The Instigator
Sidex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
boozeandbabble
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I have Moral Authority

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 97605
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

Sidex

Pro

I have moral authority based on the Love of God.
http://www.debate.org...
boozeandbabble

Con

Your sentiments of a deity's emotional status grants you absolutely no credence over behavioral (moral) matters. The only thing you have authority over is your bodily functions, unless someone stronger imposes their will upon them.
Morality is governed by self preservation. Vandalize, steal, or slander,and risk getting a knuckle sandwich. Superstition may influence illusory perceptions of morality, but such is moody, and minimal.
Debate Round No. 1
Sidex

Pro

The Objectivity of Morality:
What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do.
"The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy
It is right to follow the sole meaning of life.
The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence.
Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive.
Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct.
You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity.
I would also put forth the laws of causality. Everything that is literally happening right now has a literal reason in which to why it happened. Thus, if we accept that there will be a point in time or at the end of time that humanity will become no more, then it would imply that every action we take now until then would cause such an event. Take for an instance all the actions you do in your life. We will represent all those actions with the letter "A". Now all those actions will lead to other people making their own actions. Those people's actions will be labeled as "B". Now all of those actions will lead to more people making more actions. We will call all of those actions "C". "A" leads to "B" which leads to "C". This is logic, point effect. We will get to the point where people no longer can take action(Humanity's end). We will call it "K". The alphabet is a representation of the timeline where "Z" will represent the end of time. Now I am arguing that ending humanity at "K" is wrong. I think we should be going for "Z". But in order to do that, we first have to figure out why is it ending at "K". However, I'm getting a little ahead of myself. What if you could change even a little of your actions today so it could lead to pushing that to even "L"? At which letter would it be worth it? (yes, realistically in this metaphor, the Earth itself would be completely barren unable to sustain any life due to the increasing temperature of the sun a lot sooner than "Z", but hopefully we have some kind of effective form of space travel by then.) Causality states that your actions today will bring extinction to Humanity eventually. We just have to keep trying to push that point as far as we can. At least that's what I want to do.
I've have had a few debates with to solidify this theory. Please go to www.debate.org and check out the debates regarding Objective Morality(there's several of them, but I believe they are all mine. The biggest thing to take from this is that we can finally have peace in the world. The morality is not mutually exclusive to any religion. It can exclude people who break the law in the name of God. Religion is not wrong. Man is. A world government can be formed with this code of morality. One that is not subjective to any person beliefs.
Here are some of what I believe are the finer points of this theorem:
"What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do". What is moral and what is ethical is what one should or can do. You cannot objectify morality because it gives us no choice but to take the morally acceptable action. Note I do not write the "right" action because morally you have no choice. "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" but does it? 50 shop assistants on one side and five heart surgeons on the other which group would you save from certain death at the expense of the other? Morally you must save the assistants even though the surgeons could save far more than fifty patients so ethically you should save them. Morality is linear thinking, straightforward and unchanging and cannot be objectified." -GrimlyF www.debate.org
Would 5 surgeons help the survival of humanity or 50 shop assistants? With all the information we have currently, 5 surgeons are more likely to save more lives than 50 shop assistants in the foreseeable future, mostly because their job is to save lives.
Because this theorem was never revealed in the history of mankind, the only objective way of determining of right and wrong was from the creation of ethics(which is still needed for lower governments but must be altered to match this morality). Absolutely, this argument can nullify ethics. Would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family? You essentially have to ask, does stealing this bread and feeding your family helps or hurts humanity's existence? This also asks the question, does not stealing this bread and not feeding your family help or hurt humanity's existence? It can't be answered factually because of all the variables between now and the end of humanity are unforeseen. However, it may be answered conceptually. In addition, we are aware of some current institutions that can promote human continuity(education for one). It is your moral choice whether or not you should help humanity.
We have been dependent for so long for religion to answer our moral questions. Religion is a necessary institution for humanity, for it gives a shortcut explanation of why we do things. In my opinion, any religion that leads to the end of humanity is wrong. I argue that since "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son," John 3:16, why would he tell anyone to end it? Even though I cannot say for certain other religions realize the same thing about their deities, I'm assuming that since most people aren't trying to kill each other is because they are aware that forming groups with a common ideology will help fortify institutions thus helping humanity continue to exist. The fact of the matter is that this hypothesis is not mutually exclusive to religion. One can even begin to say that killing in the name of God is wrong. Also keep in mind that there can be groups or individuals within the religion that may share a difference of opinion with the mass majority of the population of said religion.
If one man said the Earth is round and presented evidence as such, but millions of people said it was flat with their own rationale, which side would be morally correct and which should be morally correct?
If you really loved someone, then why wouldn't care about their legacy as well? I'm sorry, but if you don't care about your legacy ending, then I believe you can't ever know what love truly is. Say we have come to the point in time when humanity ends. You have a great great great etc. grandchild dealing with the end of the world. I assume that nearing the end, life would really suck. What if you started to take actions today to move that point in time further? Would those actions of yours be worth it for that grandchild to have the opportunity to a child of their own since there was more time given? Is it right to love so much to give them the gift of time so they can experience the greatest aspects of life? I suppose it all depends on how much you love life yourself. If you are truly happy, would it be worth it to make another descendant have the opportunity of feeling it his/herself?
What is the most likely scenario/s to cause humanity's extinction? I think that if we had a consensus of those scenarios are, then we should do everything to prevent it. I would also argue that the people at the end of humanity wouldn't want to die. If you had lived at the end, would still not care. If you claimed self-interest, then why wouldn't you be upset at the past for not trying harder to save your life? I'm upset the dark ages happened for humanity. When should we become the bigger man? If you have made the choice not to care, what about those do?
The only people who don't care or even maliciously defy this morality are sociopaths and psychopaths. This theorem proves they are immoral.
This theorem does not say you should always think about the future first. It is implicit that if you don't care for yourself first, then you may not have a legacy to work on. This just says the most selfless reason you can have for being selfish is to worry about your legacy. You should always take care all your emotional, physical and mental needs first. But anything beyond that is a choice of morality. The general population of the world can feel love for one another. This love can travel through time as well.
boozeandbabble

Con

You premised your position, "I have moral authority based on the love of God", and then you chunk a lengthy ramble about the accumulated actions of humanity in a domino effect reality along with your maze of etcetera at me.
You mentioned the John 3:16 bit about god loved the world so he sent jesus to die.
Animal sacrifices were intended to feed god. The priest shall offer it as food, an offering by fire; all fat is the Lord's. ( Leviticus 3:16) As Judaism evolved it jettisoned this primitive notion in favor of a Hellenistic friendly philosophy, god does not eat the flesh of bulls. (Psalm 50:13)
1st century Christians, heavily influenced by Gnostic/dualist philosophers, viewed Jesus's death as a blood atonement "in the heavens", for the earth was under the dominion of Satan, " the god of the earth". ( Hebrews 9:12, 2nd Corinthians 4:4) Blood sacrifice contributes two things to advancing mortality, nought and nil.
You hinted that religion seeks to preserve humanity from extinction. Unfortunately, I read this while taking a sip of Pepsi; it burned my nostrils on the way out. As for the thief, male or female, cut off their hands. (Quran 5:38) If a woman grabs a man's penis during a fight, you shall cut off her hand. Show no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:12) Mutilating body parts is not the peak of morality and both books prescribe it for various offenses.
Jesus did not love the world, nor did he seek to preserve humanity; "how I wish the world would burn," Luke 12:49. Daily,we're reminded how the faithful want to speed up the process.
You claim you have moral authority? You have more authority over which direction you sneeze. Nope. Morality is self preservation. No hocus pocus about it.
Debate Round No. 2
Sidex

Pro

You tell me I ramble, yet you have not said how I am wrong. What of your ramble that only exposes you for who you are? First, how is it a maze if you only see one path? Can dominos choose the place to fall? If it is a maze, then argue the other path to take. You say "god loved the world so he sent jesus to die", I ask what if He sent him so Jesus may live? You imply death is absolute, but I imply that life is not. Tell me o' pessimist, why should I share your view? Should God love his way or is yours the only one? You have forgotten the balance that needs to be made and so your ego will be your undoing. I will not judge that of which is in the past for I was not there, but you only think in so few dimensions of which you can only judge from the shoes you are in. You laugh at the notion of religion o' Atheist, and yet you offer no replacement. Is it worth destroying the hope of the less knowing for only to see them suffer? I share the love of Christ and I will serve my neighbor for it, no matter how much the world will despise me. We are two sides of the same coin, but it seems you only have one. The only way for you to prove me wrong is to deny the existence of Humanity. Get behind me o' god of the earth for you have the things of men in mind.

So to start off. you have not proved me wrong. All you have is done is "ramble" with no reason to why you are right. You are simply stating the negative aspects of Religion thus creating the argument to abolish it. Sounds like an Atheist to me. What you fail to realize is that since this theorem is complete truth, any argument against is going to fail. Since this is an objective theorem, your argument must be subjective. Now what I can do is point out that subjective part of man which I have done. Now you can try to speak horrible pseudo again, but it's not going to work. You also can try to insult me because your ego is now bruised, but I will show that bias as well. You may have established power by ridiculing others opinions, but you have faced the one person that can always beat you. And I can always beat you because my theorem cannot be wrong.

Since I was the one who formed this morality, I will give credit to God and not to me. Thus I have moral authority based on the love of God. Prove this theorem wrong or argue for extinction. I'm going to beat you either way. Even though I cannot be proven wrong, I will always reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information or evidence based on reason and logic. Can the same be told of you?
boozeandbabble

Con

Sir, you prefaced this shindig: I have moral authority based on the love of God. Um, say something related to that. Define your deity. Define how you learned of his emotional status.
Does he know you learned of his emotional state. Does he approve of how you interpret it and apply it. Did he consent that your sentimental view of his emotions grants you moral authority over the rest of us.
Debate Round No. 3
Sidex

Pro

If I were to tell that God is the flying spaghetti monster, would that change my moral authority? My moral authority is from my theorem. I call my theorem the love of God because any correct deity would save Humanity. I claim that anything that saves acts on love.
boozeandbabble

Con

If you tried to imitate "a flying spaghetti MONSTER", then yes, your perception of moral authority would separate you from the behavior of those who find no relevance in such a deity.
Would the love of a "correct" deity save humanity? That's a precarious presumption.
Biologists estimate that 99% of Earth's species went extinct. (Yikes! Wikipedia)
Would god be "correct" for making an exception for us? Who knows?
What I do know is this: every person and animal you will ever meet will one day lose everything it ever loved. Be nice to them in the meantime-----Sam Harris.
Debate Round No. 4
Sidex

Pro

Why does MONSTER have to be bad? Monster: an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening. I don't see how it affects morality at all. Do you think all monsters are bad? What if there are good ones? You have shown another bias. No good sir, you have not proved my theorem wrong. for even if I did serve a monster, I would still do good.

I use the word "correct", because any deity that would decide to kill us is pointless to think about. Do you think you're going worship a deity that kills humanity? If you knew of a deity that could destroy anything, shouldn't we find out why it hasn't?
If the deity decides to kill us, I don't think I can do anything about it.

O" god of the Earth how small your mind truly is. You say "Yikes" with such arrogance and you say you bear me with no "ill will"? Tell me why are running your victory lap? So many watchers want to you be right and yet so many need you to be wrong. I must prove you wrong not for my own pride, but for the love I have for Humanity, the same love that God has. You have tried to catch me with my guard down, but you have failed to realize that God is always protecting me. And now I will show you the words of God.

If you know of an incorrect deity that kills Humanity, then why should I worship him? Would I not be able to worship after I"m dead? You imply God has killed 99% of all life on the Earth, then why did he save the other 1%? Should we make a choice to worship a deity that would end that 1%? And even if that deity had decided to do that, then shouldn"t we be nice to the rest of life in the meantime? Is Human not the first species to care about the other life that exists? Then why should you end Humanity? You can try to argue that Humanity kills more than it saves and thus should be ended. But God will save only those that choose to save the people who wants others to be saved. Either you agree or Humanity should not subscribe to Darwinism. You show your disposition towards Humanity like a conservative shows his towards Muslims. Why should I follow either logic if it only brings Humanity to its knees? Your imprisonment is near o" god of the Earth, tremble in fear that He is coming. Now send your champion against me, for I will defy him.

>>>Would the love of a "correct" deity save humanity? That's a precarious presumption.
My answer and theorem says yes, only love can be the reason to save so many. What you don"t understand is that love can be logical. I will define love as the wanting to save life instead of letting it die. And it is logical for Humanity to save itself under Darwinism. Would you let them die because you hate them so?

>>> Would god be "correct" for making an exception for us? Who knows?
Yes, God would be correct making an exception because we have the ability to care about not only ourselves but the other 1% that exists. God has made us in his image, with the capability of loving like he does. We are smart enough to create a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the life that exists. But first we need to lose our egos and come together as one species on this planet.

Humanity must grow in the same way as an individual. You do not teach a toddler what you would teach an adult. Religion was instructing a child to why we should things. Now is the time for Humanity to act on reason and logic. But we do not need to forsake our religion to follow such a path. The only religion that is wrong is one that would lead to Human extinction.

I have seen your face o" god of the Earth and will see mine soon enough. I will be known as the son of Mary. Before you accuse me of something foolish, why don"t you find out what my mother"s literal name is.

My time has finally come, I will lead this world into salvation, based on the love of God.
Make as many false innuendos and implications as much as you want o" god of the Earth. The only thing you can do is ramble on without proving my theorem wrong. My theorem is absolute truth. I have moral authority from my theorem which I call the love of God. You have argued for Humanity"s extinction and lost. Now prove my theorem wrong or go back into the hole of which you came.
boozeandbabble

Con

You called me "autistic" in the comment section. Using a handicap in slang for ad hominem is beyond the pale. In round two You said, "5 surgeons have more value than 50 shop assistants", I can only wonder how low an estimation handicapped people have to you.
You claim to have moral authority over humanity based on god's love. Your warped ideology devalues human life. I hope your arguments were a parody of an Introvert. A distasteful satire.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
fred70
Sidex is a filthy demon who got punked by boozeandbabble! Lol
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
Still not understanding Cider, how is irrelevant to say what my moral authority actually is? If I follow this theorem by saving humanity, then how am I not more moral than you? Do you think its right to end Humanity?
Posted by CiderH 1 year ago
CiderH
I wish these debates would have less insult slinging and more, you know, actual debating.

Sidex, from Round 2 you went on a completely irrelevant tangent, and the debate never recovered from that. So I'll have to blame you for the asinine derailing of the main point. Which is a shame, I'd like to see someone make a strong point to me that they do have moral authority over something or someone. Because so far I have seen zero compelling cases for it, and it seems I will keep on seeing zero.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
Ok debate me then.
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
fred70
You half-witted pieces of fecal matter, I would destroy you two in a debate. I have the mind of Christ! Challenge me and languish. I will treat either of you with the utmost contempt!
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
I didn't call autistic, I asked if you were. I am autistic, so yes I know why I say the things I do.
Again more false innuendos. I do not make fun of autistics as your bias towards them is apparent. You have failed o god of the Earth, now go lick your wounds.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
You know this theorem is not wrong right? When I first discovered I knew I could never be wrong again. I can be mistaken about a variable or constant, but not about what's right or wrong.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
Are you autistic as well?
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
I did see you were deist after I claimed you being an Atheist. But your manner towards religion does match Atheism more.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Sidex
Ok i'll ease up you man, usually I deal with a lot of arrogance and ego. To say i have no morals offends me, considering that I have to choose between life and death, base on my theorem
No votes have been placed for this debate.