The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

IF there is NO GOD HOW do YOU tell RIGHT from WRONG

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: 11/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 82790
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Thiest_1998

Pro

I am a Thiest obviously and if you can tell me right from wrong without having a dangerous loop hole I will convert to athiesm please be open minded and don't be afraid to express yourself :) God bless
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

I accept the debate. Thank you for the opportunity, Pro. As con I accept the responsibility of proving how humans may foster a moral compass and may respond in the most ethical ways possible to certain circumstances without requiring the complex of a God.

[1] Provision one is nothing more than a simple explanation of 'Secular Morality' - the idea of one's ability to adapt to their environment tolerantly and capably without responding to situations through religion. This includes the absence of religion in the justification of denying homosexuals rights, in denying people of other religions fair treatment, and being generally intolerant of minorities marginalized by religions.

While some people believe religion is required in order to live a life of ethics and morality, some may disagree. And the below rationalizations often utilized by Secular Humanists (belief in equality and tolerance of all religious practices and faiths):
  1. It is not wildly unknown or commonly unheard of that the teachings of religion can be quite controversial, and many religious denominations vary in their own teachings. Yet for hundreds of years, the teachings of Christianity and other alike religions have often been found to teach misogyny and violence to their followers. In the following link are seven different examples of how following the Bible can turn one 'immoral'. http://thewisesloth.com... presence of any violent or unethical depictions of other human beings or how to treat them in these 'holy books' clearly shows how even religious texts can be 'immoral'. If that example wasn't enough, here are more examples: https://www.secularhumanism.org...;
  2. A major factor of religious/non-religious debating is how accurately the disciples of many Abrahamic faiths actually practice these faiths, and whether or not they coordinate with the teachings of their religion according to the corresponding book or scriptures. In Christianity, there are many holes that need to be filled in order to interlink the word of the Bible and the religious practices. For instance, many verses of Leviticus prohibit the acts of cuting hair, getting tatoos and shaving. Yet many followers of the Christian faith are more than willing to perform these such forbidden acts. It is also described that one will be made unclean when coming in contact with a woman on their period - in fact they may not be in the same house or within the vicinity of the person; yet many Christians fail to properly practice these key components of the faith as well. https://www.biblegateway.com...
  3. Religions have also been a key rationale for starting wars, genocides, or committing hate crimes. And even in the twenty-first century, many politicians and world leaders oppose simplistic ideas (such as gay marriage and seperation of church and state) due to the fact that their religions teach them to oppose these things. Religion has been used as a tool to justify bigotry in life for many years, and continues to be such. Hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) which took the American south for many years, and still has a strong presence in such red states, is a major example of a hate group which has used their religion to excuse their actions against humanity - including murdering, raping, burning and crucifying their victims. Throughout history, literal genocides and crusades have been launched in the names of religion, which doesn't seem very moral nor rational. http://www.religioustolerance.org...

[2] However, referring back to Pro's original contention - that one requires religion to have a moral compass - basic biological and psychological science can prove this statement wrong. And I will be utilizing such science to support my claims.
  1. Psychology and philosophy have both vested compassions into research of how nurture and nature can affect one's moral compass; but most science has concluded that 'moral development' is most reliant on the factor of nurture - how one's parents raise them to behave and think. For example, if a young baby is born into a wealthy family (for the purpose of this discussion, they are 'Baby A') that teaches them to hate the poor, they will grow up hating the poor, until they have an experience or get better educated and this shifts their mindset. However, depending on how long their indoctrination has lasted, and how engraved the propaganda is, they may forever shut out any reasoning ever brought to them and continue on their crusade against the poor. Now, if Baby B is born into a rich family that teaches them to be generous to the poor and spread their wealth, they are likely to do so unless they also have a life-changing experience and their opinion shifts. This is moral development based on one's upbringing. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  2. Many of the world's progressive and prosperous nations of the twenty-first century are also non-religiously affiliated in the federal level (they are state secular or state atheist). Many of these nations legally approve of homosexual marriage, are against the drug war, and have some of the greatest education systems and labour participation each year. Sweden is in fact a country of predominantly atheistic citizens, and its government is secular humanist, yet its economy is one of the most dominant in Europe. Many Greek and Roman scientists and philosophers have also religiously avoided condoning or inciting religious beliefs - their work remained more objective and impartial, as they didn't have any need to speak of religion or use such as a rationalization toward the future nor their plans. Many intended to instead spread the new ideas of 'life without God' and 'exploring with science'. http://atheists.org...
  3. The world's scientific and medicinal developments in history were done by atheists (namely), most of them challenged by religious people. I'll bet it passed your head in history class, but before atheistic scientists studied microbiological particles, humans in most European civilizations thought that all human ailments and illnesses fell on the doings of evil paranormal phenonmena, including demons and angry spirits haunting for one more chance at life. But once science was used to explore these ideas, people grew in their knowledge of things like malicious bacteria, which actually had been to blame for such diseases.

This concludes round one of my argument. I await your rebuttal, pro.

Debate Round No. 1
Thiest_1998

Pro

Thiest_1998 forfeited this round.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

TheSatiricalAnarchist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Thiest_1998

Pro

Thiest_1998 forfeited this round.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

TheSatiricalAnarchist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Thiest_1998

Pro

Thiest_1998 forfeited this round.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

TheSatiricalAnarchist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Thiest_1998

Pro

Thiest_1998 forfeited this round.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

Pro failed to refute my points in the round given. Extend. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
for starters you have not answered my question and secondly it is peoples personal decision to ignore some of Gods rules or they might not have known that you are not allowed to get tattoos and piercings also you are and other politician are making claims that their plans are based o the bible without giving scriptures or any evidence that its true you gave evidence of the bible saying no tattoos which is correct Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord. If I can give evidence so can you and a tip about debating when you give an accusation make sure to back that up with evidence. ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
sorry I missed it for starters can you reply in the argument so I can make my reply
Posted by RedAnarchist 1 year ago
RedAnarchist
Looking forward to Pro's rebuttal. Con really set the bar here.
No votes have been placed for this debate.