The Instigator
AntLove
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tychicus12
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does Atheism = Immorality

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: 12/9/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 105681
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

AntLove

Con

Atheism isn't immoral just because they don't rely on the bible to get morals, no matter what people say. Many Atheists participate in helping the homeless and donating. A lack of belief in god does not mean immorality, Atheists get their morals from friends, family, and community. I can't wait for you to reply.
tychicus12

Pro

Of course atheism is immoral. Your own argument that it has to gets its notions of right and wrong from other sources than itself proves it is immoral. It is a symbiotic religion that depends on other religions to define right and wrong AND a notion of supposed free will within those notions of right and wrong in order to exist itself. It is not a stand-alone ideology but stand-against ..something else.. as its only real "point". It is really just the lie of human free will trying to be free from all supposed constraints and using 'there is no god' as a particular rhetorical strategy within that overall desire as it uses other rhetorical strategies against other constraints.

But atheism would not be alone in that regard. Buddhism for instance, and atheism are exactly alike in that regard. Buddhism needs other surrounding religions in order to exist itself because there is no morality within itself and no real notion of a god. The whole point is to supposedly reach a stage of actual and total personal sovereignty in which there is no restraint to an idealized free will and to supposedly join others who have already made the journey. No one would be deceived about it unless they said somebody else already made it, right? So they have their own pantheon of "those who made it and wrote down how to do it." Atheism in that same regard is simply a younger version of Buddhism and hasn't matured/collapsed ( depending on your own point of view) into a ritual-based system or concepts of how much time it will theoretically take to "know your there". But both are just lies in non-creating speech...that makes sense to those within it.

Atheism, like Buddhism gets its emotional training wheels from surrounding acts of the same speech, no matter the particular version/tongue of that speech. They are all taught out of the same basket of " stimulus event A mandates emtoion B" and so forth. But within the mind of those deceived those emotions are legitimate and a good thing to be gained, atheism and Buddhism think they have a unique perspective on how to attain the common emotional goals and be legit in that emotional economy. Morality to them all is just a subset of supposed wisdom on how to attain those goals. But it seems to atheists that they have a "free-er" and more flexible approach to get to the supposed paradise of good emotions all the time.

Both are just reactions to lies about God and evils perpetuated by those who say they represent God; but in the deception that Truth is what, instead of a Who. In that deception, atheism is not merely "lacking morality" as in lacking a standard of ideal behaviors, but is immoral, meaning to be against all ideal models of behaviors and to "break rules" just to do it, but in the pretense it is after a higher good in so doing.

Jesus Christ is Truth.

I am a Christian, a non-metaphorical new creature in Jesus Christ. So I won't debate with the rhetorical strategies of atheist which is but a subset of a much larger evil.

Whence then cometh wisdom? and where is the place of understanding? For it is hidden from the eyes of all living, and concealed from the fowl of the heavens. Destruction and death say, We have heard its report with our ears. God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth its place: For he looketh to the ends of the earth, he seeth under the whole heaven. In making a weight for the wind, and meting out the waters by measure, In appointing a statute for the rain, and a way for the thunder's flash: Then did he see it, and declare it; he established it, yea, and searched it out; And unto man he said, Lo, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding. Job 28:20-28

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Debate Round No. 1
AntLove

Con

Thank you for replying

You are claiming that in order to have morals you need a god, and that is truly sad. Im atheist and today I went out and gave care packages to the homeless, Atheist or not It depends on the person whether they are good or not; God is just a driving authoritative figure. And your statement about Atheism not being able to exist without Theists, many Asian religions believe in an equal balance of opposites. An example is the Yin Yang, one cant exist without the other. Atheism cant exist without Theism like yin can't exist without yang. The claim that Buddhists aren't moral is just wrong, Buddhism is built upon the belief that if you are a good person good things will happen to you in the long run, so your statement cant be valid.

In the name of our Pastafarian overlord, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. RAMEN!!!
tychicus12

Pro

Atheist can occasionally do moral acts in the sense that they get "what is moral" from other religions, but not from atheism itself and even then they only do it as loud PR for atheism. Like Al Capone's soup kitchens: he was evil but used public acts of charity as a cover. Atheism is the same: you want to give "care packages" to one person and sue whole towns and cities if they offend you and think of yourselves as outside the law. Your "morality" is just cover for evil and the idea behind it is simply to use what someone else believes against them. "I did what you said was good and now I can do whatever else I want" is essentially your proposition. Everyone knows this.

You cite giving care packages as moral. Atheism has never defined giving care packages as a good thing: a lot of other religions other than Buddhism pointed out sharing what excess you have with others thousands of years before atheism was called such by modern persons who dislike organized religion and hate Jesus Christ and Christians. Buddhism itself has no sense of morality: it is no "sin" within Buddhism to pour scalding hot water on you rather than in your tea cup. Atheism has no sacred texts and no creed..it is easy come easy go as long as something is pleasurable. If an atheist gives a care package and "feels good about it in front of everyone else" that was the whole point..not to feed the hungry or cloth the naked.

The mere presence of emotionally negative feelings in another person do not dictate anyone's else's moral state or action. You are not moral or doing morality merely to make someone happy. You nor I are actually hostage to some strange religion that thinks if they don't eat human brains they ought to feel bad and thus we are obliged to give them brains to make them happy and if we don't we are not behaving "morally". When you start in with "what action is moral versus immoral" all an atheists is thinking is "how can I manipulate someone else's beliefs so that they think they owe me a compliment and equivalence with their own religion." But the fact the recipients of your packages might have been made more comfortable or happy has no bearing on whether or not you were moral. Notice the instant you did it and gave the packages, you were on this debate bragging about it. They were just grist for your mill.

Isaiah 26:10 If favour be shewn to the wicked, he doth not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness he dealeth unjustly, and beholdeth not the majesty of Jehovah.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Debate Round No. 2
AntLove

Con

No one can prove morality, it is simply the choice to the right thing. Many Christians have done wrong, no Atheists to date have done any genocide or terrible wrongdoing towards others no matter what "God" thinks. For example, Matthew Hale, serving 40 years in prison for attempting to solicit the murder of Judge Joan Lefkow; Michael Bray, served 46 months of a 10-year sentence for conspiring to bomb 10 abortion clinics in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D. C. And finally Charles Coughlin, who tarted out innocently enough, using radio to decry the KKK for burning crosses on his church grounds, but ten years later, in 1936, he started praising and defending both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini for their politics, and spewing some of the most despicable virulence against Jews to which the world had borne witness up to that point.He blamed the Great Depression on "an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers," then blamed Communism, the Russian 1917 Revolution, and Marxist atheism on "global Jewry, in its attempt to lead people astray from the perfection of Lord Jesus."
tychicus12

Pro

God proves morality. Everyone else just copies what God says and then takes credit for defining what "the right thing" is.

If my opponent thinks no one proves morality, you wonder why he is trying to prove atheists can be moral.

He is also deceived the communists were not
guilty of mass atrocities.

Anyone can find a fake Christian and launch accusations at God. Doing so in no way has anything to do with proving atheists are moral.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Debate Round No. 3
AntLove

Con

I said nothing about the communists, there is no denying that communists did terrible, terrible things. And if Atheists are immoral because they are Atheists, what are they before they chose ro be Atheists. Are they moral, if so that is unfair to Atheists. I rest my case.
tychicus12

Pro

Atheists are immoral because of being an atheist..because of becoming an atheist and god-haters Yes..they deny the author of all morality. Just because others are also immoral because they deny the true God and worship false gods doesn't make atheist moral by comparison.

Again, my opponent is deceived who is an atheist. In fact, he did mention the communists because communists are famous atheists and out-spoken god-haters and famously corrupt and immoral and famously murder and murdered millions of people. Yet he said "no Atheists to date have done any genocide or terrible wrongdoing towards others"!

My opponent likes to present his image of atheists apparently as if there had never actually been any before himself or his ideal of an atheist and that the world is deceived he is the first one working out the defense of his beliefs in the complete absence of history.

My opponent isn't merely theoretically immoral as an atheist, he is demonstrating immorality by lying about communist as if they were not atheists because they murder people by the millions.

"Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, " ..Lenin

Today's atheists have stumbled on what they think is a new and better system of thought that just happens to have a bloody past for thousands of years. But they simply want it to be new and not associated with its true past. Now they teach "communists were not atheists" as if everyone doens't already know they were. They are lied to, then lie to themselves, then lie to you. And they call that "not-immorality".

God has made a song about them. It's a called Psalm 53.

Psa 53:1 To the chief Musician. On Mahalath: an instruction. Of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God! They have corrupted themselves, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Psa 53:2 God looked down from the heavens upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back, they are together become corrupt: there is none that doeth good, not even one.
Psa 53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge, eating up my people as they eat bread? they call not upon God.
Psa 53:5 There were they in great fear, where no fear was; for God scattereth the bones of him that encampeth against thee. Thou hast put them to shame, for God hath despised them.
Psa 53:6 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God turneth again the captivity of his people, Jacob shall be glad, Israel shall rejoice.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alphamus 7 months ago
Alphamus
"Your faith based certainty is not only scary but incredibility arrogant Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility."

Few things:

1. Theoretically - sure. Practically, no. This bias - both in peer review and hard academics - is proven countless times.
2. You overuse the words "empirical", "supersitious", "evidence", and "objective" to veil your poor reasoning behind your overall premise: that objective morality is superior to subjective morality. There is no such difference, even from an unbiased point - religious people believe their religion is objective, and atheists believe objective morality cannot exist. Science CANNOT give morality - only provide vague indications.

"An objective morality, is based on the facts of reality. All one needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments."

More hilarious overusage of terms. "Objective morality = facts beacuse objective = facts = morality". Poor reasoning.

"Getting people accustomed to following divine commands regardless of their consequences or reasonableness " and always thinking that this is "moral" " is a wonderful means for priming people to follow the commands of any other leader as well" especially one that purports to speak on behalf of or in defense of traditional religion. "

Religion is by far - the most unique topic in metaphysics. Trying to minimalize its importance by comparing it to blind totalitarianism and following ethos appeals is a pathos attack that does not hold any real value. Again, weak reasoning.

"Morality comes from making choices, not from following commands."

No. Morality (either objective or subjective) comes from an outside source, usually judging commands. Religious people follow their morality for a reason, and atheists follow their morality for a reason.

Your post overuses terms and shows weak reasoning. I'd advise reposting or more thought before spitting out stereotypes again.
Posted by Alphamus 7 months ago
Alphamus
"Are theists then saying the only reason they dont murder and rape is because the bible tells them not to?"

Are atheists saying the only reason they don't murder and rape is because they "feel" it's wrong or because their parents/environment/culture/society/etc. tells them to?

Don't confound relativism in citing arguments like these. Pathos appeals aren't usually strong in cases like this.
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
Fair enough.
Posted by AntLove 7 months ago
AntLove
Please note that I am new to debate.
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
"no Atheists to date have done any genocide or terrible wrongdoing towards others"" Ummm, Stalin??
Posted by beefcurtians 7 months ago
beefcurtians
Are theists then saying the only reason they dont murder and rape is because the bible tells them not to?
Posted by missmedic 7 months ago
missmedic
Your certainty is scary beyond arguing. History overflows with misery inflicted by well-intentioned people who were convinced that they had seen the only true moral values, and who sought to convert or destroy those who would not agree.
The Inquisition was premised on the moral certainty of the Roman Church. Its officers were wholly convinced that the Christian scriptures as interpreted by the Pope were true, and that they revealed an objective system of morality. On those grounds, any individuals who did not share those values were inescapably found to be a threat to the realization of Christian values in this world. Therefore they were persecuted and ferociously tortured to make them recant their "heresies".
In our own century, we find that countries which succumbed to totalitarian ideologies " Stalin"s Russia, Mao"s China, Hitler"s Germany " created societies in which those who professed to see the true values deemed themselves entitled to indoctrinate, intimidate, or exterminate those who disagreed. Your certainty makes you no different.
Posted by tychicus12 7 months ago
tychicus12
you must have missed the part about your own science saying there is no free will. Everything you've said is nothing more than defending an idealized free will "as if" God were trying to take it away or tricksters were trying to get you to use one way versus another. You never had it to begin with. You are not being arrogant, just proving you are deceived that because the lie of free will enjoys some popularity, it is therefore truth.

God has always proved we don't have free will. Now "science" is chiming in? So where is your new definition of morality minus a theory of free will. Christian morality remains and doesn't need a concept of free will. But the pagans and the atheists desperately need the illusion. Once that illusion is taken away,...what do you have?

Ecc 1:8 All things are full of toil; none can express it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

Ecc 1:9 That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which will be done: and there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already in the ages which were before us.
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be remembrance of things that are to come with those who shall live afterwards.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Posted by missmedic 7 months ago
missmedic
Your faith based certainty is not only scary but incredibility arrogant Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.
An objective morality, is based on the facts of reality. All one needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments.
Getting people accustomed to following divine commands regardless of their consequences or reasonableness " and always thinking that this is "moral" " is a wonderful means for priming people to follow the commands of any other leader as well" especially one that purports to speak on behalf of or in defense of traditional religion. Morality comes from making choices, not from following commands.
Posted by tychicus12 7 months ago
tychicus12
..in fact, I think it is obvious that one of the only things holding back the absolute triumph of determinism over free will is that very question: how do people still have the opportunity "to be moral" and to be innocent of law breaking in front of their family, friends, and neighbors when they have no capacity to "do the right thing."?

As that argument progresses, you will see that the lie of human free will was never anything more than a conspiracy to put human beings in intense bondage on the theory that they could "follow rules" at their own pleasure. As has been widely noted in various ways: You can have ten commandments from God or you can have multiple buildings filled with millions of intricate laws and counter-laws and interpretations of those for every small detail in life. Indeed, the whole modern concept of justice that is famously corrupt is built on the notion of free will: human justice is fake because it is built on a conspiracy to imprison souls while tricking them they are "free".

God will fulfill His own commands through you but men have no power to do the same even after they enact laws. To them, you are guilty all the time and everyone is guilty in front of everyone else.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man:
Rom 7:23 but I see another law in my members, warring in opposition to the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which exists in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me out of this body of death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then *I* *myself* with the mind serve God's law; but with the flesh sin's law.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
No votes have been placed for this debate.