The Instigator
petersaysstuff
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
TheWheel
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Humans can be good without God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
petersaysstuff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,393 times Debate No: 15149
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

petersaysstuff

Pro

For this first speech I will simply be stating my stance on this matter and what I feel my opponent must prove in order to win. I will not be making a full fleshed out case YET because the Con must make an argument as to why humans do need God. Once that is done I will argue his/her points and then provide some offense.

My stance: My stance on the matter of goodness and morality without God is humans do not require a God or Goddess in order to do acts of good.

What must be proven if the Con is to win: The Con must prove that God is a prerequisite for morality and that without God humans cannot do acts of good.

I will define good as: moral excellence or admirableness(1)
I will define morals as: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong(2)

Thanks in advance for debating!

~~Peter

(1):http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(2):http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
TheWheel

Con

I thank my opponent for offering an interesting debate. I accept the values, and will start the argumentation.

According to the Bible under God's Moral Will:
"-Negatively, God wills us not to lie, cheat, steal, hate, murder.
-Positively, God wills us to tell the truth, be honest in all dealings, love one another, be gentle and kind, and so forth.
-In essence, God's Moral Will tells us to be exactly like Him because He created us in His own image. "

Thus, since we are in God's image, God is a prerequisite for our morality. The idea of us to follow god offers a prerequisite, and need of god to have forms of morality.

People need theories, and ideas for things they don't know; the idea of the sun rotating over the Earth for example. This is one of the many reasons they need gods.

"When humans are unknowing and confused they make theories in order to solve things. In years to come these theories are usually proven false and it takes generations to believe the proof. One such example is the sun revolving around the earth. We now know that this theory is false, the earth revolves around the sun. I feel that religion is the same. Humans were confused about how we came about, and needed something to lean on to erase that unknowing. They came up with the idea that we were placed here by something greater than life itself. Science has proven evolution in so many different ways. It will take many generations before the world sees this. "

"To be consistent, in a world without God we must acknowledge that our moral duties are subjective. If there is no moral lawgiver to set the standard, then the standards are arbitrary. Right and wrong or moral duties are arbitrary accidents of random evolution that happened to be helpful for survival. Things that we consider ‘wrong' are only wrong because of social constructs."

If actions are arbitrary without god to set the morals, people cannot be morally good or bad, serving to make god as the constructor of standards for morals. Thus, God is necessary for morality to be given in human beings, and don't believe in God, or if there is no god, there cannot be any specific moral conduct. All good would be arbitrary instances, and/or defined by rare instances of social constructs of morality, proving god the best measure as the constructor for moral conduct.

Sources:
* http://www.biblebell.org...
* http://www.angelfire.com...
* http://rationalfaithonline.com...
Debate Round No. 1
petersaysstuff

Pro

We can both agree that according to the Bible God did make man in his image so if he did exist that would be a form of objective morality, a standard that was given to us by someone higher up but that ignores subjective, the most important type of morality in our modern society. In the quote my opponent used:

//"To be consistent, in a world without God we must acknowledge that our moral duties are subjective. If there is no moral lawgiver to set the standard, then the standards are arbitrary. Right and wrong or moral duties are arbitrary accidents of random evolution that happened to be helpful for survival. Things that we consider ‘wrong' are only wrong because of social constructs."//

The last sentence of this quote is key. The last sentence is still acknowledging that without God there would still be some sense of right/wrong although it may not be objective. But it really doesn't matter if it's objective or not seeing as the definition of morals is "motivations based on ideas of right and wrong" and, as the quote states, without God there is still some form of subjective morality. This is devastating to his case seeing as it contradicts the argument the Con is supposed to make that says "God is a prerequisite for morality". If we look to his claim that God is a prerequisite for any form of morality we can see it just isn't consistent with the claims he makes literally 3 paragraphs down.

Now to some offense, in a society such as our were morals change and evolve without the implementation of God it is easy to see that God is not needed for morality. An important example that must be made is as follows: Say there is a time traveler X and he starts off in 1920. During said time period being racist against African-Americans is perfectly acceptable and people don't think twice about it. X then wonders what the future would be like and so he hops in his time machine and goes to the year 1960. During this period the Vietnam war is raging and African-Americans are serving in the military. Racism is still around but is not as wide spread nor is it as widely accepted. Then we jump to 2011. In 2011 racism is much less prominent and even less acceptable.
The change from a rather racist society to a more integrated one was a major shift in our perception of right and wrong and was not attributed to God.

So far the Con has not proven that God is a prereq, if anything he himself showed that without God there is still some form of right/wrong. Also the Con has not shown that without God humans cannot do acts of good.

Con, your turn.
TheWheel

Con

TheWheel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
petersaysstuff

Pro

I'm sorry to see my opponent has forfeited round two so my arguments extend across. I hope he will be joining me for round three.
TheWheel

Con

TheWheel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CosmicAlfonzo 6 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
Honestly though, I think Jesus was saying that god is the good teacher, not Jesus.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"This quote is even funnier when you consider the fact that Christians worship Jesus as an idol." You're hilarious
Posted by CosmicAlfonzo 6 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
Can I argue that humans can't be good at all, with or without god? Hell, I think even a Christian would agree...

From Luke 18:18-19

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good - except God alone."

This quote is even funnier when you consider the fact that Christians worship Jesus as an idol.
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Depends on which god.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
petersaysstuffTheWheelTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con automatically loses the conduct vote for skipping out on most of the debate. Pro's arguments also seemed better crafted than con's.