, Pro took the position of supporting the resolution. Pro's arguments revolve around reversing the resolution and shifting the BoP, which is made clear in R1 when Pro says, "I also believe that even though I'm the pro in this debate, the burden of proof is on you, because I'm rejecting the claim that atheists have morals.". All in all, Pro has the BoP for the affirmative statement, and therefore must affirm the resolution that "Atheists have no morals". Pro's arguments demonstrate that the term "atheism" does not pertain to morality which may be true, but this does not support the resolution. To do so, Pro must show how atheists (which are people by definition) have no morals. The resolution is not affirmed. Arguments to Con. The only source used in the debate was by Con to support his one counter-argument to the resolution (% of atheists in prison); Sources to Con
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.