The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Can you have morality without god?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 733 times Debate No: 70533
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




This is a debate to see if morality is able to exist without God, I am Pro, meaning it CAN exist without God. I decided to do this one a little differently, we are only going to make arguments and no counter arguments or rebuttals, the voters with decide if they make sense or not...

Round 1 : acceptance of the request to debate and acceptance of the rules.
Round 2 : The arguments.

Remember no counter arguments and no rebuttals.

Good Luck ! And I hope no bias from the voters.


I accept and look forward to a good debate. In terms of defined terms when saying god are we referring to Christianity or any god claim in general? Also can we agree to the following definition of morality from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term "morality" can be used either

1) descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a) some other group, such as a religion, or
b) accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2) Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for the debate, mate !
So lets begin.
( I use god in the argument referring to the Christian God because i cannot talk about them all and it is the most popular.)

I would first like to say that morality is a mixture subjective (to me), meaning it is dependent of factors, you may or may not believe this but I just want to point out this is what I believe, mostly because people think different things. During this turn I will make 4 different things which change, effect and give us morality: Culture, society, evolutionary and what I call just "logic".

Culture: It is obvious that different cultures behave differently, for example, In cultures like in the UK and a lot of other places MOST people feel it is morally wrong to eat other human beings, or that it is "the wrong thing to do", but In some societies, especially tribal societies, cannibalism is a cultural norm. There is also evidence, both archaeological and genetic, that cannibalism has been practised for tens of thousands of years. Human bones that have been "de-fleshed" by other humans go back 600 000 years. The oldest Homo sapiens bones (from Ethiopia) show signs of this as well. ( Documents have also been found that it was practised in the middle ages and early era) . Which of course our opinions on things such as this changes and is different everywhere.

Society: This one is a little like culture, in different societies different ideas on what is wrong or right and morality, for this example, Slavery, nowadays slavery is "immoral" but in the older days it was fine to do, surprisingly it was only about 150 years ago it was abolished in america, plus slavery still does exists, most of it in Africa.

This does show that it doesn't matter if God exists or not, people believe differently and there are good and bad people in the world.

Also abortion... To some it is a "okay" thing to do, and to others it the "wrong" thing to do, many people protests against it.

So if God ( I heard many religious people say this) " stamped morality on our heart" then he did a very ban job at it, because people thing different things are moral or immoral.

Evolutionary: This is where things get interesting... It is no doubt that humans are pack animals, meaning they use friends and family to help them survive and they help others to survive. Imagine we were in the wild, where, as humans, we need a pack to help us survive MORE than we do now. So say that one member of the pack attacks another member of it, and i mean attack, nothing like a warning an attack for no reason, then the other members will trust the attacker less, maybe thinking he is dangerous or not to be trusted, this is a huge problem for the attacker mostly because the pack is vital for his survival, for example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders.
So it is no wonder there are some things we do do and others we don't because it would be a problem for us if we do do them. All social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviours for group living to be worthwhile, so mostly now a days these things are instinctive and we don't have to think about them.

Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behaviour to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups. The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival.

Logic: It is no doubt most humans are smart, because of our increase of brain power , we are able to think outside of our selves and think of others, the one thing I am specifically talking about is empathy, think about the future, imagine that I... say... got robbed, or stabbed or kidnapped, now i don't want that to happen and i would hate for that to happen to me, so if i think about it for a second, i understand that there is a very high chance that other people would hate that too, so something that i would not like to happen to me I would not do to someone else, no God needed to tell me.
I also want to talk about Disgust:
Disgust is argued to be a specific response to certain things or behaviours that are dangerous or undesirable from an evolutionary perspective. One example is things that increase the risk of an infectious disease such as spoiled foods, dead bodies, other forms of microbiological decomposition, a physical appearance suggesting sickness or poor hygiene, and various body fluids such as faeces, vomit, phlegm, and blood. Another example is disgust against evolutionary disadvantageous mating such as incest (the incest taboo) or unwanted sexual advances. Still another example are behaviours that may threaten group cohesion or cooperation such as cheating, lying, and stealing. MRI studies have found that such situations activate areas in the brain associated with disgust.

Nature: This one is just a secondary point to the people who fight against or are against gays, Being gay is a natural thing, many animals do homosexual acts, Like, Rams, Laysan Albatrosses, Bottlenose Dolphins, Bonobos, Cock of the Rock, African Lions, Waterfowl and Penguins, Giraffes and Dragonflies. (these are just some) I find it strange some people think that being gay is immoral, it is perfectly natural. (masturbating is also natural and not immoral, i has health benefits too!)

I think that should be it... No doubt i forgot something that i will start kicking myself for not saying it :P
So to sum up, morality changes is different and is natural, God has no need to interfere or tell us what to think we do it by our selves.
Thanks for the debate, I had fun, can't wait to see your arguments!!! :) Remember no counter arguments or rebuttals as we agreed...


The morality of the Bible if taken on its face it very repugnant. It features slavery, murder, and many other such things. The Bible is the testimony of men and their record of God and his laws as recorded by men but not the authority for how God has given morality to mankind.

Secular morality is based on opinion, debate and evolution of moral standards over time. Group "A" says child abuse is okay and group "B" says it is wrong. The two groups debate about the harm or lack of harm this behavior does to society and comes to a majority consensus about punishing such behavior. This sounds well and good but the problem here is there is no base grounding upon which society can judge or debate morality without an always present standard(God).

Michael Ruse, a science philosopher writes:
"The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says "Love they neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . ." (1)

God's morality as applied in scripture by men is imperfect but God as the standard perfect example of morality separate from scripture is necessary for firm grounding of what exactly morality is and isn't.

We all feel morality in our minds. Without illness or disease such as Antisocial Personality disorder we know right and wrong instinctively. That comes from a force outside ourselves, which is God. Morality and reason must be presupposed by a force outside of natural explanations.

If there is not God involved then morality would only be a matter of individual or cultural opinion. But this would mean that torturing babies for fun, rape, & child abuse are not really objectively wrong, and are only a matter of opinion.(2)

There is no explanation that is plausible today for the internal sense of right or wrong that we as humans experience without God. One could argue that this only prove that morality is outside of what we know but cannot be determined to be God however, those objective standards for morality cannot exist without God or an supreme being providing it to us.

Thank you for the time and consideration and I respectfully submitted that the judges vote more me as my proofs support the claim that morality starts with God. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
1Credo. 5 points to Con (arguments, sources). Reason for removal: (1) Failure to explain sources entirely. (2) Failure to explain *why* Con was convincing or *why* Pro was not convincing. Merely restating the resolution and saying that Con "demonstrated" it and that Pro "didn't make much of a case" is not an explanation for *why* one side's arguments were better; it is merely a statement *that* one side's arguments were better.

Reasons for voting decision: Con demonstrated the absurdity of morality without God whereas Pro didn't make much of a case for the existence of morality without God.

-bluesteel (Voting Moderator)
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 3 years ago
I don't know why we have to assume that the human mind's ability should be credited to a supernatural power
Posted by TommyB12 3 years ago
Reason and logic must be presupposed by something outside of the natural world. Otherwise there would be no ability to discern truth or fact or that the laws of logic are true. To say for sure that it is the god of the bible is a leap could be something else or another god. I suppose it could. The point is that the idea of morality is instilled in mankind from a source outside of our understanding.

That being said I actual lean toward a naturalistic/humanist view in this. I took this debate to challenge myself and understand the thought processes from the other point of view. It was rather difficult
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 3 years ago
Unfortunately I don't have the prereqs to vote since I am new to this site, but I would vote for Pro. Tommy my biggest problem with your argument is that the main point you make is a fallacy. You say that since we naturally have morality, that it must be God's hand. No it's not. We come to moral conclusions through reason and logic. Humans are extremely intelligent beings that have the ability to analyze situations and then logically come to a conclusion. God is nowhere in that picture. We know for a fact that we can use reason and logic to make moral choices. We do it everyday. We see many people who are non religious and have never been religious making moral choices everyday. The major incidents of genocide in the 20th century have been because of religion: the Armenian genocide, the holocaust, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia. The people who committed these acts were doing so because of their belief in THEIR God's law. A person using reason and logic would come to the conclusion that it is not right to kill Bosnian Muslims because they are Muslim, but Catholic Serbs could not make that logical and moral decision.

To say that God created the natural order of things essentially lose the debate for you because there literally is absolutely no demonstrable evidence whatsoever for that being true. The idea that the natural order is so amazing that some supernatural being must have had a hand in it is simply illogical and anti-intellectual. It's logical skepticism vs stupidity.
Posted by AdvancedAtom 3 years ago
Posted by TommyB12 3 years ago
TommyB12 will someone please vote! (for me of course...haha)
Posted by AdvancedAtom 3 years ago
well i am pretty sure we have done it already :P
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 3 years ago
I am also looking forward to this
Posted by AdvancedAtom 3 years ago
Thx mate! I probably wasn't the best person to do it, i might have missed out some key points. ;) oh well.
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
Look forward to the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.