The Instigator
Luggs
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Cailean
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheists do not need a god to be moral.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 10/31/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,258 times Debate No: 26740
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Luggs

Pro

Dear Opponent,
This will be 4 rounds, the first one being an introduction and a greeting. I will be arguing that the topic in question is indeed true. We will have 72 hours to argue, and the voting period is five days. The arguments are limited to 8,000 characters. I look forward to our debate, and at the same time, my first debate on debate.org. Thank you, you may now present yourself.

Edit: Time for a clarification:
When I refer to being moral, I am saying that you commit good deeds of your own accord and having a sense of right and wrong. When I say atheists do not need a god to be moral, I am giving the argument that a belief in a god is not required for morals. Thanks to the comments for the advice. I'm sorry, but I am not very skilled at debating nor am I experienced in this field.
Cailean

Con

Dear Prop.
I have accepted your request on a basis of a challenge so I wish to assert now that I share your beliefs so some of my arguments may be slightly weak.
Debate Round No. 1
Luggs

Pro

I would first like to thank Cailean for accepting this debate, and I suppose you will be playing the devil's advocate.

My first point is that a god is not a requirement for morals, because morals are all personal. Morals vary between people, and if a god were to teach all of these morals, everyone of that faith would think the same on topics like gay rights, wars, etc.

My next point is that the Judeo-Christian god is not all that moral in and of itself, yet the majority of followers (mind you, not all of them) of these two faiths have morals. For example:
2 Kings 2:23-24 "2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

In the given example, God smites children for making fun of someone. That definitely does not deserve death, but rather discipline.

-=Sources=-
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... -> Bible quote 2 Kings 2:23-24
Cailean

Con

Prop argument: god is not a requirement for morals, because morals are all personal
My argument:
By definition moral is "descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward...such as a religion". Morals were first created by God and defined in The Bible and without it, there is no incentive for an athiest to be moral.

Prop argument:
My argument: Just because a leader isn't moral, that doesn't mean that the cause is immoral. Also, that passage from The Bible is not necessarily correct. These stories may have been exaggerated through the years.

I also wish to put forward that the worst dictators have been athiest. Hitler, Ghaddafi, etc etc

Debate Round No. 2
Luggs

Pro

Con said: Just because a leader isn't moral, that doesn't mean that the cause is immoral. Also, that passage from The Bible is not necessarily correct. These stories may have been exaggerated through the years.

Don't forget: most Christians follow the Bible word for word.

Con said: I also wish to put forward that the worst dictators have been athiest. Hitler, Ghaddafi, etc etc

2 things: atheist*: spelling and grammar matter here. Second, Neither of them were atheists, that is a common thought. Adolf Hitler was very Christian and believed it was God's will that he was killing millions. Gaddafi was a Muslim, according to some research I have just done. Don't believe me? He used arguments in the Quran: http://jpfinn7.wordpress.com...

Con said: By definition moral is "descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward...such as a religion". Morals were first created by God and defined in The Bible and without it, there is no incentive for an athiest to be moral.

I guess we disagree on the definition of morals. Here's my result:
1. A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
2. A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
https://www.google.ca...

You also bring up the argument that religion is a code of conduct, but that is false. It gives one, but religion is not needed. Also, atheists can still practice religion, but not believe in God, which is the whole of this debate.

I await your response.
Cailean

Con

Cailean forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Luggs

Pro

Ooh, a forfeit. This is interesting.

I think we should finish with the debate and have our closing arguments for our final round.

So, all of you voters, I would like to thank you for reading our arguments and I hope you vote for whoever you think deserved to win, and I hope you see that a belief in a god, yes, any god (which is why I did not capitalize god), is not required in order to have a sense of right and wrong.

I bring the closing to Cailean.
Cailean

Con

Cailean forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Nataliella 4 years ago
Nataliella
Anyone who needs to have a god to be able to distinguish right from wrong is not a very good person at all.
Posted by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
I figured.
Posted by Cailean 4 years ago
Cailean
Hmm, just so you know, that blank space in my answer after "Prop. Argument" is where my copy and pasted passage of your argument hasn't shown up.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Define your terms. I won't be taking this debate.

I would, however, take a debate such as "Atheists don't need a god to have a logical basis for morality." Technically, everyone is moral, but by whose standard?
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
I think he's referring to belief. Otherwise it should include everyone rather than just atheists.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
It has been my observation that theists and atheists frequently talk past each other when this subject comes up because one of them is talking about epistemology and the other is talking about ontology. So I need to ask you for a clarification. When you say that atheists don't need God to be moral, do you mean that atheists don't need to BELIEVE in God before they can be moral or do you mean that there doesn't need to BE a God before atheists can be moral? Because those are entirely different questions. If you're talking about epistemology, then I agree with you, but if you're talking about ontology, then I disagree with you. It would be helpful if you'd clarify.
No votes have been placed for this debate.