The Instigator
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Depth_Valor
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Do atheists have morals?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Depth_Valor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,189 times Debate No: 43925
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Con

If atheists don't believe in God, then how would they have morals? This guy i know said when he was at church an atheist walked up to him and said, you can have your religion i can have mine, im still an atheist, then my friend said, ok, but what if Christians take over the country and decide that you are of satan and they shoot you? Then the atheist said , they can't do that, then my friend said why not? Then the guy said it wasn't right! Then my friend said why? He didn't have an answer because if he would have said killing is bad, he would have said, why, then he would have said its bad, then why, then bad, then why, then it would have continued until the atheist surrendered.
Depth_Valor

Pro

I accept. Well Atheists do have morals. I do not believe in killing because I believe it is wrong. Do I have to explain why I think it's wrong? Just because one cannot justify why he thinks killing is wrong doesn't mean he has no morals. I have my own morals that I believe in myself just from the way I was raised and through experiences. Morals can come many different ways.
Moral-1. Concerning to what is right and wrong with human behavior.
2. Based on what you think is right or good.
3. Considered right and good with most people.
Based on these definitions you do not need religion to have morals. A moral can come from experiences, beliefs, or based on others thinking.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Con

How do you explain right from wrong without a higher power deciding that? If God didnt make morals then humans didnt! Why not let dogs and cats make the decisions if human is just another animal?
Depth_Valor

Pro

Well morals are just what someone thinks is right or wrong. I can think that killing is wrong because of past experiences. If my father was shot and killed I would understand the pain of someone being killed, and from that experience I conclude killing is wrong. You do not need to look towards a higher power. You could look towards a role model to have morals. I could feel that killing is wrong because my role model Martin Luther King JR. did. It comes from a variety of reason. Cats and dogs can make their own decisions. My cat made a decision to climb up a tree. When it got stuck I had to get it down. It hasn't climbed up a tree since. It learned from the situation and now finds it that he shouldn't climb up trees. You do not need a higher power to have morals, therefore Atheists can have morals.
Debate Round No. 2
RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Con

Let's take the Confederacy for example, the US civil war one, they branched off with a protestant christian moral set, and they made their government off of it, let's say one person's personal morals were differant from the confederate governments, do you think his morals would have a say? No, becasue personal morals would have to have a vote, and the confederates were 85% protestant christian and they all would voe for the religious morals, not the personal ones that come from humans, the universal ones that come from God.
Depth_Valor

Pro

In your last argument you said they have personal morals, the morals wouldn't have a say. You basically just said everyone has personal morals. It doesn't matter if the morals have a higher say than the public morals. It's still morals and atheists still have them. Everyone has morals. Even though some peoples morals may not count do to the majority having a different moral, the person still has morals. Atheists have morals any way you look at it. I'm Atheist and I feel it is wrong to kill. I grew up thinking killing was wrong and I do not have to justify why. In conclusion, Atheists do have morals.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
I have to say this is a prime example of how NOT to debate
Posted by sabineparish 3 years ago
sabineparish
There are so many obvious paths to follow if trying to disprove christianity's monopoly on morality. Christianity's claim to faith is a very closed circular reasoning loop as almost all religious ideas are. There are three key elements in their claim and they can start their reasoning at any point and will always end their point at the preceding element confirming the first element. These are; a belief that their god inspired or wrote the bible, the bible being written or inspired by god has to be true and the bible says their god is the only god. Their belief is like a bubble, poke even the smallest hole and the bubble pops. If any of the three arguments are removed the other three are invalidated. Christians have a secret weapon though that defies all logic, Granted it is not a weapon that works on the outside of their bubble, or in reality, but by defying and or ignoring logic and reality, they basically paste bandages on the inside of their bubble.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 3 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Who knows if cats and dogs have higher thinking? Have we humans lost our souls to believe that we are the most important things in the universe?
Posted by reece 3 years ago
reece
The old testament of Christianity has reflected the societal values of humanity but then our morals changed and now here's the new testament.God is never changing so why does humanity's morals evolve if you think that we get them from the bible thus god.Also god's all knowing right? so why did he make universe in the first place?
Posted by InfiniteBears 3 years ago
InfiniteBears
Because cats and dogs don't have higher order thinking, unlike humans.
Posted by sabineparish 3 years ago
sabineparish
Morality is a philosophical term of personal behavior relative to ones society. All cultures have morals whether they are Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or even non religious. It doesn't matter whether you believe in one god, many gods or no gods, you adapt to the morals of the culture you are raised in and accept.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
Posted by UMRebelCJ 3 years ago
UMRebelCJ
Plenty of atheists have morals. The difference between the morality of atheists and theists lies in first principles. Theists have some baseline postulate from which to extrapolate their morals; for atheists, morals are, on their most fundamental level, arbitrary decisions.
Posted by ChloeMcIverFloyd 3 years ago
ChloeMcIverFloyd
The definition of morals is, a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. That means you do that means everyone has their own morals. Okay, here is an example, I don' t think that taking someone else's life is right. I think that it is an awful and selfish thing to do in most cases. That is one of MY PERSONAL MORALS, okay now take a serial killer for example. In their minds what they are doing is right, and the good thing to do. That is one of THEIR PERSONAL MORALS. Everyone has their own morals, and RELIGION DOES NOT DETERMINE YOUR PERSONAL MORALS.
Just a last note on the topic, I do not believe in god, but I DO HAVE MORALS.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
RebelRebelDixieDixie01Depth_ValorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither had a good argument honestly. I could have given argument points to con if he asked where does an atheistic society draw its morals from, however he did not. He does ask Pro how can one have morals without a God, which is a similar question that has a very different answer than he should have sought out. Pro does however insinuate that morals are subjective and relative. In that case then we would live in a very amoral society where nothing was illegal, which we do not. i didn't pay attention to S&G, so i cannot give points there. Both seemed to have well enough conduct, neither posed any good arguments and none cited any sources. I would challenge Pro to the same or a similar debate but he already knows my game plan after he reads this. After the debate, I cannot decide who I agree with as both posed poor arguments
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
RebelRebelDixieDixie01Depth_ValorTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con defeated himself by showing that morals can exist outside of religion using his Confederacy example. Pro made good arguments from personal experience regarding morals and so Pro wins argument points. Spelling and grammar goes to Pro as well as Con made some errors which made sentence structure difficult to read. Source points are tied, as I don't want to give source points for a definitions from a dictionary. Conduct was good from both debaters and its a tie as well.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
RebelRebelDixieDixie01Depth_ValorTied
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: Con does not seem to adequately contend with either Pro's definitions. The thing about the Confederacy did not seem to add to Con's case. Debate goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
RebelRebelDixieDixie01Depth_ValorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con wins for overall better arguments, particularly his last round.