The Instigator
Demonoid
Pro (for)
The Contender
Usertitle
Con (against)

Humans do not need religion for morality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Usertitle has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 254 times Debate No: 94547
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Demonoid

Pro

The basic premise is that humans do not need religion to have morality and to know right from wrong. I am also debating that Objective morality is false and there is only subjective morality.

Objective morality - Objective morality is about how Morals are actual fact and are as true as 1+1=2. Objective morality is how morality never alters or changes almost akin to a law of math (like the example above). Morality is ingrained as a law of the universe.

Subjective morality - Subjective morality is entirely based on society and the independent being who discerns what is right and wrong in his or her own opinion and is heavily and almost entirely based on the well being of those around them.

IE: Killing is almost always wrong but if my life is being threatened I must defend myself, or even kill the murderer in front of me if it comes to that.

You may disagree with my definitions so here is the dictionary definition

Subjective : based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

Objective : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

Morality : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also just a quick point I feel I should make for no reason. Take science for example, all of science is objective, it has to be fact or it is no longer science.

Morality is always based on feelings, it always has been.

Sources - Cites

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Usertitle

Con

simple causation relationship

if you have a light in the darkness, that darkness becomes light: cause leads to effect

In thus way religion and morality are cause/effect

if you feed a starving man, he is no longer starving. this is objectively moral thus = religious

Wild animals kill food for themselves. Thus death can be moral = cause/effect=morality.

Without religion, no cause = no effect = no morals. Plz try to edcate yourself by reading the Bible before continuing in the debate is it is clear you dont have a concept of true morality.

Source:
http://www.charismanews.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Demonoid

Pro

Cause does lead to effect, that is true, however you have not provided a reason for religion being a cause and morality being an effect coming from religion.

Religion is not inherently immoral nor is it inherently moral. No one is born with a moral compass. And ideas cannot have morality. Morality applies to sentient beings that can reason with each other and form a society or community.

Morality is subjective and changes and depends on the times and the society that people reside in.

If something is helpful to the neighbor across from me (like picking up their garbage that fell into the road) that is good.

If something is harmful to my neighbor (like someone robbing their house or someone murdering their wife) is bad.

Also, some things may have a grey area, as in, you cant please everyone. (Like if we sent soldiers to save stolen information, that would be good for us, but bad for the enemy.)

(I understand I'm using black and white examples but that is just for simplicity, feel free to create your own thought experiments and such.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"if you feed a starving man, he is no longer starving. this is objectively moral thus = religious" - Con

How does this have anything to do with religion?

when something is "Objective" it is based on facts and truths, and religion cannot be proven true, a religions deity for example will always be non-testable, making it a hypothesis. But science is objective, science can prove things and test thing and observe things. Religion is not falsifiable, but that doesn't make it true .

"Wild animals kill food for themselves. Thus death can be moral = cause/effect=morality." - Con

Irrelevant, that is survival, that is their natural instinct. Has nothing to do with morality.

Death is not inherently moral or immoral, again, concepts and ideas cannot have any form of negative or positive morality. It is the people who create these ideas and concepts or think of them, that make them subjectively moral.

Christianity is moral to you I assume, unless your not christian - in which case you probably find your religion moral, and that is your subjective opinion. I find religion immoral - this is my subjective interpretation of religious morality. Concepts that have no effect on our society will always be personally, subjectively, defined. Only people can have an effect on our society, only nature and physical entities can effect us. Concepts and abstract thoughts and ideas cannot do any wrong to us.

Thank you for taking the time to read all of this. I am excited for the next round!!!

(no cites because I only used the information from his argument and my first round thesis)
Usertitle

Con

"'if you feed a starving man, he is no longer starving. this is objectively moral thus = religious' - Con

How does this have anything to do with religion?"

Starving = humility = inner light of religion. simple.

"'Wild animals kill food for themselves. Thus death can be moral = cause/effect=morality.' - Con

Irrelevant, that is survival, that is their natural instinct. Has nothing to do with morality."

Wrong. all animals have souls, that's an indisputable fact which is self-explanatory and self-evident.

"Death is not inherently moral or immoral, again, concepts and ideas cannot have any form of negative or positive morality. It is the people who create these ideas and concepts or think of them, that make them subjectively moral."

Wrong. Simple cause/effect. if you have a steak, you know a cow died. this is obvious cause/effect. giving the steak to a starving man = death is moral = death is humble = death is a creation of God.

"Religion is not inherently immoral nor is it inherently moral. No one is born with a moral compass. And ideas cannot have morality. Morality applies to sentient beings that can reason with each other and form a society or community."

Wrong. children are born with souls - how come you never see children do immoral things? Untainted soul = pure = religious, as religion is cause/effect.

"Also, some things may have a grey area, as in, you cant please everyone. (Like if we sent soldiers to save stolen information, that would be good for us, but bad for the enemy.)"

Soldiers are effect of war. cause/effect = religion so your point is invalid.

when you burn a fire you turn fuel to ash = cause/effect. cannot have fire without the fuel, thus can trace back the origin of the fuel to god.
Debate Round No. 2
Demonoid

Pro

"Starving = humility = inner light of religion. simple." - Con

No, just stop, you are adding tags and such to concepts that YOU define humble, that YOU define moral or immoral. That is what you are currently doing, and it backs up the point I made in round two:

"Death is not inherently moral or immoral, again, concepts and ideas cannot have any form of negative or positive morality. It is the people who create these ideas and concepts or think of them, that make them subjectively moral." - Pro

There is no inner light of religion stop with the woowoo, unfalsefiable claims. they will be ignored if this continues. Humility is not something that was started by religion, nor is humility part of religion. being humble is something people do to yeild for example to others more suited for whatever line of work is going on at the moment. (probably a bad example, I'll have better ones)

"Wrong. all animals have souls, that's an indisputable fact which is self-explanatory and self-evident." - Con

No, they do not, you have to proof these claims. You cant just see a soul. Send me a report of any one time a docter had ever seen a soul. Or an x-ray had detected something like that. It hasnt happened. Evidence Con, you need evidence. Or at least a completely logical explanation that people can understand. "that's an indisputable fact which is self-explanatory and self-evident." - Con
Thats pretty self evident, for no explanation, logic or reason to back it up at all, just make a claim with something to support it for once.

"Wrong. Simple cause/effect. if you have a steak, you know a cow died. this is obvious cause/effect. giving the steak to a starving man = death is moral = death is humble = death is a creation of God." - Con

I can see where your going with this but a cow dying and you giving steak to the homeless man has nothing to do with death, its a completley seperate issue. Death as I said, is a concept, so it is you who give it tags like, "death is humble, moral, ect"

And you cannot claim death is a creation of god if you do not have evidence that god exists. You cannot proove god, but that doesnt make it true, it just makes it easier for it to be wrong.

"Wrong. children are born with souls - how come you never see children do immoral things? Untainted soul = pure = religious, as religion is cause/effect." - Con

You see them do it all the time, go watch your kids at the playground at school take away some other kids toy, watch as they scream at eachother and bite eachother and steal and such. They are babies and children. They dont hold common sense and complex morality until they actually live for a few years.

"Soldiers are effect of war. cause/effect = religion so your point is invalid.

when you burn a fire you turn fuel to ash = cause/effect. cannot have fire without the fuel, thus can trace back the origin of the fuel to god." - rest of Con's argument

In the end you didn't even respond to half my second round post. Thats fine, if they arn't refuted less work for me and less things to reply to. How intellectually dishonest.
Usertitle

Con

past contrasts with the future = cause/effect and results.

evidence of god indeniable.

remember difference between seen and unseen
Debate Round No. 3
Demonoid

Pro

Yet there is no evidence for god. You cannot prove him.

Anyway this is the last round, I thank my opponent for participating. As always it was a fun debate, and I wish my opponent luck in his future debate.

(Please make no new arguments as Pro cannot respond. Good Day!)

Thanks- Demonoid
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Demonoid 6 months ago
Demonoid
@vi_spex reliious people can have moral value but concepts and ideas cannot. The idea of a god is not inherently bad
Posted by Zaephou 6 months ago
Zaephou
JimShady, I see that you are following the cause and effect idea, but this does not inherently mean God is the cause of the universe. Since we do not know what was before the Big Bang, we cannot come to a single cause of the Big Bang since there could have been nothing before the Big Bang or there could have been another universe if we follow the multiverse or Big Crunch theory. Even in the case of there being nothing before the Big Bang, we cannot conclude that God caused the Big Bang, since we have not observed a 'nothing' and thus we cannot know how it behaves like and what it's properties are. the definitions of nothing we have are human definitions, and the actual nothing may be completely different. And also, I find it peculiar that you find God as the only thing not having to follow the cause and effect idea simply because of a definition of something we have yet to prove or observe.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
the headline assumes religion can have a moral value
Posted by Demonoid 6 months ago
Demonoid
This is a discussion about morality not coming from religion, therefor it has nothing to do with the science behind the big bang or the idea and paradox of god. But i see what you were going for and I appreciate the input. Thank you @JimShady.
Posted by JimShady 6 months ago
JimShady
Forgot my source...

[1]http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...
Posted by JimShady 6 months ago
JimShady
He makes a good argument (Usertitle). For every effect, there must be a cause. If you believe in the big bang, that's OK. Just realize that there was a cause behind it.

The something from nothing explanation is a common atheist theory of the universe's ability to create itself. It says that quantum fluctuations [1], changes of energy in a certain point in space, allow for the universes origin. It's OK if you don't understand the science completely, I admit I don't. Just focus on the "changes of energy" part. A change is an effect. "I change a tire." There had to be a cause behind this. The cause was because you moved your hands and tools in the right places. In the same way, there is a cause/effect relationship with quantum fluctuations. There must be a cause to them.

The only thing that does not have a cause is God. Because, be definition, he is all-powerful, knowing, and present, not being capable of being created. He is the supreme being.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
religions is simply immoral
Posted by Demonoid 6 months ago
Demonoid
@hayd I try
Posted by Hayd 6 months ago
Hayd
Good debate topic
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.