The Instigator
LughHeim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Confucius1
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Humanism is a Better Morality System than Any Religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Confucius1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,131 times Debate No: 99628
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

LughHeim

Pro

Often Apologists like William Lane Craig or Ravi Zacharias (among many others) claim that their religion is the only way to objective morality, and that to think otherwise will eventually lead to the downfall of morality in our culture. I very much so disagree with this statement. In fact, I would say it is more moral to be a humanist than living under any kind of 'God's' morality system. I will leave specifics out until someone accepts the debate, but here is the synopsis of my argument:

Looking at religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism we can clearly see they leave many morals that we have in current society completely out of their holy books, or completely support them. For example, some support slavery, sex slaves, genocide (as long as God says its OK), forced marriages, lack of women's rights, and even the murder of homosexuals for simply being homosexuals. These same holy books also claim that no matter how good a person is, even according to their own laws, if they do not believe in the God of their religion they will be sent to eternal torment and suffering in Hell. The laws of morality of these holy books only truly help one being alone, which is God Himself. In Christianity, the only unforgivable sin is to, in short, know God and then turn away from Him. How could moral laws like this ever truly be considered just and good for humanity? Secular Humanism, I would argue, is a much better system of ascertaining morality being that the morals we gain from this viewpoint are laws that help everyone the best, not the individual person, and seek to help everyone gain full equality so that we all may live the most peaceful and happy lives possible.
Confucius1

Con

I accept this debate. However, you did not mention the rules of this debate so, I would take it that this first round is acceptance. Your assertions of stated religions are incorrect. I will address them in the next around.

My stance is that the Bible is the only way to TRUE objective morality and we use God as a focal point.

I will argue that without God, humanism cannot exist because God is a reference point to all that is good.
Humanism relies on preexisting beliefs that came from God to determine what is ethical and not.
The Bible is the only source to objective morality.
It's important to note that, Christianity and the bible are NOT synonymous. Bible NEVER states to be a Christian or to call yourself anything. The term christian was a derogatory term given to the followers of Christ during the time of Rome. Christ never called himself a Christian, and the apostles never called themselves Christian.
Debate Round No. 1
LughHeim

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, I look forward to a wholesome discussion. The rules are pretty simply; don't use any logical fallacies. If they are used, and pointed out specifically, then the argument the other person is using can be instantaneously thrown out. If you wish to restate your argument without the fallacy, then that is fine. Any kind of external link is prohibited so that each of us can read each other's arguments in a timely manner. Of course, if you are just stating sources, then an external link is fine and appreciated. All quotes are allowed, just remember to state who said it and where they came from. Finally, the last rule is that no personal attacks are allowed. Let us begin.

To start off, I would like to point out the fact that morality can be found historically to not actually have come from the Christian religion. Historically speaking, we currently know that Confucianism, which is a philosophy all about how to live one's life ethically, came about in 550 B.C. in China. I am sure that you would know that nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that Christianity was ever even presented to the Chinese until long after Jesus' death. This is only one example of a single set of ethical laws that were presented not only before Christianity was spread to them, but long before Christianity or Judaism was a religion that had even a decently sized following. Therefore, I would argue that we know historically that ethics was a part of many ancient cultures with no influence whatsoever from the Christian belief set.

Now on to the real meat of my argument. Nature determines ethics is probably the best way I could put my assertion. Humans are hard-wired as a species to want to survive, just like any other animal. As the human species grew, we had to learn through trial and error how to survive as best as possible. We learned how to grow communities through the lessons of pain. For example, we probably learned that murder was bad being it not only took away a member of the group that could help with the gathering of food and resources, but also made the community warier of the being that committed the murder. Through time and trial and error, we learned that murder and stealing were wrong because it caused pain and distrust within the community. Our morals eventually grew like this till now, where we have abolished slavery, given women equal rights, have fairer and more balanced governments, etc.

This way of looking at morality is much better for the general populace, being Humanism is all about working together to help the largest amount of people possible. It is flexible, allowing for itself to change over time to be even better than it currently is. Whereas if you look at the Bible, you see a much darker outlook. You see a morality system that is set up to only benefit one being: God. No matter how difficult or hurtful the morality ascertained from the Bible is, you would seem to claim we must accept it because it is the Word of God Himself.

You may not yet believe me, but I will go ahead and leave you with a couple things we would be forced to believe in if we accepted the Bible as God's Word and made it into law. These laws would allow for: slavery, the raping of women slaves, mass genocide in war (or taking of the women and children as slaves/sex slaves), very few rights for women, the execution of gays, adulterers, and witches, and more.
Confucius1

Con

As I stated in my opening , The Bible and Christianity are not synonymous. You cannot argue Christianity to further reinforce your arguments. Christianity has moral values in it but God and the Bible are the ultimate source of morality.

God pre-exists everything in the universe, so therefore without God there would be NO nature. God is the focal point that we have to look at for everything good. If God exist then moral values and duties do exists. Since God does exist then the moral values and duties we uphold as the human race are objective. From a theistic point of view God is everything that is good, and as someone who believes in God they will strive to be good in everything they do. Their reference point to base off of is GOD. God represents everything that is good so they will strive to be as close as possible to God. I can secular humanist the modern day new atheists. If you assert that God does not exist then therefore moral values do not.

Humanism also claims to be a religion not sure if you knew this. Humanism is legally declared a religion, it was a landmark case of Torcasco v. Watkins in the US Supreme court. Modern humanists will deny because if it is declared a religion it is subject to the 1st amendment. And as a religion in Humanism will worship humanity. This religion had a catechism, sacraments, a sacred calendar, a priesthood, prayers and something imitative of the Trinity. It also had a social system of which Comte was the chief planner. There were people in the Bible who were humanist. Eve was the very first humanist because she ate the forbidden fruit and wanted to be like God.

The religion of humanism are based on faith assumptions like every other religion.

Humanist cannot prove God does not exist.
They cannot prove God does not intervene in human affairs.
Humanist assume man has no spiritual nature.
They assume that absolute moral values do not exist.
They assume there is no sin and no eternal salvation.
They assume there is no heaven or hell.
They assume there is no life after death.

These are all faith assumptions that act like every Judaeo-Christian religion on the planet.

If absolute moral values are not existent on the basis of God then what is the value of human beings? What makes us so special? Why do we have moral obligations to do anything? If we have no absolute moral values then we have no moral accountability for anything that we do.

Humanism denies what we instinctively know to be true. We know that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and rape is wrong. This is not simply because of human condition but because of moral law given to us by God. Humanism offers no answer to the human condition. The bible offers answers to the human condition. Mankind"s task is to seek and find God, , our true redeemer who offers us a better than earthly inheritance.

As for you closing statement; it tells me a few things.

1.You have not read the Bible.
2. If you did you read is with a bias to destroy it. I am assuming you did because humanist are anti-Bible.
3.If you did read it, you did not understand it.

I will ask if you reference the Bible give me the verse. But for the sake of this argument and because of this debate only being three rounds I'll refute everything you said.

First and foremost let me say that the Old Covenant laws we are not bound by. The laws were for the nation of Israel and the since the coming of Jesus we are not under the same laws. We are saved by grace. Anyways let me refute what you stated.

The rape of women I assume you are referring to Numbers 31. Israelite's were allowed to take female captives and rape them? This passage has nothing to do with raping captive women. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and women captives. If it was rape it would have violated the commands in Leviticus. The women who were taken captive were never referred to as sexual objects. They did eventually marry the Israelites but they were never forced into sex.

Slavery in Bible is not the same slavery that has existed in past centuries. People were not enslaved based on race, or their nationality. People were enslaved based off of economics at the time. Slavery was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay off of their debt. Doctors, lawyers and even politicians sold themselves into slavery to pay off their debt. The Bible is not a way to reform society but to salvation. The biblical point on issues is to approach from the inside out. A slave can be a brother of the Lord. Slave traders are seen as ungodly and sinful in the Bible. Slaves are actually referred to as "bondservants" and their are laws on their treatment. I could go on about this but I think you get the point.

Why did he command the mass genocide of people (including children)? God knows the future of everything. We must understand that God's ways are not our ways. His ways are heavenly while our ways are earthly. God is without fault and we are with fault. He knows all and does all for a reason. If Israel did not carry out God"s orders, the Amalekites would come back to trouble the Israelites in the future. This comes from the book of Samuel. Saul lied and said he killed everyone but the king Agag. There were enough Amalekites to come and take David and his men captive. If Saul had followed orders this would have never occured. In fact a few hundreds years later they tried to exterminate the Jewish population, but again if Saul followed God this would have never happened. God commanded the extermination of the Canaanites, to prevent further evil from happening. Israelites failed and we know what happens next. But why did God command the killing of children? Children are NOT innocent and they would have grown up to be as evil as their elders at the time. They would have grown resentful to the Israelites. God prevented evil from happening. I assume you do not know the story because you regurgitate "violent verses" you read online from the bible.

God created both men and women in His own image and made them equal custodians of all His creation. But, because of their disobedience, God punished Adam and Eve and evicted them from the Garden of Eden. Eve's punishment was to suffer pain in childbirth and be ruled over by her husband. Bible promotes feminine freedom, dignity, and honor. Romans 16:1-6; 2 Timothy 1:5 (Philippians 4:3 (Acts 18:26; 21:8-9)

Not everything that the Bible designed for God"s people Israel under the judges or under the kings or that God designs for Christians under the apostles in the New Testament is the same. Putting to death adulterers, putting to death homosexuals, putting to death the sons who curse their parents, all these penalties belonged to a particular season in the history of God"s dealings with his covenant people, and those dealings have changed dramatically with the coming of God"s Son Jesus Christ into the world. The New Testament way of dealing with gays is with church discipline. It is important to understand that homosexuality is a sin. The difference is gays have an opportunity to change their sinful ways by understanding Jesus. God offers ample opportunity to change, and it is only after you ignore opportunity to change will you be damned to hell.

Anyone who opens the door to Christ, will inherit that better country, which God has prepared for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes. How much more excellent is this than all the proud and lofty goals contained in secular humanist manifestos?
Debate Round No. 2
LughHeim

Pro

While you are free to argue if modern Christianity truly follows the Bible, the term Christian still refers to anyone who believes the Bible is the Word of God and at least tries to follow it as law.

While you may argue all you want if God is the source of objective moral values, you would of course have to actually prove that your God specifically exists. The problem here is that you assume any God that could exist would most definitely have moral values at all, or that we were even created by some kind of ultimate God. For all we know, we could have been created by beings that are similar to us, or a God that is completely neutral, we simply just do not know. Regardless, this is not the topic of the debate and I would ask that you stay on topic. The point of this debate is to find which morality system is better for mankind in general, not whether objective morals could exist or not.

Secular Humanism is not a religion by definition. I said in my opening statement that I am arguing for Secular Humanism, not any kind of strange religion. I would ask that you not try to create a strawman to try and make your position seem better. As stated in the beginning of this debate, if a clear logical fallacy is used for an argument I may completely ignore it as it is not a good argument. However, I will still answer your point because I think it may be important for any viewers. To start off, I will restate this again by posting the literal definition of Humanism which is devoid of any kind of religion or religious beliefs

Humanism :" an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

On top of this I have no idea what the hell you are talking about saying that Eve was a Humanist just because she 'wanted to be like God'. That would assume that Humanists believe that the Bible is true, and that Adam and Eve existed in the first place which Secular Humanists simply do not believe.

Going on to the supposed 'faith assumptions' Humanism believes in, none of them are actually faith assumptions whatsoever. It is simply logic. Just because we do not believe in your faith assumptions without any proof whatsoever does not mean in any way we are making a faith assumption as well. If someone came up to me and said that God was really a giant cosmic pink unicorn with omnipotence and omniscience with no proof whatsoever for it, it would not be in any way a faith assumption for me to say I don't believe him. It would be a completely natural response, being he would be telling me something outside of this natural realm exists that is objectively true with no proof in the physical world to prove he is correct. In other words, your argument is quite ridiculous here. This is akin to the age-old argument that Atheism is also a religion somehow, even though it is clearly nothing more than a lack of belief in any kind of God.

"If absolute moral values are not existent on the basis of God then what is the value of human beings? What makes us so special? Why do we have moral obligations to do anything? If we have no absolute moral values then we have no moral accountability for anything that we do."

As I said in my first argument, the basis for such actions is wholly dependent upon nature and survival. Humans naturally do not want to die. It is similar to a parent telling a child not to put their hand on a burning stove. It will hurt the child immensely if it does put its hand on the stove, being your nerve endings will send messages of extreme pain to the brain. We as a species have learned not to do such things because it causes pain and discomfort to others. And we know that the more we hurt others, we heighten our own chances of being hurt by others. For example, if you have a tribe of people and one of the members of that tribe kills someone in their tribe, the rest of the members will be naturally hostile to that person being that person not only caused pain to someone else, but also because that person has a heightened chance of killing someone else in the group. It is natural selection at work in everyday life. Eventually we learned through natural selection that racism, murder, rape, slavery, stealing, etc etc. are wrong. If you opened literally any history book you could get a very clear picture of this. In the end, we act morally because it is the best system for everyone, not just one being. I will expand on that last sentence at the end of this post.

Addressing your concern about my closing statement: once again, as I stated in the very beginning, if you use any kind of logical fallacy or personal attacks, any argument you are using can be dismissed out of hand. To be clear, I was born and bred as a Christian until about 18-19 years old, so yes I do know what the Bible says, I did not read it with a bias to destroy it, and I did understand it. I will refute every single argument you make after saying this with actual Bible verses. I will refer to your argument in quotation marks, and then proceed to state Bible verses.

"The rape of women I assume you are referring to Numbers 31. Israelite's were allowed to take female captives and rape them? This passage has nothing to do with raping captive women. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and women captives. If it was rape it would have violated the commands in Leviticus. The women who were taken captive were never referred to as sexual objects. They did eventually marry the Israelites but they were never forced into sex."

There are multiple verses on this so lets go one by one. The first one was in Mosaic Law:
Deuteronomy 22:29:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Numbers 31:17-18
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
This verse you argued for saying that they intended to marry the women so it was okay; do you truly believe these virgin women had any choice in it? These were forced marriages so that the men could rape the women under the law.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14
I cannot post the full verse here being I'm running out on the character count. So lets continue;

"Slavery in Bible is not the same slavery that has existed in past centuries. People were not enslaved based on race, or their nationality. People were enslaved based off of economics at the time. "

Ahem.
Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

I would also suggest reading Exodus 21: 2-11, 20-21

"Why did he command the mass genocide of people (including children)? God knows the future of everything."

I really do not think I even have to try to fight this point. I would answer more, but I have used up almost all of my character counts. Ultimately my argument boils down to this: According to Christianity genocide and the killing of children who were literally unable to commit sin is totally fine as long as God commands it and in the future they were destined to. This is totalitarianism made whole.
Confucius1

Con

The term "Christian" was given to the followers of Christ by the Romans at the time of Jesus. The term was derogatory in nature, and it is incorrect for someone who claims to follow the Bible to call themselves a Christian. The reason being is that the prophets never called themselves Christians. They labeled their set of beliefs to what we know as Christianity today. This is a separate argument but I want to make this clear before we keep going. You cannot label the followers of the Bible as anything and doing so is using a man-made definition. The Bible never states a name for a religion or anything.

Pro argues that I must prove that God exists to be able to prove that objective morality exists. He says that I am straying from the topic and the point I made is not relevant to this debate. The title of this debate is "Humanism is a better morality system than any religion". If you want to talk about morality in any debate you HAVE to discuss what you deem as morally true. You have to discuss what you think is the basis of moral values. Whether your basis is social consensus or you think it is God given. I will discus God because I believe the Bible (given not a religion, but for the sake of this debate) is the foundation for all moral obligations. Therefore is the Bible is the source I will refer to. Humanist will reject the existence of God and therefore you will reject objective morality. That is why I brought up objective morality because you will deny it. You are saying humanism is better morally than any other religion yet your morals are based off of God. Do you see where I'm getting at?

Good thing you gave the definition. The reason why she is the first humanist is because she attributed her own importance before God! She defied God and did what she thought was important to her. This would not assume that the Bible is true, but it is simply her putting herself before any divine being. As I stated prior that Humanism is the religion of humanity in other words worship of the human essentially.

Pro says humanism has NO faith assumptions! This is a pretty hefty claim that I want the judges to note when we go to vote. I was actually dumbfounded that pro says humanism are no faith assumptions. In fact humanist assumptions all mainly based on faith. There is too much evidence for one to refute. I'm sure you have heard the saying if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swim likes a duck then it must be a duck. Likewise for modern humanism if it has the characteristics of a religion, acts like a religion also been declared a religion legally, then it must be a religion.

A follower of the Christ will openly admit that yes we rely on our faith to provide what we deem as true. I believe in God and everything prescribed in the Bible. These things I hold dearly are based off of faith and what I know to be true. However it is strongly based off of my faith. Faith is a strong trust or complete confidence in something. Faith is NOT the same as logic. Faith is simply being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I have faith in God's existence even though I cannot 100% prove his existence. That is what faith is and humanist has the same faith assumptions. I stated in my prior argument a few of faith assumptions you subscribe too. You did not address them but simply said "no it cannot be true its simply logic". Faith is trust in something especially without having logic. I'll state them again and a few more.

Humanist assume God cannot NOT exist but have no way to prove it.
Humanist assume God does NOT intervene in human life.
Humanist assume mankind has no spiritual nature.
Humanist assume there are no absolute moral values.
Humanist assume their is no sin.
Humanist assume ethics are autonomous
Humanist assume there is no sin.
Humanist assume there is no heaven.
Humanist assume there is no hell.
Humanist assume there is no life after death.
These are ALL faith assumptions because you CANNOT prove any of them to be true.

It is ultimately God who determines what is wrong and what is not right for us. The reason we have these feelings are basis of God. Without God there is no nature. God is the creator of everything in life. The reason we changed our morals is because of social consensus. Homosexuality years ago was thought as sinful and now today it is legal in society. Does that mean it is right because we change as a society? No it does not because the basis of our moral values and accountability ultimately go back to God. God holds us morally accountable for our actions in life. Without God we would have a rampant society and there would be no rational feeling that murder is wrong. But we have these feelings not because of what nature says but because of God. Humans do want to die, not sure if you know suicide and those dying for their faith. Moral obligations is rising out of what is considered right and wrong. God wills this moral obligation! Without God as the basis their is NO objective morality just brainless sheep running around.

Deuteronomy 22:29 is addressed in two passages:

Exodus 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this, he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him! Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" " this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 allowed for divorce and also in Matthews. I could go on but I am running out of characters,

Numbers 31
Pro says: This verse you argued for saying that they intended to marry the women so it was okay; do you truly believe these virgin women had any choice in it? These were forced marriages so that the men could rape the women under the law.
There is no indication of rape of these women. Rape is not directly mentioned but the in the Jewish culture rape was sexually immoral. Rape would have violated this command (Leviticus 15:16"18)

I have refuted the slavery claim for you. I'll copy it again.
Slavery in Bible is not the same slavery that has existed in past centuries. People were not enslaved based on race, or their nationality. People were enslaved based off of economics at the time. Slavery was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay off of their debt. Doctors, lawyers and even politicians sold themselves into slavery to pay off their debt. The Bible is not a way to reform society but to salvation. The biblical point on issues is to approach from the inside out. A slave can be a brother of the Lord. Slave traders are seen as ungodly and sinful in the Bible. Slaves are actually referred to as "bondservants" and their are laws on their treatment. I could go on about this but I think you get the point.

The bible teaches children are NOT innocent and they are not without sin. We are born into sin! God prevented further evil from happening by killing off the people. I want to say but I am out of characters.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LughHeim 1 year ago
LughHeim
Sorry Sarcastic, this guy took the debate. But give me a bit and I will open up a new debate for us to talk about buddhism
Posted by LughHeim 1 year ago
LughHeim
Those damn twitter wars changed all of our lives forever.....
Posted by LughHeim 1 year ago
LughHeim
Sure I will debate that. I'll go ahead and edit the debate!
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 1 year ago
SarcasticIndeed
Would you debate that the practice of Buddhism is not pointless :P?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Religions are books. Humanism exist because of books...Systems...And Twitter.
Posted by LughHeim 1 year ago
LughHeim
Haha yeah, I don't have much of a problem with Buddhism at all. I personally think it is kind of pointless personally, but not evil.
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 1 year ago
SarcasticIndeed
Lol, I'd argue Buddhist morals but they don't disagree that much with your definition of humanism.
Posted by LughHeim 1 year ago
LughHeim
I would definitely say there are some parts of eastern religions that are definitely immoral and have created quite a bit of suffering. For example, Hinduism and the Caste system. You could say it boils down to utilitarianism, but let me just go ahead and post the definition of humanism so that we can be clear: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 1 year ago
SarcasticIndeed
I'd also like a less vague definition of what you consider to be the morality system of "humanism". Does it boil down to utilitarianism?
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 1 year ago
SarcasticIndeed
What about Eastern religion and morality systems? I'm thinking of debating this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
LughHeimConfucius1Tied
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