Is religion the basis of morality?
Debate Rounds (2)
I will be arguing against the notion that religion is the basis for morality.
My opening argument will explain that morality is relative.
Many different cultures, whether religious or not, have different morals. I know many nonreligious people who support abortion, for example. Their opinions couldn't have come from a religion, because they do not practice a religion.
Another reason I believe this is the law that punishes those who murder. Though yes, the Bible and many other holy texts will condemn murder: "You shalt not murder." Exodus 20:13
But murder in itself most likely was regarded as wrong due to the fact that no-one wants to die. You wouldn't want to be killed, so why allow it?
Also, if murder were legal, it would be much harder to maintain a civilization and to have fair democracy or competition.
Feel free to refute this argument. I am excited to see what people say.
I will kindly ask voters to vote for whoever has the best arguments, not who they agreed with first.
My stance revolves around the assumption that morality is relative to the person and the people living in its society. In order to prove that morality can exist without God, assuming the people know both good and evil. My example:
A community exists on a remote island existing outside of the world we live today, no internet or exposure to religion of any kind. The leader of this community is a man who is soon to die, so he births a son. Not long after, an envious man murders the son. The leader of the community greaves. After this event the murderer is executed and the community agrees that murder should not be practiced for the sake of everyone else. (Keep in mind I am oversimplifying drastically) This is the same for other things we consider crimes like robbery and assault. However the community allows things we may consider bad, like abortion or torture. A community can make its own morals without religion.
What do you think the source is? Of course God created both good and evil through the apple tree, but if we previously knew and had no exposure to religion, there would be morals.
What I'm saying is that morality as an abstract concept does not require a God in order to exist, assuming they already know good and evil.
-FocusV Vote Con
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by distraff 2 weeks ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro assumes in his arguments that God made morality and only explain why he thinks God made it in R1 and only explains why religion is based on morality in R2 based on this assumption. Since God and religion are almost synonymous (especially Christianity which both assume to be true) this is basically circular reasoning. Pro never actually debates or responds to Con and only assumes God created morality. Con never points out these assumptions and assumes that since some people decide not to follow some morals and to follow others that there must be no objective morality. People can ignore the rules of math all day but that doesn't make math subjective. But at least con tried to argue and convince so I believe con to be the winner.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.