The Instigator
clarissa28
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jkeastt
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Can you be good without God?

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: 10/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 290 times Debate No: 80394
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

clarissa28

Con

I am writing an argumentative research paper. The topic I chose to do is "Can you be good without God?" What I am trying to do is have a diverse perspective on the subject so that way I am not biased in responding to the question. Personally I believe that it is possible to be good without God, but the challenge is, I cannot make my papers focus on religion because then the argument can be easily taken away by someone who perhaps does not believe in God. I respect others in the religion in which they chose to be devoted too. Feel free to post your opinion.
jkeastt

Pro

I am an open atheist and I'm sure that even if I was religious I'm sure I'd still say that you can be good without God. Religion is not innate however to-be-a-good-person and do the right thing is. I firmly believe you don't need to live your life by a religion in order to be deemed 'good' by God or society.
Debate Round No. 1
clarissa28

Con

clarissa28 forfeited this round.
jkeastt

Pro

jkeastt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
clarissa28

Con

clarissa28 forfeited this round.
jkeastt

Pro

jkeastt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
clarissa28

Con

clarissa28 forfeited this round.
jkeastt

Pro

jkeastt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
clarissa28

Con

clarissa28 forfeited this round.
jkeastt

Pro

jkeastt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nolsog 1 year ago
nolsog
That is an interesting question. When I first read the question, my first thought was of course you can be good without GOD. However, the more I think about the more complex the question becomes. In my opinion, it comes down to this. What is the definition of good. We all have different definitions of good and for those who are religious, their definitions are often determined by what their GOD considers good. Let me first start off by saying my personal religion is currently in flux. I also want to say, I do not care what anyone believes as my ultimate fate is determined by my beliefs as your ultimate fate is determined by yours. Back to the question. You definition of good is often determined by your religion. An Islamic extremist may feel that it is good to strap on a bomb and blow up metro station in the infidels country. The infidel who family died in that explosion might not share that same opinion. Think back to the Crusades. Both the Christians and Muslims thought that they were doing good work for their GOD by killing the other side citizens and warriors.

Before you think that I am of the opinion that you must have a religion and thus a GOD to be good, let me point out something else. Atheist also have a concept of good and evil. However, I would argue that most would consider stealing something from them is bad while helping them is good.

So I believe, that you can be good without GOD but if you believe in a GOD you definition of good is determined by that belief.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Lol you don't decide. You learn from adults as a child. It's not a matter of choice, but a matter of circumstance. Fundamentally you can't change your subconscious moral beliefs. You can only alter your behaviour to fit into whatever societal group you wish to belong to.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
The point of asking the question is how do you determine one subjective moral system as being better than another?
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
God has nothing to do with good and evil. These are subjective concepts we develope during our early developmental years and again later as social morals when we become adults. Religious people just use it as an excuse to impose their beliefs on others.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I think the point of the debate is to ask if you can determine how you ought to act without the use of a supreme deity.
Posted by Reeseroni 1 year ago
Reeseroni
"Good: to be desired or approved of." nothing of goodness is subjective to the existence of a God, or any other entity.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
Yeah, you can. Morals are derived from what we have learned to be good and bad - harmful and helpful. If feeding someone will help them live and not starve to death, then that is seen as helpful and contributing to civilizations. These were necessary in order to form communities and tribes. A God is not necessary for that to occur. [We are supposed to have free will, after all.] (Atheistic, by the way.) In other words, "Good and Bad" is "Harmful and Helpful" - AKA: Contributing or Not Contributing.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
Yeah, you can. Morals are derived from what we have learned to be good and bad - harmful and helpful. If feeding someone will help them live and not starve to death, then that is seen as helpful and contributing to civilizations. These were necessary in order to form communities and tribes. A God is not necessary for that to occur. [We are supposed to have free will, after all.] (Atheistic, by the way.) In other words, "Good and Bad" is "Harmful and Helpful" - AKA: Contributing or Not Contributing.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Look up the Euthyphro dilemma. Gods do not validate morality, they are irrelevant to it. When religious people talk about objective morality, they really mean obedience to the powerful being. They shouldn't even use the word morality since blind obedience is what they are actually subscribing to.

To them an act is good if God says so and bad if God says so. This means that if their God says rape is good and charity is bad, then they must accept that rape is morally correct and charity is immoral. If he then changes his mind, they must accept that rape is now immoral and charity is now morally correct.

Since they consider morality to be doing whatever God says, he gets to be called good by default and they have no mechanism to determine if he should really be obeyed.

When non religious people talk about objective morality they mean the field dealing with how actions impact the well-being of others. An act is good if its net effect is to increase well being and it is bad if its net effect is to diminish well being. This is what pretty much anyone has in mind when they say that you did something morally wrong or morally right and has the benefits of actually being objective, being testable, being applicable to all situations, and making the world better for people.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Do you want opinions or a debate? There is an opinion section, and mine is that without a god you can not have an objective moral system, which means that morals are a social construct, and no man can be accurately labeled as good or bad, because the labels are nonsensical in a moral sense.
No votes have been placed for this debate.