The Instigator
LadyLover123
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Atheists lack morality

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 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 687 times Debate No: 67776
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

LadyLover123

Con

You think it's impossible to be moral AND atheist? Come at me, bro.
Wylted

Pro

As per the norm on DDO, I'll use this round for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
LadyLover123

Con

Some religious people argue that atheists completely lack morality because they do not have a deity or religious compass to guide good acts. I argue that atheists are in some ways MORE moral because they do not need their good acts to be dictated and they do not need heaven as an incentive to do good things.
Wylted

Pro

Atheists lack morality because morality doesn't exist. Morality according to most definitions is values concerning right and wrong but right and wrong not actual values but just abstract ideas which are completely unfounded.

P1- There is no objective way to conclude if something is right or wrong. Right and wrong are value statements which are completely subjective and with no inherent meaning.

P2- If there is no objective way to determine right or wrong then morality doesn't exist.

C1- Morality doesn't exist

Since morality doesn't exist, it's clear that atheists lack them as they are a non existent property and merely an artificial construct.

"Some religious people argue that atheists completely lack morality because they do not have a deity or religious compass to guide good acts."

That's nice but it's also a strawman argument. 's not what I'm arguing.

" I argue that atheists are in some ways MORE moral because they do not need their good acts to be dictated and they do not need heaven as an incentive to do good things."

They can't be more moral because morality is an artificial construct, has no inherent value and doesn't exist in the real world.
Debate Round No. 2
LadyLover123

Con

Ah, its a philosophical argument you want? This will not be hard, as I studied philosophy under the the tutelage of the esteemed Jonathon Westphal. I feel that you have breached the integrity of this debate by changing the item being debated from atheists lacking morality because they are atheists to the existence of morality in general. This forces me into a position where I either participate in a new argument about the existence of morality, or I forfeit. In this case, my personal beliefs are in line with yours, that morality is a concept that does not truly exist, but I will play along and argue against your point that morality does not exist.

To say that morality does not exist, one must decide what morality is. Is morality a meaning---the difference between right and wrong---or is it a word with the definition of the difference between right and wrong? Perhaps it is both, but the truth of the matter is, morality exists, in that it exists as a concept. Allow me to clarify.

Morality exists in so far as the sun exists. The word "sun" is a purely human and social construct, a word used to define a ball of gas and plasma floating in the sky, that existed long before we had a word to define it. It may just as easily have not existed at all, as is true for the meanings of many words existing in the English and other languages. One example? The word respect. You can not hold respect, you can not see respect, and in many ways, respect is nothing but a concept invented by mankind, but it still exists because it is a concept known to man and it has meaning that can be explained in terms of behavior and thought processes.

Morality exists as a social construct. It has force over people and their behavior. It is so much a reality, in fact, that it actually influences what people decide to do, because it exists, if no where else, as a reality within the brains of individuals using it to guide them.

We can only be here discussing the possible existence of morality because morality exists as a concept for us to discuss. Morality IS the network of possibilities of actions between individuals and groups in which some have been deemed by some or all of society to be right or wrong. Morality is a human concept that exists within humanity.
Wylted

Pro

"Ah, its a philosophical argument you want? This will not be hard, as I studied philosophy under the the tutelage of the esteemed Jonathon Westphal. I feel that you have breached the integrity of this debate by changing the item being debated from atheists lacking morality because they are atheists to the existence of morality in general."

Actually the title of the resolution, necessitates this form of argument. Every one has a moral code, so if you weren't planning on debating the existence of morals than what were you trying to debate?

"Morality exists in so far as the sun exists. The word "sun" is a purely human and social construct, a word used to define a ball of gas and plasma floating in the sky, that existed long before we had a word to define it. It may just as easily have not existed at all, as is true for the meanings of many words existing in the English and other languages."

False analogy. The term sun is used to explain an observable phenomenon, not a human construct. Right and wrong are not actual tangible things. Right and wrong are statements about whether you approve of an act or not.

This means that morality doesn't actually exist. It's just a term used to describe the extremely subjective views of individuals and whether they approve of stuff.

Either morality is objective or it is subjective. If it's subjective than it only exists in the mind of an individual and in fact the word moral would have a unique meaning for everyone and in essence become a pointless term.

"One example? The word respect. You can not hold respect, you can not see respect, and in many ways, respect is nothing but a concept invented by mankind, but it still exists because it is a concept known to man and it has meaning that can be explained in terms of behavior and thought processes."

Respect can't be objectively measured either and means something unique to each man. When you state somebody has disrespected you it's the same thing as stating their action is immoral. It means;

I don't approve.

Look, despite the fact we all have unique opinions of right and wrong, morality can't be demonstrated to existed. The fact we approve and disapprove of things can be demonstrated but that is far from having an objective right and wrong.

Without the ability to objectively verify what is in fact right and what is in fact wrong, than we can't determine that atheists have morality. Hell, we can't even demonstrate morality exists.

Vote me
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Clearly you haven't read the debate.
Posted by m8 2 years ago
m8
So what I'm learning from this debate is that atheists==cannibal confirmed?

(BTW, I usually eat the neighbours' children for winter. I save the neighbours themselves for early spring.)
Posted by LadyLover123 2 years ago
LadyLover123
To Ben:

Please elaborate on and support how saying the phrase "come at me, bro" is immoral. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word moral, friend.

In terms of survival of the fittest, I would like to say that first of all DraftyBasilisk makes a good point. In terms of modern society most people aren't considering eating their neighbors. Simply, they are trying to get farther in a society where to be "farther" means economic and social success. I THINK what you were TRYING to say, Ben, is that all Atheists will stab each other people in the back to get farther simply because they believe in evolution, which simply isn't true. Just because they believe in Darwinian evolution, where animals kill and compete with other animals to survive, doesn't mean that they believe that that is the best way to live their own lives. Atheists can be kind and neighborly while still believing in evolution. Furthermore, evolution is not as black and white as "survival of the fittest." There is also an element to evolution of cooperation, in which the best chance of survival is in helping each other out. Examples are vampire bats, in which those who have a lot of blood will give some to those who have less, and chimpanzees and gorillas that act in tribes. Atheists are perfectly capable of cooperating with and being kind to other people.
Posted by LadyLover123 2 years ago
LadyLover123
Ugh, sorry that was short. I had 8 seconds left on the clock. To continue my argument, saying that atheists can't live a morally just life because they don't feel that "God" is judging them is absurd. Atheists have other people to judge them, and they decide what actions to do based on the variables around them and their own moral compass.

I am not arguing that all atheists are moral. There are moral atheists and immoral atheists. There are moral Christians and there are immoral Christians too. Just because someone is a member of a religion/cult doesn't mean they are perfect or moral in any right (for evidence, consider child molesting priests). My argument is simply to dispel the idea that it is impossible for an atheist to be moral.
Posted by DraftyBasilisk 2 years ago
DraftyBasilisk
You are assuming that survival of the fittest among civilisation is the same as it is among animals. Eat your neighbour, you go to prison. Prison doesn't benefit your life, nor does it extend it. Eating your neighbour isn't survival of the fittest, it is 'I'm hungry for food that is human'

We still do what we can to survive in the best manner possible, only differently in our societies. We try to get the best jobs possible, we go through multiple relationships to find the one that makes us happiest, we choose to be societies where we are surrounded by friends and have a government that keeps us safe. This is survival of the fittest for us; it is not who eats who, like it is with animals, it is who lives the life that they want to live, and who doesn't.
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
I am not saying every Atheist is immoral. I am saying some of them aren't moral like you:

"Come at me, bro."

And with the Survival of the Fittest attitude some of them have is immoral. Is it better for you to feed your neighbor or eat your neighbor?

With that attitude it would be eat your neighbor. Since what is the point of wasting food on something that is weaker than you, when you can kill it and have it for winter vice versa.
Posted by LadyLover123 2 years ago
LadyLover123
Lol well you've still got 18 hours.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'm a procrastinator .
Posted by LadyLover123 2 years ago
LadyLover123
Well?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
LadyLover123WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had adequate conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Neither had any major spelling or grammatical errors. Arguments - Pro. Con started by arguing that atheists don't necessarily lack morality due to lacking a belief or following of God. Pro argued that morality doesn't even exist in the first place, thus Con's position is void. Con responds by accepting this slight shift in focus and argues that morality exists as a social construct and used an analogy involving the term "sun" and how that is also a social construct. I found Con's attempt to continue the debate respectable. However, Pro soundly defeats every challenge raised by Con in the final round. In regards to the sun analogy, Pro showed how it was a false analogy due to the sun being an observable phenomenon, not merely a social construct. Furthermore, Pro showed that morality was subjective, a claim that unfortunately wasn't met with any rebuttal. For these reasons, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. None used.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
LadyLover123WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was wholly about the semantics of 'morality' and what that entails. The arguments were largely in round 3. Con's 'sun' was refuted by Pro as he showed the false analogy to be problematic. The respect and social construct arguments were underpinned with essentially the same concept, and the debate hinges on these arguments, although, I find both marred by Con's earlier comment: "that morality is a concept that does not truly exist", but perhaps that's not what she meant. So, what Con's argument boils down to is essentially that morality does not actually exist, yet we act upon this non-existent force. Pro's explanation of the phenomenon (morality) did not quite rebut Con's arguments, but Con's arguments are self-defeating, so I have to award arguments to Pro via default.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
LadyLover123WyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I found Wylted demonstrated very effectively that morality in regards to atheists can only be a subjective opinion, Con did not offer anyway to verify morality objectively and establish their existence, instead Con offered comparisons of the sun, and Pro gave examples where the sun can be objectively measured thus nullifying Con's argument, also Pro gave a fairly decent rebuttal concerning the comparison Con used to claim respect doesn't exist. Arguments to Pro and also conduct to Pro for Con's accusation that Pro tried to change the debate from it's resolution.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
LadyLover123WyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I usually like looking for flaws in the topic but morality of atheists was not discussed as clearly outlined. Pro did not argue morality of atheists he argued morality of anyone. This would be fine if this was in the "philosophy" category, not the "religion" category. {conduct and arguments to con}