The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Morality cannot logically exist without God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,897 times Debate No: 70167
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (65)
Votes (2)




Without God, it is impossible to have an objective moral standard. An atheist has no logical justification for a belief in right and wrong or to criticise anything on the basis of morality.
If there is no God, human being a worthless. Life is no more valuable than non life. Rape is justified and encouraged if it produces offspring and helps to out breed your competitors.
If evolution is true:
sociopaths are the most well adapted people to reality.
People should aspire to ridding themselves of all conscience beyond the survival of themselves and immediate family.
Racism is justified. Races are the biggest families in the human species and it stands to reason that some are less adapted to civilisation than others. Earth has limited resources and the only purpose worth pursing is to ensure the survival of ones own genetic material.
We should eliminate anyone of a different race or anyone not being productive.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Without God, there is no moral authority above human beings. This leaves each person with the option for their own personal moral standard or lack thereof. Without God this would leave survival and the passing on of genes as the highest priority. If God is not real and the moral authority, any action is justified and even encouraged if it improves the survival of the individual and their offspring. Human beings are in competition for resources which makes genocide of other races justified since it furthers the survival of people who are more closely related to you. i.e your genes.

Without an objective, unchanging, moral standard there is no basis to condemn rape and it is even a valid method of furthering ones own genetics at the expense of competing males.
I could continue but I think you get the point. No activity is wrong without God and activities which improve chances of survival and numbers of offspring could be considered virtuous in a way.


I would like to thank pro their argument.
1.) Lack of Clarification
Pro's folly lies in not clarifying which god he/ and or she (from this point on, I will refer to pro as a he, for convenience) is speaking of. From the different standards among the many theistic religions, there is no set of objective morality that is common among all theistic religions, and among people that believe in a God/ Gods.
To clarity, here is a definition of "moral" from
Adjective: Of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:moral attitudes.

I will argue that there is no objective morality among the Christian faith itself (As according to Pro's profile, at the time I checked it, his religion is that of Christianity), but first I have some questions for pro. He claims that God provides an unchanging moral standard. I ask him, does he consider the crusades moral (which were done in the name of god, and god provided no direct intervention, as is apparent by historic records)?, or the Spanish Inquisition moral? What of the abuse of Children in the Catholic Church among "men of god". And to quote from the Bible itself:

1.)"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. .." Leviticus 20:10:16
I ask Pro to comment on whether this passage is moral. I ask him to comment on whether he thinks adulterers and homosexuals should be put to death. If he says "yes", by my moral standards, he lack morals. If he reply's "no", than he is going against the word of God itself, and thus going against the moral standards God set forth. And please don't say "this is taken out of context". It is actually quite specific in the conditions and the ways to put people to death.

1.)"You shall have no other gods before Me." - 1st Commandment
I question how this itself could be considered morality, as there are numerous other religions existing, all that believe that there exists different God/s. The 10 Commandments are meant to set guidelines for humanity, yet many theistic people (Christians included) don't follow them to the word.

In conclusion, I have disproved Pro's statement "Morality cannot logically exist without God". He never specifies which god. And I also showed that, among Pro's faith itself, there occurred and is many immorality that Christians themselves would look down upon, but which were done in the name of God, and in which God apparently had no direct intervention (again, as is apparent by historical records). If Pro argues there was direct intervention, he must provide proof, as the burden of proof will lie on him. I than showed a passage (in which one is enough, if it is the word of god) that would seem very immoral in our present, first world, 21st century standards. The passage from Leviticus I mentioned, many Christians themselves disagree with that statement. Thus, I have shown, that even with God, there is no objective morality.
Debate Round No. 2


The question is not about which God. It is about God vs no God. I believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God and that he came to earth, was crucified and rose again in penance for the sins of mankind but this is not the point. God is there to mean the moral standard which derives authority from being the creator of heaven, earth, and mankind and is all knowing.

I'll use an analogy. If we are competing at something, in order to determine the winner we need an objective authority. Without this authority we can never know who won because we don't even know what the goal was or what the winning means.

So in terms of morality, it's not that if there is no God it is therefore difficult or impossible to determine right from wrong. It is that without God, right and wrong cannot exist so you can't criticize any value system or any action beyond a personal opinion.

Do I consider the crusades to be moral?
I am not well read regarding the crusades but from what I have seen they were in defense of Muslim conquests of Europe. If this is true then I do not consider them to be immoral but I am not a moral authority.

Were the Spanish Inquisitions moral?
Again I'm not well read on the subject and nobody can know for sure but they were probably very immoral. If you are waiting to pounce on the idea that immoral things were done in the name of God let me just say that anyone can do anything in the name of God. What matters is if its consistant with the tools he's given us to determine what is right.

I consider abuse of children immoral regardless of who does it. I have a rational basis for this. Human beings are created in the image of God and as such have inherent value. My worldview can rationally support condemnation for certain actions. I cannot say the same for an athiestic worldview or see how any of the previous actions could be condemned from an athiestic point of view.

I believe the entire bible is the inspired word of God and as such I believe Leviticus 20:10:16 was moral for those people at that time. Jesus came and fulfilled the law (mathew 5:17-20) and because of this, salvation is available to anyone who accepts his sacrifice. Because of Jesus' death, rules like those detailed in Leviticus are fulfilled and no longer necessary.

You have disproved nothing. The question is not concerning the rules attributed to this God or that God but to the existance of objective morality without God. In your response ou made a number of judgements as to wether something is moral (stoning homosexual, adulterers, the first commandment, the crusades) but you have given no explanation as to why these things are immoral. The Christian basis for condemnation for these things that it is against Rules and creation. You have only succeeded in dodging the question.

You have not addressed anything I put forth I posted in rounds 1 or 2 and I have answered all of your questions despite them being beside the point.

Could you explain to me how an atheist can condemn anything as wrong? Why is murder or child abuse wrong if the perpertrator finds it entertaining or beneficial to their survival?



1.) Evolution
Evolution actually has an explanation of how morality developed, and its basis in empathy. We as humans evolved from primates. Now, what one must realize, is that these primates were under a lot of pressure to survive. Thus, how they survived was by "teaming up" per se, and caring for each other in their own bands. Now, as humans evolved from these primates, we inherited those qualities. Except, since our brains are more complex than that of primates, we have more complex notions of morality. That empathy evolved to become altruism, selflessness, and love, among many things. And all of this came from the notion of evolution and natural selection: those who were willing to band together survived, and those who didn't did not survive.

2.) Compassion
I think everyone can agree that compassion is a huge part of morality. I will show an example of a historical figure (and a religious one) who was compassionate, yet did not accept any God (did not look to God for morality). The figure I am referring to is the historic Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. He is described as the most compassionate of human beings. To quote from him: " Just as treasures are uncovered from the earth, so virtue appears from good deeds, and wisdom appears from a pure and peaceful mind. To walk safely through the maze of human life, one needs the light of wisdom and the guidance of virtue." ( He speaks of virtue being wisdom.
What is the point of this, you may ask. The point is that the Buddha was agnostic. He didn't look to God for virtue and morality, but looked towards empathy and compassion. It is said (I am sorry I can't cite a website, but I am sure if you search, you can find what I mean) that when the Buddha was asked the question of god, he remained silent, for he made to claim. This can be seen as agnosticism. The Buddha (and many Buddhists in the world today) don't get morality from God. In fact, Buddhism says that part of reaching enlightenment is being altruistic and compassionate, so much so that once someone reaches enlightenment, they won't have to think of doing good, for it will be in their nature. And to explain how they get their morality, their is the concept of Karma, which I won't delve into, because there is a 4000 character limit.

3.) Slavery and Adultery
You claim killing homosexuals and adulterers was moral in the context of that time, yet the Bible is supposedly the universal and permanent word of God. Thus that passage would still be applicable today, by the discourse of reason. It has to be taken as law, since it is the word of God. And you claim Jesus "fulfilled the law", yet you draw no rationale of your claim of causality. Since you drew no rationale, the claim of Jesus dying and the law of killing adulterers has no correlation, and thus can be taken as false causality.

According to the bible, Slavery still is permitted, for it even talks of how to buy and sell a slave. Now, if you claim that all ill morals before the death of Jesus "don't count", than that is a logical fallacy, since the WHOLE Bible is to be taken as the word of god, and thus every moral standard that came from the Bible has to be accepted, since it is the word of God.
Debate Round No. 3


"Evolution actually has an explanation of how morality developed"
The question is not how morality developed, the question is how it can exist as an objective obligation on human actions. Its not about why we all seem to think murder is wrong, it is: why murder is actually wrong? Why is rape always wrong? Regardless of survival or laws or majority agreement or what day of the week it is, why is rape always wrong? I am assuming that you know rape is always wrong. Its wrongness must somehow transcend human thoughts an actions in order for condemnation of it to be Justice as opposed to vengance. How is anything wrong? Not why do we think things are wrong, why ARE they wrong? Unless you don't believe right and wrong can actually exist outside the human mind in, which case, you prove my point.

I'm not interested in the ex post facto reasoning as to why we all agree rape murder (both of which can aid survival) is considered wrong almost unanimously.

"I think everyone can agree that compassion is a huge part of morality."
Yes I agree with you but why is compassion so important? Not why do we feel this way in terms of some evolutionist fairy tale. Why is compassion virtuous in actuality? in reality, not just in our own heads.
On what basis can you say to someone who isn't compassiote that they should be compassionate?
What if their lack of compassion has gotten them everything he wants in life?
What if your compassion has gotten you nowhere?
Why is compassion superiour to non-compassion?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

The laws Moses gave to the people of Isreal were a covenant which was fulfilled by Jesus coming to earth and dying. Those laws where only addressed to a group of people (Isreal), they did not apply to Gentiles or Pagans. That Covenant served arguably the most important purpose of anything ever but it was fulfilled with Jesus. If it were for all people and all time it would not have been a Covenant but a Commandment. You even say tht the Bible is the universal unchanging word of God so even by your own logic, a passage from the Bible which quotes Jesus saying he fulfilled the law must be true.

Please answer the questions above. I did not post this debate so I could argue theology. I want to know what the rational basis for seemingly a objective morality is without God. Not why we have the concept, why is our concept of it True?


1.) Dodging
I would like to point that Pro never addressed the question of killing adulterers and homosexuals and that of slavery. If he called these wrong and immoral, it would go against the bible, and thus would be detrimental to Pro's case, as he is arguing that the Bible (the SUPPOSED word of God) is to be the moral base. In the closing statements, I ask that Pro provide a clear cut yes-or-no answer to these statements:
1. Killing adulterers and homosexuals is moral
2. The institution of slavery is moral

2.) Morality
Pro seemed to not have understood my Buddhism comparison. In Buddhism, there is a set of morals, such as the precepts, dharma, ahimsa, and the different teachings of the Buddha. The morals are all in scripture (the Pali Sutras), and is the basis of many morals for many Buddhists today. The fact that Buddhism has objective morality undermines the statement "Morality cannot logically exist without God": for the Buddha (a supposedly enlightened man) set the morals, and he never claimed divinity, never claimed to be a God. Yet, he gave objective morality. You claim that morality cannot objectively exist without a God. All it takes is one example to counter this. Objective morality can come from an enlightened person, thus coming from the Buddha, a man who never claimed divinity. If you can use the Bible (which is the basis of your morality), I can use Buddhism, and the Pali Sutras. Thus, I have proved that objective morality can come from a source other than God. It can come from an enlightened person.

I would like to note that if Pro says that there is no evidence that the Buddha was enlightened, he destroys his own argument, as there is no proof of a God.
Debate Round No. 4


The people of Isreal killing adulterers, homosexual and keeping slaves in 500BC does not violate my moral standard, which is God's signs and commandments. I can trust concience as being accurate and I can trust that human ings and life has inherent value because my belief in God logically justifies it.

The question is how you can rationalize an objective moral reality without God. You have not even attmpted to answer this question yet expect me to answer question about the Bible which were not even mentioned in the subject. On what basis do you say killing adulteerers and homosexuals is wrong? How is keeping slaves objectively wrong in a worldview without God? You are attempting to condemn things set out in a book without even justifying your own belief in a moral reality outside darwinism or personal preference.

I understand the Buddhism example but it completely misses the point. You can declare one person as enlightended and say his teachings are the moral standard but you have no grounds to apply those morals to anyone else. Buddhist morals are so because Buddha said so? He holds no authority of any other human. Buddhas personal moral beliefs hold no authority beyond any other human.

I have answered your question and have not attmempted to answer any of the questions I have asked. On what basis can you condemn any other human for actions you disagree with? Is there a moral reality outside human beings or is it all differeing opinions?


1.) Questions
In the closing argument, Pro asserts that I have not answered any of his questions. To the contrary, I have. If one looks back at the arguments, I address how morality has been developed through evolution.
Throughout our evolution, mankind has been refining our morality. In the question of rape, it is immoral, for it causes suffering to another being. We have come this far to realize that suffering is "wrong", as we have developed empathy for our fellow humans. And it is much better that we keep on evolving or morality, keep on setting new standards, rather than getting it from a very old (and morally questionable) book.

2.) Slavery and Adultery/Homosexuality
Pro stated that he found that keeping slaves, and killing adulterers and homosexuals, does not violate his moral standards, for they happened in Israel, 5000 BC. Shouldn't all the morality in a book ordained by God be followed throughout all time? Since the Bible (according to Christians) is the "word of God" himself, those laws should be implemented even in the present. But, our moral standards have evolved throughout that time (in a 21st century, first world society) to see that killing adulterers and homosexuals, and keeping slaves is immensely immoral. He states in his closing argument that human beings have inherent value, since it is ordained by God. The very same God is the one that condones the killing of adulterers and homosexuals, and slavery; and for slaves to be treated like property (thus stripping them of their inherent value). There is a contradiction right here, as these two moral values do not match. Many atheists (which I am not, for the record) also see that humans have inherent value, but they get that from their own innate sense of morality, not because some God told them it.

3.) Buddhism
This argument alone invalidates the notion of God and morality. Its simple; morality can come from an enlightened being. Pro asks on what basis is this being enlightened. Then I ask on what basis can morality come from God, since there is no basis for God's existence. Here, just one example is needed to invalidate the claim Pro is making. And I provided it. If Pro questions the basis of enlightenment, than the basis of God itself is questionable. Thus, by questioning enlightenment, Pro digs his own grave, for the notion of God is than under question. And I urge Pro to read up on Buddhism. It actually is quite a fascinating religion.

4.) Conclusion
I have provided arguments of how objective morality can come without a God, and have even provided the example of Buddhism (a notion is that Buddha is a god, which is actually Hinduism's version, not the Buddhist version. In Buddhism, the Buddha is venerated as an enlightened being, not a God). Thus, I have met Pro's challange, and have even provided REAL LIFE examples that invalidate Pro's claim of objective morality coming only from God. I have also challanged Pro's morality, and how it contradicts the Bible, which, quote, he says "I believe the entire bible is the inspired word of God", yet his own moral standards contradicts that of the Bible (which cannot be taken in context, but in this case, has to be considered the universal standard, for, to pro, it is the word of God).

I thank Pro for this debate, and vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thejames 3 years ago
Thanks Pase66. would be happy to do it again another time. Congrats
Posted by Pase66 3 years ago
I would like to thank thejames for this great debate, and I hope we could do this some other time.
Posted by footballchris561 3 years ago
And I'm sure your explanation of an invisible being that created the universe by waving his hands has much less unanswered questions.
Posted by sadolite 3 years ago
"Sadolite it passes as the most plausible explanation because that it was is evident."

I have read numerous studies and scientific articles on evolution to educate myself and entertain the theory of evolution and found they leave many unanswered questions or can't answer them to my satisfaction. I reject that "Plausibility" "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Posted by footballchris561 3 years ago

It is interesting how you accept evolution because all other explanations have a lack of plausibility but accept morality without any plausibility.
Posted by Toxifrost 3 years ago
Sadolite it passes as the most plausible explanation because that it was is evident.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Are you a moderator, or are you just reporting votes?

Yes, I am the Voting Issues Moderator.
Posted by sadolite 3 years ago
"We as humans evolved from primates." DOES THIS ACTUALLY PASS AS FACT IN SCHOOLS TODAY
Posted by Pase66 3 years ago
Are you a moderator, or are you just reporting votes?
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
FaustianJustice. 5 points to Con (arguments & sources). Reason for removal: failure to explain sources vote.

Reasons for voting decision: Without God, any God, pick a card random God, morality cannot logically exist. Con was able to demonstrate enough evidence through evolution and enlightened individual that a random supernatural concept whose existence was never demonstrated, nor how said God's rules were supposed to filter to man is the sole way for morality to exist. If its 'God vs No God' and "God" is undefined, any invented uncaring despondent creator shoots the premise in the foot. This debated needed a character of God to hold the assertion, but that was not provided. What if the God selected (since its not about which God) was that of a malevolent deity that took pleasure in misery and carnage? Half the arguments of what is good and bad that Pro brings to the table don't qualify.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Toxifrost 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a huge mistake in assuming an objective morality and running with it rather than actually proving it's existence even briefly. Con clearly demonstrated how one could describe how morals exist and how they came about and showed why within that argument a god is unnecessary. This being said he did stray off topic a tad however pro kept repeating that con never responded to his arguments despite the fact that he did so conduct is a tie. As for sources con used scientifically credible sources and actually cited his arguments. Pro didn't use any sort of empirical evidence to back up any of his claims and as such sources goes to con.
Vote Placed by footballchris561 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was unable to explain how humans can truly understand morality without involving it as a survival trait. Con loses conduct as none of his arguments were able to rebut pros assertions. His arguments were repetitive and meaningless. None of cons sources were applicable to the problems pro presented.