The Instigator
modetola
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WP_henderson
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheists do not have objective 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 356 times Debate No: 82880
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

modetola

Pro

Atheist do not have objective morals. Without god, atheist can only have subjective morality. God serves as the foundation for objective morality.
WP_henderson

Con

Having been prompted to go ahead and submit a first round argument (see comments), I will begin by defining some terms:

Objective: "The terms "objectivity" and "subjectivity," in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject"s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability."
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Moral: "Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories."
Source:
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...

Very briefly, moral right/wrong are statements about propensity to cause or inhibit the well being of creatures. This axiom is drawn from the moral experience. If he disagrees, I challenge my opponent to name a morally WRONG action, which inhibits flourishing and causes suffering. Indeed, the consequences brought about by ones actions are objective facts about the state of the world. It is therefore possible to objectively judge the propensity of ones actions to benefit/harm other creatures. For example, the attacks on Paris caused human suffering and did not significantly lead to any increase in happiness. While the individual experiences of each victim may be subjectively described. It is objectively true that the cause of suffering was the action itself.

In summary, an action is wrong if it inhibits well-being and causes suffering.

Utilitarianism and consequentialism are not predicated on the existence of god. Now it is the burden of my opponent to show that this criterion of right and wrong false, AND that the existence of a god(not just the belief in one) is absolutely necessary for the formation of objective moral criterion.
Debate Round No. 1
modetola

Pro

I would just like to say thank you for accepting the debate,,,

My argument follows, if objective moral values exist, then god exist. The reasoning follows that objective standards of right and wrong can only come from a higher authority , our creator. If god has made us for a purpose then there are rules that are in place in order to carry out that purpose. For example ,a chair was designed to sit on. using the chair for anything other than its purpose is the wrong way to use the chair.

' an action is wrong if it inhibits well-being and causes suffering ' this may describe the best way to live our life but this is not indicative of an objective standards of right and wrong. I agree that killing, stealing etc is wrong and it causes suffering but how is that morally wrong?. There is a good or bad way to play tennis or chess but that does not make it morally wrong or right. Your definition of objective morality is subjective.

Also, your definition of objective morality needs revising. Under your definition put simply it is a the right way to live our lives, acting in a way that we are designed for. it is a code of conduct but to what exactly. If I can increase my happiness by being evil, then why should I care for other people, we can create our own morality. Without a purpose for our existence, I dont see how you can issue out objective moral duties that we should all follow

' For example, the attacks on Paris caused human suffering and did not significantly lead to any increase in happiness ' what about cases of a bigger country attacking a smaller country. If the bigger country wins, then that will lead to a bigger increase of happiness as opposed to the smaller country winning.

My argument is proving that if objective morality exist, then god is the foundation, in the absence of god, we only have subjective morality, we have no objective moral duties, because we have no purpose to our lives.
WP_henderson

Con

I"m afraid that thus far you have spun a web of over simplification and have failed to fully comprehend the meat of my argument. I will attempt to illustrate this briefly.

In your first paragraph you merely assert the contested sentiment. One may not take as evidence the statement Morals only come from a god in a debate about whether or not morals come from god. Defend that statement please. Also, you may have affirmed the consequent when you say "if objective moral values exist, then god exist," this is a formal logical fallacy (readers Google consequent affirmation).

In your second paragraph you affirm my implicit claim that the utilitarian ethical mode describes the best way to live. Is system that prescribes how to live not morality itself? In the same paragraph you ask is it wrong to cause suffering? Yes, I make the more contentious claim that apt to cause suffering is what wrong means! Thus I issue my challenge. Name a wrong action, which causes flourishing and inhibits suffering. IT CAN'T BE DONE (earlier I may have misworded this).

In your third argument you gravely misapply the utilitarian norm. A person MUST consider others in order to be moral. To say, as you have, that my pleasure alone justifies my action, is to blatantly over simplify morality. Apt to cause suffering or promote flourishing, does not refer to the agent alone, but to all (utilitarianism in short only having 2000 characters).

Thus far, you have merely defined moral as concurring to the will of a god. I have shown one (of many) definition(s) of morality, which is far more in line with moral experience and not predicated on a god. Indeed, if the godly definition of morality were true, then there would be no grounds upon which a god could be in the wrong. If it is indeed wrong for a god to command genocide, then right and wrong are clearly not defined as a god"s will. God himself is a subject.
Debate Round No. 2
modetola

Pro

modetola forfeited this round.
WP_henderson

Con

WP_henderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by AmaliCabral 1 year ago
AmaliCabral
I challenge any religious believer to a live debate on Google Hangouts to prove that their God is more moral than mine...ANYONE?
Posted by Ulforicks 1 year ago
Ulforicks
Here goes another Christian bashing the morality of Atheists and all of humankind, that because if we did not have a God, we would be utter savages. That is a lie, and you know it. If you really need God to have morality, then you perform good not because of the stoutness of your character, but because then, you fear your God.

And please, let me understand, when have Atheists murdered more innocent people than organized religion? Did the Catholic Church have morality when they murdered hundreds upon thousands of "heretics" during the Middle Ages? Does the Islamic State have morality?

Silence yourself and think before speaking stupidity.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
atheists factually have no objective morals and agnostics can fawking stay uninsulated by that fact.
Posted by WP_henderson 1 year ago
WP_henderson
Sounds good! give me a few.
Posted by modetola 1 year ago
modetola
I have posted my argument already, I stated that objective morality cannot exist, you have to respond to the first argument
Posted by WP_henderson 1 year ago
WP_henderson
Do you want me to post an argument in the first round? or would you prefer I merely type, "I accept in the first round and let you go first? Either way I will get to submit the final argument, so it is common practice to allow the instigator to go first. This insures that we have the same number of arguments. If I go first I will get one more than you so It may be in your best interest to ask that first round be acceptance only.

welcome to debate.org!
Posted by modetola 1 year ago
modetola
I'm new to the site, so explain what you mean by ' first round acceptance only ' ..
Posted by WP_henderson 1 year ago
WP_henderson
Modetola, Hello.

Before round one I am wondering if you would prefer that the first round be acceptance only? Or would you prefer that I post an argument? If you do not respond to this message promptly, I will post an argument in round one as I have not been barred from doing so.

Thanks, this will be fun.
No votes have been placed for this debate.