The Instigator
Only-Human
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Atheist have no Morals

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 1 vote the winner is...
Only-Human
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 76539
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Only-Human

Con

The old question if the non-belivers in God actually have a moral standard or not, being Atheist, I can say that we do have morals, just as any other human being does. This round is for small thoughts and acceptance.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Well, I'm an atheist as well and I have been spending days on debate.org rejecting claims of gods, defending how morals don't need a god, and demonstrating immoralities of common religions. That said, Atheists as a group don't have any prescriptive morals unique to atheism. The reason is that atheism is simply the rejection of a god, not an acceptance of morals.
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.
Debate Round No. 1
Only-Human

Con

Um, thanks for those... small thoughts

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.
http://www.patheos.com...

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.
MagicAintReal

Pro

You say, "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"
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.
Debate Round No. 2
Only-Human

Con

Only-Human forfeited this round.
MagicAintReal

Pro

I maintain the idea that whether or not atheists have morals has nothing to do with whether or not they believe in a god. So the resolution is correct.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wilddog 1 year ago
Wilddog
Definitely general, but I think there are those without general morals. Remorseless murderers, for instance.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
The problem with the term "murder" is that it already has the moral implications built into the word. It is *defined* as unlawful, whereas law are founded on an agreed-upon moral standard of living.
Posted by GottaGorillaForSale 1 year ago
GottaGorillaForSale
To Wilddog:
Little general don't you think? Haha. I'd assume there are murderers out there that certainly are remorseful of their actions.
Posted by GottaGorillaForSale 1 year ago
GottaGorillaForSale
To MrJosh:
What you said does not change the fact that Christians still have more of a reason to follow a moral lifestyle than an atheist would. Whether or not it is moral for someone to follow a moral lifestyle because of a punishment afterwards is irrelevant to what I was saying.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
atheism is theism
Posted by Wilddog 1 year ago
Wilddog
To GottaGorillaForSale, I don't know if you've ever heard of murderers, but.. yeah.

I think Consciences are developed, rather than given at birth.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Tejretics, putting no Kritiks as a rule would take away any ground pro has to argue. Nobody will accept with no ground to argue.
Posted by MrJosh 1 year ago
MrJosh
How is it moral to do the right thing because of fear of punishment? It is simply doing a thing because you are told to do so by the biggest bully on the block. At best, it is amoral, and I might be able to argue that it immoral to absolve yourself of doing the mental "heavy lifting" by abdicating your moral decision making to another.
Posted by GottaGorillaForSale 1 year ago
GottaGorillaForSale
I do believe that atheists have less reasons to follow a moral lifestyle than Christians do, considering they don't believe they will be judged afterwards, but God ingrains a moral compass in everyone, atheists included.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
A recommendation: add a "no kritiks" rule in R1, say "No kritiks of the topic", or a perspective of moral nihilism would strengthen the affirmative from a position of "nobody has any morals".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
Only-HumanMagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
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