The Instigator
MrJs1G
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
ourgodisaconsumingfire
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Humans Can 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,507 times Debate No: 15622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (4)

 

MrJs1G

Pro

The claim which suggests or states that humans need God to be good is an erroneous one.

An example of good without God is the history of the country of Sweden.

Sweden has been proven to be one of most secular countries in the entire world. [1][2] Despite it being against the Iraq war holistically, "Sweden expects to take in three times [as] many" Iraqi refugees than the United States. [3]

My next point of contention: if there were a God of any of the monotheistic faiths - whose existence has yet to be proven by scientific and material evidence - he should not be an example humans would desire emulate for a moral life. If this deity did exist, again, whose presence humans have no evidence of, his mandates and examples should not be followed in order to live a moral life. I shall elaborate on this point if an opponent takes up my challenge.

My next point of contention - studies have shown monkeys, a relative with whom humans share 96% of their genome with, have a sense of morality, thus leading us to the conclusion that morality is innate in us. Again, more studies and elaborations will follow if I am challenged. [4][5][6]

Lastly, an alternative. If no supernatural being can dictate what is right and wrong, then what can? Science. Science can determine human values and morals by essentially calculating human well-being in certain circumstances.

With this, I conclude my challenge.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://czso.cz...
[3] http://abcnews.go.com...
[4] http://www.str.org...
[5] http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
[6] http://thescribblersweb.com...
ourgodisaconsumingfire

Con

I would like to thank the challenge my opponent has put upon me in this debate. This is something at one time being a legitimate topic many are confused by and why there is proof of God can be summed up in a matter of evidence. I am a Christian as believing there is a God. Burden of Proof will easily be determined in this argument. As in every debate in College or even at the High School level we have to determine evidence. I myself at one time was not a Christian and believed in no God. I through research and study found the truth through evidence. Now it is time to debunk my opponents very well stated opening.

The country of Sweden has God... They are actually one of the most religious countries in the world. According to a recent religious survey from the United Nations backed by the United States; More than 85 percent of this country follows a God of some sort. The Church of Sweden's members are a staggering 79.6 percent of the whole country. My opponent used a non reliable source for his argument. My link below will sum up any confusion.

1. http://www.state.gov... (Swedish religion report backed by the U.N and U.S) copy and paste link.

My second point is that I do have a God whose morals I try to follow as much as humanly possible. Jesus Christ is explained as this in the book of St. John Chapter One verse 14 - And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us(and we beheld his glory, the glory was of the only one begotten of the Father) Full of grace and truth. John was speaking here about Christ. Who became God in flesh. The evidence of my God who I worship in faith and truth is in EVIDENCE. Yes I have evidence historical facts of Christ. These are the ones from Non Judeo Christians.

Pliny the Younger - "[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up" 112 AD Asia Minor
The Caesar's accounts - Nero's personal documents and writings concerning Christ anywhere between 15 - 33 AD.
Josephesus - "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (37 AD)
Cornelius Tacitus - "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate's, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Julius Africanus - Stated in his third book of the histories that during Christ's crux fiction there was an eclipse. An eclipse not explained by any sciences at the given time. He explained that his document for this was Thallus 52 AD.
The Talmud - This Jewish document even states that Christ was hanged on the cross after Passover 70 AD.
Justin Martyr on the "Acts of Pontius Pilate" - "And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."

All of these sources are simple to find. Go to a library and look up the works of these people they are all readily available to anyone that will look. I exerted some from The Harvard text book of Roman History as well as some from the original Roman Latin works. As well as that we can also look into the Greek texts and Aramaic texts of the New Testament. These are in the following college libraries.

University of Michigan
University of London
University of Harvard
University of Yale

As well as Roman Catholic sources in the Vatican library.

These were scientific men of The Roman Empire the Sanhedrin as well. These are non Christian sources besides the one of Justin the Martyr on the Acts of Pontius Pilate. The Acts was Lost in the crusades. Justin the Martyr was citing from the work of the Acts of Pontius Pilate. We can conclude that I have given the proof of burden stating my evidence for my God.

Next in line is the studies of monkeys. This is totally biased on atheistic pre determined belief. The Cite that my opponent used (http://www.str.org...) is from a Christian website debunking the claim. These studies have held no water at all. These are animalistic behaviors. As a dog and a bone is the same the dog is territorial over his possession. Traits as humans we characterize with ourselves are simply us as humans giving the animal emotion. An animal has nerves therefore it will feel an amount of pain. A dog will get jealous over food and an attention. So as humans we personalize this with ourselves; giving the animal human traits which are not there in the first place. The scientific method is flawed. There is no proof of besides that of human intellect where Atheism came from. Humans are the only creature to possess the power of free will. This statement is a proven fact. Even the greatest sciences had to believe in a greater power in order to understand man's science.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Never coming to belief in a personal God. In fact he did believe in an all knowing power. "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." He also stated that "God does not play dice"

There are many other quotes and figures of science stating the evidence that there has to be a God. I will leave this up to my opponent to find; I have found my belief through research.

On his last statement in what universe does God himself not know right from wrong. This is the staple to facts that all religions are based on. The power of good and evil and the powers that dictate these. Science can never dictate human thoughts such as free will. The thoughts in a serial killers mind or a rapist mind. Science has no power over these things. In all religions God does dictate good and evil read any Bible or Torah. Read any Buddhist documents. Read the Quran we see that God does dictate power and does not even have to question himself.

In this I conclude that the evidence is their for a God if we look. I stated my evidence and burden of proof. My sources are all from college manuscripts and one website. As it says in the Bible Christ stated that the truth will set you free. I find that this debate will be circular coming from an atheist. I also encourage you to look and not rely on false theories. Go to the history of the source. I will also state that God does exist he came to earth in the flesh and died for our sins. I pray you look unto the light. See that Christ himself was perfect and rose from the grave. Love others as you love yourself. Science is flawed by human hands. God is perfection
Debate Round No. 1
MrJs1G

Pro

Unfortunately for my opponent, the study which cites to negate my source is nullified by the study which my initial study is based on. [1] I stand by my first post. My opponent is objectively wrong here. My study is more recent and is from a European study poll which is much more substantive and reliable than his study, since it is from the highly reputed European Commission.

Only 23% of the people of Sweden believe in a monotheistic God – again, corroborating my thesis that humans can indeed be good without God. I end up back in my initial contention about the relationship between Iraqi refugees and Sweden stated in my opening arguments.

My opponent quotes from a book as evidence for a scientific and historical claim, which has not been proven by him or her, thereby rendering the source useless. If my opponent does not explain the validity of his or her source, then there is no reason why anybody should take his quotes seriously. I can as easily quote that "I have a hollow unicorn underneath my house" according to my diary, but since I have not proven the veracity or the solidity of my source, the quote is obsolete.

Moreover, my opponent seems a bit confounded. This debate is not about historical figures or holy books for that matter; we are here to debate whether or not morals without the monotheistic god of any of the three mainstream holy books is possible or not. If my opponent refuses to accept this fact, then my contentions should sound much more resounding since I provided all the evidence for the thesis and my opponent has offered none against it.

Again, the validity of Jesus as a historical figure is an interesting topic, but not the one at hand. My opponent is avoiding the given topic at hand. Perhaps he is intimidated by the lack of evidence he has on his side. I reiterate: this debate is whether or not humans are able to be moral without a monotheistic god of the three main faiths or not.

My opponent seems to blab on and on about the historical accuracy of Jesus. This circumvention has been noted and addressed above.
My opponent states "We can conclude that I have given the proof of burden stating my evidence for my God." It seems as though he or she is perplexed about the difference between a historical figure and an omnipotent and omniscient deity. If he or she is confused by such a clear distinction, I beg of the audience to use their imagination to wonder what else he could possibly be confused about.
Despite my mis-citation of a link, my opponent still has not responded to my other two sources corroborating monkey morality. Since silence is assertion, his silence is acceptance of my claims, which undermine the totality of what he is arguing for.

My opponent cites absolutely nothing in support of his claims. No scientific data, statistics, or studies to support his claim about humans being equivalent to dogs in terms of animalistic behavior. As the avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens would say, "that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". [2]

My opponent impetuously and unambiguously states the "The scientific method is flawed." Again, no methodology or citations. Simply a claim without adequate research or backing. Time and time again, my opponent refuses to cite any type of serious scientific study or research. He is swaying away from the topic and challenge at hand time and time again.

Without context, my opponent disingenuously mis-quotes notable scientists from the past. Isaac Newton lived in the 17th century, when it "was still seen as an illness or a result of a perverse will, since it was not apparent how such a view could be held rationally" as according to the University of Cambridge's "Investigating Atheism" project. [3] If Newton had been conceived in a later time period, atheism would be much more widely accepted and much more commonplace. After all, he would not have wanted to end up like Galileo Galilei, who lived during the same era, would he? [4]

Albert Einstein did in fact not believe in a personal or "all knowing power" as my opponent says. He or she is being dishonest here again; sadly however, this does not seem too uncommon at this point. To clarify my opponent's disingenuous intent to confound the audience, here are some quotes Einstein unequivocally meant to be interpreted as they are.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)" [5]

Again, my opponent makes no attempt at connecting morality with his or her monotheistic deity. This debate is now becoming a farce, as it seems my opponent will not address the issue at hand.

Apparently, the God in the Old Testament does not know from right and wrong, despite what my opponent superficially claims without any type of evidence. He has committed mass genocide on multiple occasions in the Old Testament. [6][7][8][9][10][11] This is simply a minute number of examples from the vast library of other atrocities the Christian God has allowed, or even directly commissioned.
Humans don't have a choice but to have free will. Thus, the fact that the mainstream God will "bestow" upon his creation free will is dishonest of him, to say the least.

Science actually does and is beginning to understand these types of thoughts. My opponent is obviously ignorant of a nascent field named "neurotics". He or she should definitely delve into this field, as it debunks whatever claims he or she states science cannot explain. [12]

My opponent has the burden of proof stating that his or her God is not a malevolent one, as he is making the outstanding claim. Despite me having instigated this debate, he or she, by accepting the challenge, has accepted his or her onus. Despite this however, my opponent has, time and time again, refused to provide any type of evidence or contentions for his or her side that humans cannot be good without God.

Now, for points of my own.

My first point of contention is that reciprocal altruism is innate in us humans. This concept conveys that morality is based on our evolution as a species. This can be seen In Dr. Trivers' work. [13]

My second point of contention is that sexual selection has further encouraged the moral behavior of humans, again independent of a mainstream God. For more elaboration on this topic, I refer to the psychologist Geoffrey Miller. [14]

My third and last point of contention is that kin selection is a biological phenomenon which also promotes moralistic behavior without a monotheistic God. [15][16]

For my opponent to win this debate, he or she must debase my arguments, construct new ones, actually address the topic, and rebut my contentions.

[1] http://ec.europa.eu...
[2] http://www.slate.com...
[3] http://www.investigatingatheism.info...
[4] http://books.google.com.au...
[5] http://www.spaceandmotion.com...
[6] http://biblia.com...
[7] http://biblia.com...
[8] http://biblia.com...
[9] http://biblia.com...
[10] http://biblia.com...
[11] http://biblia.com...
[12] http://www.neuroethics.upenn.edu...
[13] http://www.cdnresearch.net...
[14] http://www.unm.edu...
[15] http://www.mendeley.com...
[16] http://www.jstor.org...
ourgodisaconsumingfire

Con

Burden of Proof is the matter here to my opponent. Which I knew from an atheist that this debate would be circular; and have a few Dawkin's or Hitchen's quotes.

In my opening I clearly marked every point that you made and clarified it. I also gave you physical proof of a God that people believe in that people follow. All of my evidence comes from history and not biased websites. I will prove in this that people cannot be good without God.

The Sweden dilemma - This will be circular; Atheist will point out Sweden every time. A country that does not even require a census bureau. No one in Sweden is checking on churches or mosques. Sweden like many other small European countries is just that small. It is though harboring a huge amount of Islam inside its boundaries. Recent Muslim sources are saying over 25 percent of Stockholm is Islamic. If you look closely at your report it is not that they do not believe in God my friend. It is that they do believe in something therefore they are agnostic. So they do have their own God just not what many of us think as a God. I am although not agreeing with your source just debunking it. It does say they believe in something just not what.

As to the validity of my sources. My validity is archaeological evidence that are in the museums that I stated. If you want you can look at the quotes and see that it will say where they are and in what book. The Harvard text book I was using uses almost all of them. I Gave my opponent the burden of proof with the evidence therefore the burden of proof is on him now; We all know that it will be impossible for an atheist to prove their is no God. This is the one thing that they can never do in debate. You have no physical proof when I have a walking God in the flesh I have proven he was historically reliable. In a court of law I would have cause beyond a reasonable doubt.

With your quotes on Albert Einstein.... You realize again that he believed in God he just didn't realize what he was looking for. He says it in the quotes you used.

Here is another quote from the confused Mr. Einstein I can clarify this one.

"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein

You gave a weak argument for people can be good without God. Because obviously even Einstein believed in something.

Clarity of what Einstein was looking for..

Christ Said this in Revelation 22:13 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

As humans we are in no order to question God therefore we have no control over it. We all do dance to a tune called creation. The invisible piper is God.

Everything God decrees happens - .Is14:24,27;43:13;55:11;Jn10: 29;Heb6:17;Mt28:18;Examples:

Dan - 9:26;11:27,35,36;12:1

He knows & sees all - .1Jn3:20;Ps139;Pr5:21;15:3; Heb4:13;Is46:10

God does as He pleases - Mt20:15;Ps115:3;135:6;Rm9:20;Dn4:35

Nothing is too hard for God - Gen18:14;Jb42:2;Jer32:17; Mt19:26

God rules over all. Ps 103:19

Now he will say I challenge the Validity of your sources. So I will give you this my sources are from the Greek Bible. These were translated from Aramaic and Hebrew. They have over 5300 Identical copies in college libraries around the world. This is supported by the largest religious population in the world. Christianity. I will cite a small percentage of my vast sources the final round.

The Scientific data? why would I use it. I just used common since with the dog statement. Dog's get jealous of their bone. Just as the monkey with his banana. You don't see millions of people claiming to be coming from dog's because there dog's are jealous of bones. This point with the monkey you made is not valid.

You yourself are not backing up claims with any proof. You are backing up everything with a theory of something that someone made up. Therefore it is my solid evidence against your frail argument.

With what you said about God destroying things in the Old Testament....
God is right and wrong. He created the universe a human has no power to question his authority. What God does is not of our standard but of his.
Sodom and Gomorrah these places have been found. (http://www.arkdiscovery.com...)
We all know that this place was wicked so God destroyed it because their was no inherit good in it.
The flood of Noah
This took place after God told his faithful servant to build an Ark. People laughed and scorned Noah but indeed there was a flood and Noah with his family survived the flood.
I can go on and on with these but the point is; humans that believe in God do not question God. Without God we would have no rules.

Evidence is in the Validity of the scriptures as historical evidence. This has been prove even my opponent said this is true. So to argue with the Torah scriptures is a bad argument for you. The Children of Israel believed in God. They followed his commands when they didn't God indeed punished them. After this though with the New Testament we were offered a new covenant through Christ our Lord to accept. I as a Christian accepted this covenant. God does bestow free will on us. Are you not able to go to the store and choose what food you would like to eat? Are you not able to believe in atheism? Are you not able to go out and murder someone if you would like? This is free will the thought process of man. We believe Christ will come back and punish the ones who have not accepted him as God. We believe in as free will the choice to accept Christ. The Torah was for guidance and what could happen if God's children walk off the beaten path. The Bible is still held as the most accurate book in history by more than 8,000 scholars. So my claim is in no way dishonest because we do have FREE WILL.

Neurotics again is not anything reliable. Neurotic science came from people who were diagnosed with neurosis. Neurosis which is a condition in where one is completely stressed and cannot function properly was medically thrown out years ago. Neurotic by definition is just this
Oxford Dictionary Neurotic Science - Of, relating to, or affected with a neurosis. No longer in scientific use.

There is no Neurotic science. There is no verifiable definition for it. Therefore my opponent must be making things up along the way. Not a reliable source to base arguments on.

Kin Selection - Never proven by anyone. This cannot be proven because there are people who kill their families and kin.

Greg Miller - No name psychologist with a pointless study. look him up for yourself people.

Dr.Trivers - Another study in which only himself and maybe you believe in it?....

These cites are not valid and would be thrown out in a debate or court of law.

The simple statement is the only reason we have Good is because we have a God. This is theology and an Atheist is not one to question it. God is what made human society know good from evil. If we had never known this we would still be animals. God just makes sense it has every question answered you would want it too from the beginning to the end. God is real it is just up to you to look for it. C.S Lewis the former atheist and one of the greatest writers of all time put it as this.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - Mere Christianity

I have given my opponent proof beyond a reasonable doubt I will cite all sources next round. I will keep it to only 50 to 100 of reliable college cites.

People that can do good without God we call them something
They are either Faithless.
Or they are Criminal
Debate Round No. 2
MrJs1G

Pro

First and foremost, I would like to thank my opponent yet again for such a quick response. Onto the debate.
My opponent is seriously mistaken. Since he is the one claiming something outside of the accepted scientific and historical analyses, he is the one with the onus of proof. His attempt at sticking me with the onus clearly shows he is ignorant of his own beliefs and those around him.

He opens up with a personal attack, an insult both to me and the audience who is reading this. The topic here is NOT about atheism or belief; it is about whether humans can be good with a God of the mainstream faiths. Since my opponent does not know enough about the topic at hand, unequivocally conveyed by his previous posts, he attacks me and my beliefs personally.

My opponent's dialogue is peppered with my nonbelief – again corroborating my above point. My opponent has very few formal citations, leading us to believe he is drawing within himself for so-called "facts". A prime example of this is when he states unfounded claims such as "Recent Muslim sources are saying over 25 percent of Stockholm is Islamic. If you look closely at your report it is not that they do not believe in God my friend". There are no citations, no evidence for these claims. Sweden is by majority, a secular country because it holistically does not believe in a mainstream religious belief.

Anybody who doubts the veracity of my Sweden claim can check the link I stated above. Again, only 23% of Swedes believe in a mainstream God, making it, via majority, secular. Again, I have cited, unlike my opponent, my sources above. They are open for all to see.

My opponent has not formally cited any "archaeological evidence" in his previous posts. FORMAL CITATIONS are what is to be expected in this type of forum and debate. If my opponent is incapable of providing these citations, which he unequivocally has not, then it will unambiguous who is the winner of this debate. Also, up to this point, my opponent has not addressed the topic at hand: whether humans can be moral without a God.

Albert Eistein was a pantheist – by definition [1] and by my above quotes. It is not my problem if my opponent is too intellectually lazy to differentiate the two.

The quote my opponent utilizes is again, disingenuous. The quote points to no type of higher, personal God. It simply states that Einstein believed in the god of the natural order. This definition of Einstein's "god" has been severely misconstrued, and apparently, confused and abused.

My opponent again quotes the Bible – to which he has provided no support for the historical accuracy. Just because the Bible is used in numerous places does not signify its veracity. I could as easily have stated that slavery is justified due to the large number of people accepting the pro-slavery The Planter's Northen Bride by Caroline Lee Heintz. [2]

Yet again, my adversary states absolutely NO scientific evidence for the connection between the dogs and their affinity for bones. Again, the audience will decide which side is more plausible – the contentions advocated by numerous scientific studies or the arguments supported by zero evidence.

Finally, my opponent make a claim remotely resembling the topic at hand with his fragile "God is right and wrong." If God is "right and wrong" then he is at times wrong – making him an unreliable source for objective and absolute morality. My opponent has contradicted his platform.

The link which my opponent provides for the evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah is facetious. There are pictures of dubious minerals, rocks, and landscapes. Not a single citation, piece of documentation, or scientific report following up these images. To the extent which my opponent has provide sources up to now however, it is not so unpredictable.

If Sodom and Gomorrah were such "wicked" cities, then why would such a benevolent God kill them so ruthlessly? Why should the omnipotent God not give those humans the tools to repair their own morals? The claim that this God would extirpate his creation to set an example of morality is as ludicrous as the fact that there are no immoral cities today destroyed by "eternal fire". [3]

My opponent does not elaborate on the fact that the flood killed all of the civilization, excluding Noah. This fact seems to be disgustingly condoned by my adversary, however. Cleansing everybody with those who do not meet your standards is not a moral principle or attitude. By miserably attempting to connect this cleansing with morality, my opponent fails to see this inherent contradiction in his argument.

His next points have been addressed above.

"Neurotics again is not anything reliable". My opponent is now placing words into my mouth. I never stated this – I simply stated for him to research more about neuroethics and its field. I have provided the appropriate sources above, albeit it seems like he refused to take the time to investigate my claims more thoroughly.

Without addressing my point about innate biological morality, these points still stand. My opponent has refused to address these contentions of reciprocal altruism, kin selection, and sexual selection.

The next points which my opponent makes have been addressed time and time again above.

In conclusion, my opponent fails miserably in arguing for his side. He seems to circumvent around the issue of morality at hand, instead delving into impertinent claims supported by absolutely no evidence. My previous points about biogloical morality still stand, as my adversay simply utilizes ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the actual biological findings.

In conclusion, I win because I have actively pushed and evidently supported findings with facts and papers. My opponent has done the exact opposite.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://docsouth.unc.edu...
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com...;
ourgodisaconsumingfire

Con

Without God there is no good or evil. There are no Morals in play. Without a God there is no Atheism. Without a God there would be no United States there would be no England there would be no France there would be no World Powers.

Can humans really be good without God?

No they cannot without a set of rules we would be animals. Dr. Ron Rhodes has stated that "it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good." Think about it. If we have no starting line no place to set the bar then we would have never known good from evil.
My opponent stated this in the first round. "If there were a God of any of the monotheistic faiths - whose existence has yet to be proven by scientific and material evidence - he should not be an example humans would desire emulate for a moral life."

I say this - Why shouldn't they be followed. As a person with faith I see God as perfect, something not obtainable for me a a mere human. I would although like to try my hardest. This is the mainstream practice for all religion. All faiths with a monotheistic God try to their best ability to follow in their God rules, ways, and light.
Christians - Try to be Christ like in their walk with their personal savior.
Buddhist - Try to emulate the teachings and the thought processes of Buddha.
Muslims - Follow the guidelines set by their God Allah and follow their major prophet Muhhamads footsteps with many rituals and holidays.
Orthodox Judaism - Try to follow all rules set by God from the Torah. From circumcision to the ten commandments fasting and holidays set by God.

The argument set forth by my worthy opponent is circular in nature from his responses. The simple matter is without a God how do you know that you are a good person? How do you line up with something in which you as an atheist have no line to follow. Here is Atheism by definition.
Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of Atheism - archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2. a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Again I say... Without a God there would be no Atheist. Therefore in reality yourself as an Atheist believe in a deity. You merely refute it and deny that there is one because you have found no faith.

The Monkey Problem - 1. Did we evolve from monkeys?
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
http://www.pbs.org...

You see science would like to make you think they have the answers. When in reality they thereselves have no evidence. The key points in this is that since we did not evolve from monkeys nor apes how do we share genomes with them if we as it says above our own species. "Scientists believe this common ancestor existed " scientists (believe) they a common ancestor existed yet this has never been proved. With this I conclude that my opponents recent study has been once again flawed. If they can say they (believe) in this ancestor; there is no proof or hard evidence stating that WE ARE RELATED TO MONKEYS.... When we are not evolved from either. So this only means one thing science is flawed.

Can science calculate human morals and values?
No once again. If they could calculate this we would have no Murder. We would have no sexual crimes. We would have no violence. The reason why is if we had the science we would have a system in place to control us. We would have monitors or a policing system if this was plausible. Again this is where our God and creator gave us a spirit and a free will. My opponent never even tried to state anything about how we as humans have free will. Science cannot explain and never can.
Julian Baggini a philosopher and science major who holds a PhD. From the University of London stated this.
"The main reason is that the very notion of a science of the self depends on us identifying its subject - the self - from the perspective of first-person experience. Science can correct false beliefs about what sustains that experience, and it can explain what makes such experience possible, but it cannot change what it means to be a self without erasing the very data it depends on."
While writing his book "The Ego Trick" an interview with neuropyschologist Paul Broks stated this - "I don't think the self is ultimately a scientifically tractable question"
In contention science and psychology cannot even explain the soul.
You can read the whole article here - http://brandondedicant.livejournal.com...

Sources that more than 5% of Sweden is Muslim.
Muslim source of Islamic Sweden - http://www.euro-islam.info...
A list of Mosques in Sweden - http://www.livingislam.org...
A blog of Sweden being Islam's best state - http://islamineurope.blogspot.com...
My original U.S and U.N backed religion report on Sweden - http://www.state.gov...

Isaac Newton most certainly believed in God and never would have been Atheist. Here is a cite from a website. His writings on belief and God auctioned off in 1936 clearly showed how he adored his faith.
http://www.ctlibrary.com...

Albert Einstein - Considered himself religious. He even stated although not having a personal God he was looking for ONE (one as in Monotheistic) Quote
On the nature of God: "That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." in my second round I have my reasoning for whom he was searching.
My opponent also mis quoted my "right and wrong" I made a mistake and meant to put God is right and human is wrong. I award my opponent for catching this mistake. As I caught his using a Christian publication denying his claim.

The Canine Issue - Here is a scientific study clearing this up from a very reputable source - http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Formal Archaeological Cites Of Christ as a real worshiped Monotheistic God who lived and died and arose. These are Non Judeo Christian Sources.
Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112) wrote to Emperor Trajan note In the Library of the Vatican
Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117) The Annals of Tacitus
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) Lives of the Twelve Caesars
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100) Antiquities of the Jews
The Talmud (70 AD) The Tannaim
Acts of Pilate First Apology (c. 150)
Julius Africanus - Third book of the histories Thallus 52 AD.

Kin Selection not Valid it is a weak theory - http://www.science20.com...
Reciprocal Altruism -Contemporary debates in cognitive science By Robert Stainton page 123 once again is not evidence Google it, it will show you the truth.
Sexual Selection - Is a unstable theory proved weak many times. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20088870

In conclusion I cited many sources. I gave you cause beyond reasonable doubt that without God there would be no good. Religions follow a God and Government follows the commandments given by religion. Science has no evidence that there is not a God. We do have evidence of Christ a moral God who came in the flesh. That most of the world follows. Evidence. Physical proof. Without God we wouldn't know good. Without a line that was set by God; mankind would have never had rules to follow. We would have no system without God. In conclusion we need God to be good. We cannot have morals or good without a God thank you
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by secularhumanist 5 years ago
secularhumanist
"I highly doubt you are a genious. If you were you would not be an atheist..." So you consider someone to be a genius based on their religious position instead of their intelligence. Nice.
Posted by secularhumanist 5 years ago
secularhumanist
I won't respond to your fallacies point by point but I will point out that religion too is "man made" if you're going to veer down that road. Man is forced to his local physical constraints in order to produce material explanations for observable phenomena from inductive logic and expand on their laws using deductive logic after extended periods of testing.

I never once claimed myself to be a genius, so your retort there is moot. Science is man-made insofar that we developed a system to utilize our observations to form testable conclusions, and each factor therein is taken in within a degree of certainty. That is, science can prove a proposition to be valid, but not objectively true since empiricism makes unprovable assumptions about the nature of reality.

Focusing on this point, I'd like to say that faith requires no evidence at all to postulate a claim. You can make any claim you like in the world and ascribe the remotest 'evidence' to its validity using criteria that superficially seem neutral. What you cite as physical evidence is physical but certainly its status as evidence regards historical evidence of Jesus -- his divinity here -- is questionable.

We have only written accounts to take in as physical evidence. I have no concern for the context it was written in, since there is nothing to ascribe the context to to validate those experiences. It can be written anyway you like -- doesn't change the fact that the document's validity can still be challenged on the same grounds.

"I am a college major in philosophy currently going to law school." You can have the highest marks in school and still lack in critical thinking and this is evident from you here.

"Science is man made... Which all man is flawed. So no BOP depends on history and facts not science."

That doesn't even make sense. Science makes active use of history through set precedents and logged observations and experiments, and utilizes facts as axioms in order to form hypotheses from
Posted by ourgodisaconsumingfire 5 years ago
ourgodisaconsumingfire
You have no physical evidence. - That is Atheism stop talking about yourself. Atheism is the biggest blind faith of nothing I have ever seen.

I do not think you read the Debate I gave evidence to every point he made.

You have faulty argumentation presented unintelligently with numerous inconsistencies along their assertions, and you provide no evidence for particular statements.

You are Young. I highly doubt you are a genious. If you were you would not be an atheist... I am a college major in philosophy currently going to law school.

How do we know Christ turned water into wine... Well the Gospels are accounts of peoples in the time of Christ that seen the miracles. That is how they are written. They are not written as Fairy Tales they are superbly written in the fashion of greek literature. If one would look at the style the language and the context it is easy to see that they are accounts.

Society believed that the earth was in the center of the universe and that earth was flat
Society did yes but in the book of Job in the Bible and Isaiah it descriped the eath as a globe; Described it as a sphere.... Evidence pretty shcoking when the rest of the world was thinking it was round.

some evidence ??? - Besides the Bible there are over 125 Documents mentioning Jesus as followed. Over 200 that say he was God in the Flesh. Atheism = Nothing thats the definition of it Nothing.

In court the one with the more proof wins. More physical documents of history wins. Atheism = none.... Christianity = Thousands

Since these claims cannot be tested because of their metaphysical nature along with the various logical explanations that contradict them without producing new assumptions, it's safe to say that the existence of God cannot be empirically proven or disproven but rather left to science to rationally prove or disprove it

?? Science is man made... Which all man is flawed. So no BOP depends on history and facts not science.
Posted by secularhumanist 5 years ago
secularhumanist
"Nothing is safe to assume when I have the phusical evidence. You may not (believe) in it but over 4 billion people do. In court I win and my opponent would lose. Why ? because I brought evidence he brought theory and animal studies. Just because one is biased in atheism does not mean he should not look at the evidence wolf. I was an atheist for over 5 years. Atheism makes no sense at all....."

You have no physical evidence. You have faulty argumentation presented unintelligently with numerous inconsistencies along their assertions, and you provide no evidence for particular statements. For example, how does lacking a belief in a deity make you biased toward 'evidence'?
When using an empirical framework held together by logical scientific principles, what you consider to be evidence is actually logically, empirically, historically and scientifically supported and tested to be essential to the validity of a theory, hypothesis or question. Evidence isn't found in a logical fallacy like an appeal to population amongst other innumerable ones.

Utilizing a framework that's closer to reality because it can be rationally and empirically retested concerning theories is actually a fairer statement of lack of bias compared to lack of critical thinking since the standards towards evaluating any principle deemed worthy of scientific investigation do not change -- whether it be God's existence or some field in quantum theory.

Granted, the system is based on the principle of how we assume knowledge is derived. We are forced to material considerations and constraints in order to produce material explanations that are material insofar as they can be empirically validated through observation, testing and deductive reasoning stemming from a hypothesis formed by empirical observations and consequently inductive reasoning.

How does atheism not make sense? It's a lack of belief in a deity. It doesn't assert anything further. If you wish to debate me on this, do so.
Posted by secularhumanist 5 years ago
secularhumanist
"You Wolf cannot prove that their is no God. You have not one shred of proof that no one exist when I do. A physical person that existed that is worshiped as God today and for 2,000 years. I win the burden of proof is on my side."

An instance of a person being hailed as a deity for an extended period of time is not proof of their divinity. There are several New World explorers, for example, who were mistakenly hailed by isolated tribes as deities because their shipping vessels bore the image of of an icon with a remarkable likeness to a deity they worshiped. One example that comes to mind is British captain James Cook who explored the coast of Hawaii in 1779.

The tribesmen there had a fertility god named Lono who was virtually identical in appearance to the image on Cook's mast. He was killed shortly after he paid a second visit because his ship arrived condition much to the tribe's disappointment. But for a while, he was worshiped -- the tribesmen celebrated his first arrival which coincidentally was also the festival of Lono -- so basically his arrival at that time was something akin to a personal invitation from God to party down. Did he keep that standard up? No.

The point being that anyone given the appropriate extenuating circumstances can be mistaken for a God and have their 'miracles' exaggerated as I'd said before in my last comment. How do we know Jesus really turned water into wine?

Maybe he knew a little something about sleight of hand, or maybe he was going about his normal business when someone mistook his actions for something divine because they didn't understand the significance of their utility to him -- which wouldn't be surprising since Jesus was pretty eccentric as described by accounts, and given the different ethnic and religious groups that resided around him in his time, a misunderstanding between culture or the like could have been easily exploited.
Posted by secularhumanist 5 years ago
secularhumanist
"You see Christ was real he was blameless and perfect and is worshiped by Christian's and also is Islam's messiah. The two world's largest religion's he is real life. Besides that he is a historical person with evidence."

Faulty argument. Those numbers don't suggest that he existed at all. Society believed that the earth was in the center of the universe and that earth was flat. Does that mean by virtue of the propagation of their belief that they were right? The validity of a proposition without strong scientific evidence to commit to a belief isn't justified if you only plan to use numbers of people who believe in something without evidence. Regards historical evidence, just because there may be some evidence that he existed in some capacity doesn't mean he actually was who people say he is. People are known to exaggerate stories of people once lived to make them sound more appealing to the audience. Christianity is no different when you consider that its tall tales were most likely fueled by some lust for power.

How else are you going to appeal to the majority who cannot apply critical thinking to statements? How else will you control them to be subservient to you so you can direct the flow of their capital through "charitable donations" to the Church? People always submit their stories about how they visited heaven or were abducted by aliens regardless of whether they believe it to be true or not. The statement's concurrency with truth considering this respect does not lie within the subjective belief value but with the testable evidence for extraordinary claims.

Since these claims cannot be tested because of their metaphysical nature along with the various logical explanations that contradict them without producing new assumptions, it's safe to say that the existence of God cannot be empirically proven or disproven but rather left to science to rationally prove or disprove it, although with BOP I would say the latter is more probable than the former.
Posted by ourgodisaconsumingfire 5 years ago
ourgodisaconsumingfire
God - a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe (Oxford)

Jesus - ca 6 b.c. –ca a.d. 30 Jesus of Nazareth; the Son of Mary source of the Christian religion & Savior in the Christian faith (Merriam Webster)

You see Christ was real he was blameless and perfect and is worshiped by Christian's and also is Islam's messiah. The two world's largest religion's he is real life. Besides that he is a historical person with evidence.

You Wolf cannot prove that their is no God. You have not one shred of proof that no one exist when I do. A physical person that existed that is worshiped as God today and for 2,000 years. I win the burden of proof is on my side.

"Seeing as you cannot prove that God exists, it is safe to assume he does not exist."

Nothing is safe to assume when I have the phusical evidence. You may not (believe) in it but over 4 billion people do. In court I win and my opponent would lose. Why ? because I brought evidence he brought theory and animal studies. Just because one is biased in atheism does not mean he should not look at the evidence wolf. I was an atheist for over 5 years. Atheism makes no sense at all.....
Posted by wolfhaines 5 years ago
wolfhaines
ourgodisaconsumingfire- actually my argument stands strong. Seeing as you cannot prove that God exists, it is safe to assume he does not exist. Therefore the morals we know and use are not from a divine source, but from ourselves. Thus proving humans can be good without God. You need to prove God exists before you say anything came from him. Otherwise you might as well say morals came from a spaghetti monster.

MrJs1G- unfortunate about the loss here, the side you took was spot on.
Posted by wolfhaines 5 years ago
wolfhaines
I want to vote but my confirmation code hasn't come through!!!!
Posted by ourgodisaconsumingfire 5 years ago
ourgodisaconsumingfire
But wolf its self defeating morals which are good came from a God. Its basic principle theology good is defined by morals estaablished by major religions and God. So in the end your argument doesn't stand too well
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by darnocs1 5 years ago
darnocs1
MrJs1GourgodisaconsumingfireTied
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: Pro made the argument that people can not believe in God and still be moral, but Con effectively pointed out that regardless of whether people believe in God or not, God is the only way ethical standards can even exist.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MrJs1GourgodisaconsumingfireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: "Since he is the one claiming something outside of the accepted scientific and historical analyses, he is the one with the onus of proof." - no, as instigator and pro you have the BoP unless explicitly stated otherwise in the opening.
Vote Placed by Awed 5 years ago
Awed
MrJs1GourgodisaconsumingfireTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
MrJs1GourgodisaconsumingfireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: This was a thrilling debate to watch. But Con prove that without the concept of god, humans detririate.(Did i spell that right?)