The Instigator
MesserMessesUpEverything
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Confucius1
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Morality comes from evolution processes in society, not from the biblical God, Yahweh.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Confucius1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,018 times Debate No: 99795
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

MesserMessesUpEverything

Pro

The god in the Bible is in no way a moral god at all in today's standards. I have herd the argument "If there is no god than there is no reason to be moral", but the Bible is more then enough proof that this is not true. Actually, if you are a follower of the Bible and take scripture as literal "truth", than the opposite is true, at least in American standards of morality. However, places in Middle East, like Sadi Arabia, may fail to see anything wrong, morally, with the Bible.

I would like to get an opponent that believes that all of the Bible is literal truth, and that society should fallows the rules of god.

Fist round is accepting, second will be the start of the debate.

Thank you, and good luck.
Confucius1

Con

I accept this debate. I will be arguing that God is a basis to what we determine as to good and bad. Without God we are left with a bunch of different subjective morals that isn't good as the other. Western society has deep roots in the Bible and all of our laws are based on teachings of the Bible/Torah. Therefore the basis of those teachings directly stems from God.

Good luck, I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
MesserMessesUpEverything

Pro

Thank you for taking the challenge. This is my first debate on here, and very excited to get started. I will be mostly quoting from the The new American Standard Bible. And just want to be clear that this is the biblical God, I'm speaking of. Not any deity, just the god Yahweh.

I disagree, Western society laws are not based on the teachings of the Bible, especially not all laws. The Funding Fathers of the U.S. constitution based the constitution on freedoms from both government tyranny, as well as religious tyranny. An example of this is the first amendment, freedom of speech and practice of any religion as long as that religion's believes do not physically harm or take rights of others. The Bible tell us that those who worship other god/gods or does "evil" in god's eyes, shall be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 17:3-5). Is law from god is of course completely illegal, also being a cruel and unusual punishment.

You can not practice the Bible in the U.S to the fullest extent, those who do, would be seen as a terrorist and extremist. Stone a child to death for disobedience(Deuteronomy 21:18-21), Killing homosexuals(Leviticus 20:3), and being able to beat your slaves as long as they get up in a day or two(Exodus 21:20), and so much more immoral acts and punishments. These rule are not guideline to morality for us today, nor should be.

Morality, comes from society itself, we humans are the ones who decide what is moral and immoral, what is good and bad. The more the civilization is disconnected from any religious tyranny and the better state of The civilization, having things like food, clean water and education will improve morals, because people are not desperate to get these necessities for survival. The better luxury of the society the better the morals. Example: my father used to hunt with my grandfather, Killing deer, and farming chicken and cows, for food. My father never took me hunting, so I was never exposed at a young age that killing another animal for food was ok, but I can eat another animal knowing it was another animal, but I can not even kill a bug, let alone an animal, why can my father kill anything other than another human? I believe it's because I never had the need to kill animals for food, If I want meat I could go to a grocery store, now that food has become easier/cheaper to get. Some would consider that I have a higher morality than my father or grandfather.

The conclusion: the higher luxury for the civilization, the higher moral. The morality will stay the same with a religions tyranny, like Saudi Arabia. Killing those who do not believe in their holy-book is not moral.
Confucius1

Con

Thank you as well for posting this debate. Welcome to debate.org, I hope you can gain knowledge from this website. I know I have learned a lot from reading debates on this website. Good luck.

Now lets begin.

Western law is in fact heavily rooted in the Bible. For an example the settlers from Europe were escaping religious persecution in their own land. The single most important foundational doctrine in forming a civil government is what is called the "doctrine of man," or the "doctrine of human nature. Most of the Founders held to a biblical view that man is depraved, sinful and frail but, through Christ, capable of regeneration. That conventional Christian view of man was predominate among the Founders. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton used the term "depravity" to refer to man"s capability to do evil with political power (The Federalist, #37 and #78).

To fully understand the influence Bible scripture had on the writing of the U.S. Constitution, you must read the Founders own words. Beginning with the Declaration of Independence, the writer"s spelled out very clearly whom they owed their obedience to and whom their ultimate trust laid. They acknowledged a Creator and that our rights come from Him and that governments are instituted to protect all of those rights. They then listed their grievances and why they wanted to be free and independent. The U.S. Constitution was the remedy for all of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence. Remember these men pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor when they signed their names to the document.

The Constitution begins with the language "Blessings of Liberty" and "do ordain and establish" in the preamble and ends with the words "in the Year of our Lord September 17, 1787." Please take notice of the word, "our." The signers all agreed to this word and it implies that they were Christians. These are not just words; they have meaning and are an example of how much the Bible influenced the writers. They were men of faith, some more than others, but they were men that knew the power of prayer. During the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin requested a break and called for prayer at a time when it was much needed.

"You can not practice the Bible in the U.S to the fullest extent, those who do, would be seen as a terrorist and extremist. Stone a child to death for disobedience(Deuteronomy 21:18-21), Killing homosexuals(Leviticus 20:3), and being able to beat your slaves as long as they get up in a day or two(Exodus 21:20), and so much more immoral acts and punishments. These rule are not guideline to morality for us today, nor should be"

It's important to note that first of all the laws of the Old Testament are not bounded by us today. Those laws were for the nation of Israel and God's people. However, with that being said you have to know the history behind said verses. You cannot cherry-pick verses with knowing the context that they were given in. That's like me taking a recipe for cake and only reading one line and wondering why it didn't turn out to be a cake. Simply we are saved my Jesus' grace and we have a new covenant. We are under new laws to follow in the New Testament and the laws of the New Covenant are followed literally. The Mosaic laws were for God's people living in a theocracy not us today. But lets refute the verses you cherry-picked : .

Deuteronomy 21:18 indicates that the punishment was only meted out after a persistent refusal to heed both father and mother and after all discipline had failed. The parents have tried to deal with their son in a loving, firm way, but nothing worked. Verse 20 specifies that the son is stubborn in his rebellion. Not only is he recalcitrant, "he is a glutton and a drunkard." This is not a case of a child who misses curfew or plays ball in the house. This was a true menace, a child who is causing trouble in society and grieving his parents, possibly to the point of endangering them physically and financially. The punishment was not an impulsive act of anger or vengeance. Rebellion against one"s parents is direct rebellion against God. The law requiring rebellious children to be stoned to death was meant for extreme cases to protect God"s people. It would have been heartbreaking for parents to bear the responsibility of initiating such severe measures. However, the Bible never records this law being enforced.

The commandment of Leviticus 20:13 to punish homosexuals is not applicable to Christians because it was not given to Christians. That commandment is not applicable to Americans because it was not given to Americans. This seems like a simple concept, and some people may wonder why I have to explain such a simplstic notion, but because the scoffers do not read the Bible, and remain willfully ignorant of what it says, they must have these simple concepts explained to them that we normally learn in children's Sunday school.

So are Christians commanded to kill homosexuals? No. That commandment was not given to Christians. Does that mean homosexuality is acceptable to God? No. Homosexuality is still sin and abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Not only were the commandments to punish sin given to the children of Israel, and not to the Christians, but the punishment for homosexual sin (as well as all others) was taken on the cross by our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who accept Christ can be forgiven for their sins.

Slavery in Bible is not the same slavery that has existed in past centuries. People were not enslaved based on race, or their nationality. People were enslaved based off of economics at the time. Slavery was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay off of their debt. Doctors, lawyers and even politicians sold themselves into slavery to pay off their debt. The Bible is not a way to reform society but to salvation. The biblical point on issues is to approach from the inside out. A slave can be a brother of the Lord. Slave traders are seen as ungodly and sinful in the Bible. Slaves are actually referred to as "bondservants" and their are laws on their treatment.

Morality comes from God because without God there is no basis for moral values. Without God we cannot be morally accountable for our actions. God serves as the reference point for our moral duties. The reason why we believe murder is wrong is because God willed it to be wrong. The objective morality is binding and valid whether you believe them or not. Social morality that you described is not independent of the way people think and believe because that would exemplify a subjective point of view.

Objective morality goes as followed, for an example we all agree that slavery was an evil practice in America. Even though the people who carried it out thought it was right. Objective morality is binding and is always valid. If morality is truly based off of society/nature then we are accidental beings and byproducts.

The atheist view holds for an example that rape is wrong and was not advantageous to society so therefore in the course of human development was seen as taboo. But it does NOT prove that rape is really wrong. In your atheistic view there is nothing really wrong with rape. Without God there is no absolute right or wrong, bad or good that imposes themselves on our moral conscious. The thing is objective moral values do exist, and denying it, is no better than denying what we see the in physical world. Murder, theft, cruelty are not just socially unacceptable behavior but they are moral abominations. You cannot spell good without God.
Debate Round No. 2
MesserMessesUpEverything

Pro

"You cannot spell good without God" I'm confused on how you can spell a four letter word with three letters. I am dyslexic, so not the best speller, however I am good at math. Three does not equal four.

I understand that the men that wrote the Constitution were deist and Christian but no mention to which god they were referring to, nor any mention of the Bible. John Atoms even said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other", but no word of what religion. But perhaps you're right, maybe there was motivation from the Bible in the first draft of the constitution, Leaving out that women should be able to vote(Timothy 2:11-15) and that African-Americans votes are equal to everyone else's possibly due to the curse of Ham(for seeing his father naked).

I was quoting the whole Bible for Jewish, Christians, and Catholics take on the Bible. However, for this debate I can quote the New Testament, either way there's plenty of in immoral teachings in there as well. Considering that the New Testament is all about human sacrifice but not only human sacrifice, killing God's own son/himself. I'm not too sure on the what Jesus is, I've been told that he is God but of course there is only one God but the Bible refers to Jesus as God's son. Because, God had that one night stand with that Mary chick. I know the options to forgiving mankind seems limited, but I'm sure an all-knowing God, would be able to think of a more moral way of forgiveness other than human sacrifice. But, I suppose that beats out mass genocide like the flood of Noah's Ark and killing of innocent babies, because the pharaoh did not do what God wanted.

"Slavery in Bible is not the same slavery that has existed in past centuries. People were not enslaved based on race, or their nationality. People were enslaved based off of economics at the time. Slavery was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay off of their debt. Doctors, lawyers and even politicians sold themselves into slavery to pay off their debt. The Bible is not a way to reform society but to salvation. The biblical point on issues is to approach from the inside out. A slave can be a brother of the Lord. Slave traders are seen as ungodly and sinful in the Bible. Slaves are actually referred to as "bondservants" and their are laws on their treatment."

(Leviticus 25:44-46) States that you can buy slaves from other nations and from travelers. (Exodus 21:20-21) States that you were allowed to beat your slaves with rods male or female and if the slave dies the slave owner will be punished but if the slave gets up in a day or two then there shall be no punishment because the slave is the masters property. (Luke 12:47-48) States that slaves that do not do their work, shall be severely punished and those that do not know that they are doing wrong shell only be punished lightly. Even the new testament does not condemn slavery or harming your slaves. The definition of bond servant is someone who does not get paid, so yes technically you can call a slave a bondservant, but forgetting to mention that you beat and punish that bond servant if they do not do their work, also buying that bond servant. Either way you put it, it's a slave, especially when it comes to the old testament. I understand the Bible and a lot of Christians like to use wordplay or to call something literature to get around certain facts and unapproved moral teachings in the Bible. But, trying to work around slavery is a tough one for the Bible, there are just too many verses that tell us how to treat slaves and usually it's not good.

"Morality comes from God because without God there is no basis for moral values. Without God we cannot be morally accountable for our actions. God serves as the reference point for our moral duties. The reason why we believe murder is wrong is because God willed it to be wrong. The objective morality is binding and valid whether you believe them or not. Social morality that you described is not independent of the way people think and believe because that would exemplify a subjective point of view."

But God murdered lots of people in the Bible, with mass genocide and sending angels to destroy entire armies, Sudden and Gomorrah, even those who are innocent, are you suggesting that God did wrong? If the only reason we don't kill each other is because of God, then why do wolves not kill each other, why do piranhas not fight each other when going at a meal? Perhaps a lot of animals have heard the word of God?

"Objective morality goes as followed, for an example we all agree that slavery was an evil practice in America. Even though the people who carried it out thought it was right. Objective morality is binding and is always valid. If morality is truly based off of society/nature then we are accidental beings and byproducts."

I would even say that slavery was an evil practice in the Bible, I have given you my evidence in the above. Morality helps species, not only humans, have a greater chance for survival. Puranas are a great example, if they killed each other, they would have a smaller chance of catching prey, they have to work together. However, piranhas do not have a basis of morality, they have no god, nor do they have any laws(that I'm aware of)

"The atheist view holds for an example that rape is wrong and was not advantageous to society so therefore in the course of human development was seen as taboo. But it does NOT prove that rape is really wrong. In your atheistic view there is nothing really wrong with rape. Without God there is no absolute right or wrong, bad or good that imposes themselves on our moral conscious. The thing is objective moral values do exist, and denying it, is no better than denying what we see the in physical world. Murder, theft, cruelty are not just socially unacceptable behavior but they are moral abominations."

I don't think the words moral and God work together, when talking about the Bible. God approves of rape murder and pillage(Numbers 31:7-18), I'm going to continue to quote the old testament because I found this verse(Matthew 5:17) unless Christians want to go against the word of God and, Jesus. According to the New Testament the laws from the Old Testament still apply, Jesus did not come here to destroy the old laws. So according to the Bible there is nothing wrong with rape. The Bible makes no claim that rape is wrong, it actually encourages it.

I can not talk for the atheistic view, there is no book that tell them to murder, rape, or how to treat slaves, or in other words how to act "moral" to please their invisible master. Atheist/agnostics, are more free to think on their own, no boundaries of texts. I can give you my on opinion on how rape and how it is wrong. Forcing another human being to do sexual acts against that person's will, violating their rights as human being. Even though the majority of the Bible does not considered women as people or up to man's standard(Timothy 2:11-15). But, people of non-Faith sees everyone as equals and with equal right as a person.

(Deuteronomy 17:2-5) States that you should kill infidels and nonbelievers. But this contradicts the first constitutional amendment the freedom of speech and religion. When the Bible is quite clear that you shall not warship any other God for it is punishable by death. Again the old testament laws are not destroyed by Jesus Christ, they are for filled. There are plenty of verses in the new testament that are quite clear that you shall not abandon the Old Testament laws(Matthew 5:17). I would not suggest taking text for self interpretation(2 Peter 20-21)
Confucius1

Con

It is not a hard concept to grasp, it is quick easy. What word can you form from the word "good"? G-O-D. Likewise what word can you form from devil? E-V-I-L. You get it?

"I understand that the men that wrote the Constitution were deist and Christian but no mention to which god they were referring to, nor any mention of the Bible." What other God could they be referring too? You said you acknowledge they were Christians so what God could they refer too? Are you insinuating that their belief in a creator is different from the God of the Bible? Either way it doesn't make since because the whole point of leaving Europe was to escape religious persecution. They people who formed America were God-fearing men.

To say that the western laws are not biblical is simply not true. The founding fathers had a belief in the God of the Bible. Here is something from Noah Webster the founding father of education :

"If there is a possibility of founding a perfectly free government, and giving it permanent duration, it must be raised upon the pure maxims, and supported by the undecaying practice, of that religion, which breathes "peace on earth, and good will to men." That religion [Christianity] is perfectly republican . . . . it is calculated to humble the pride and allay the discontents of men. . . . It restrains the magistrate from oppression, and the subject from revolt . . . . it secures a perfect equality of rights, by enjoining a discharge of all social duties, and a strict subordination to law. The universal prevalence of that religion, in its true spirit, would banish tyranny from the earth".

Alexis De Tocqueville who observed Democracy in America understood that religion is the road to knowledge. In 1829 he wrote a letter to James Madison, he said "that the christian religion, in its purity, is the basis or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government.. . . I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist & be durable, in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence." American constitution has origin in the British constitution. The British constitution had been founded on christian law. The bible was introduced to Britain in the 1st century. The fundamental act of our Founding, the Declaration of Independence, recognizes the Creator God as the Source of Rights; and acknowledges that the purpose of civil government is simply to "secure" the Rights God gave us. The Constitution we subsequently ratified was based on God"s model of civil government as set forth in the Bible.

The blessing which flows from God"s model is limited civil government which is under The Law. That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Lev. 25:10 " "Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof."

Civil authorities are under the law.

God = The lawmaker and the kings were under his law
Deut. 17:18-20; 1 Kings 2:1-4

It equates to the constitution.

Constitution = Supreme law of the land.
Our Constitution is the Standard by which the validity of all Acts of Congress, all acts of the Executive Branch, all judicial opinions, and all Treaties is measured and judged (Art. VI, cl. 2). Law comes from a higher source than the civil authorities. The "Rule of Law" prevails when the civil authorities obey that higher Law. I could give more examples of this, but I hope you understand.

"I'm not too sure on the what Jesus is, I've been told that he is God but of course there is only one God but the Bible refers to Jesus as God's son. Because, God had that one night stand with that Mary chick. I know the options to forgiving mankind seems limited, but I'm sure an all-knowing God, would be able to think of a more moral way of forgiveness other than human sacrifice."

This strongly suggests that you haven't even read the Bible. It also suggests that you regurgitate what other people say, but it all gets refuted. I've found that atheist constantly want to ask questions and assumptions but when given an answer they reject it. However, this debate is not about whether you believe Jesus is God's son or not, if you want a simple explanation just feel free to message me. The concept is not very hard to understand. The main problem is you equating God's existence to the human existence, which is a flaw from the start. Like I said just message me if you want to be informed. Just know when you make these claims be able to back them up because it is a Hitchens razor. If you want to assert this claim without any evidence then I can dismiss your claim without any evidence.

Are you reading what I am typing? You constantly quote these Old testament verses even though they do not apply to the New Covenant. Since I don't think you are let me just copy and paste what I already typed to you. It's important to note that first of all the laws of the Old Testament are not bounded by us today. Those laws were for the nation of Israel and God's people. However, with that being said you have to know the history behind said verses. You cannot cherry-pick verses with knowing the context that they were given in. That's like me taking a recipe for cake and only reading one line and wondering why it didn't turn out to be a cake. Simply we are saved my Jesus' grace and we have a new covenant. We are under new laws to follow in the New Testament and the laws of the New Covenant are followed literally. The Mosaic laws were for God's people living in a theocracy not us today.

With that being said even though they are not bound to us today; many of the commands of the Old Testament are easily refuted.

Yes, it is a slave but not in today's term as slavery. Slavery as I explained was NOT the same as slavery here in America. People sold themselves in slavery as a way to pay off debt. Even people with high paying jobs sold themselves into slavery to pay off debt. Slavery has been a fact of human existence for almost as long as the human race has been in existence. Physical punishment to enforce compliance has been part of slavery for just as long. Corporal punishment has also been used in situations other than slavery. The Bible does not forbid slavery, nor does it demand that every slave owner who wants to please God must immediately emancipate his slaves. Instead, the Bible at every turn calls for a treatment of slaves that would have been more humane than any found in the culture at large. The very idea that a master could be punished in any way for killing a slave would have been scandalous at the time Moses gave the Law. The purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of "man-stealing," which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. When the authors of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (a.k.a. Old and New Testaments) were alive, slavery was a perfectly normal and expected social institution. New Testament writers addressed underlying attitudes regarding slavery: Christian masters called Christian slaves "brothers" or "sisters." The New Testament commanded masters to show compassion, justice, and patience. Their position as master meant responsibility and service, not oppression and privilege. Thus, the worm was already in the wood for altering social structures.

God didn't murder people because he does not do that. God instructs people and nations to carry out his bidding. I addressed this particular comment on another debate. What he did was not wrong. Unlike us, God knows the future. God knew what the results would be if Israel did not completely eradicate the Amalekites. If Israel did not carry out God"s orders, the Amalekites would come back to trouble the Israelites in the future. Saul claimed to have killed everyone but the Amalekite king Agag (1 Samuel 15:20). Obviously, Saul was lying"just a couple of decades later, there were enough Amalekites to take David and his men"s families captive (1 Samuel 30:1-2). After David and his men attacked the Amalekites and rescued their families, 400 Amalekites escaped. If Saul had fulfilled what God had commanded him, this never would have occurred. Several hundred years later, a descendant of Agag, Haman, tried to have the entire Jewish people exterminated (see the book of Esther). So, Saul"s incomplete obedience almost resulted in Israel"s destruction. God knew this would occur, so He ordered the extermination of the Amalekites ahead of time.

You haven't addressed what I stated directly prior. All you said is that God is immoral which I refuted your claims. My claims remains. If there is no God what basis do we have for moral values? If there is no God we cannot be morally accountable for our actions. The reason we have intuition is because of God's will instilled in our minds.
Debate Round No. 3
MesserMessesUpEverything

Pro

Since this is our last round, unfortunately. I do ask you to start showing evidence throughout the Bible quoting verses that defend your argument, rather than self interpretation of the Bible. You have given me no evidence, on why I should think that slaves in the Bible were different than slaves in early America. I have given you verse after verse that the slaves were treated poorly, but you just give me your own opinion on it and not actual real evidence in the Bible. That's states that "Bond servants" are different and slaves in America, and not slaves of Israelites that you have been suggesting, I understand Israelites slaves are treated better than other non-Israelites slaves. I do want to remind you that self interpretation of the Bible is not permitted in the New Testament, I've given you that first already.

For my opponent, a reminder, The Bible does suggest that you do not take the biblical scriptures out of self interpretation of what they may mean (2 Peter 1:20). Hope I have made that clear.

New Testament immoral teachings:

Rules for women.

(1 Timiothy 2:20) States, Women should not teach or have authority over a man and should be quiet. (Sorry, ladies. It's all because Eve came from Adam). I'm afraid this is no longer a good moral teachings in today society. My opponent may differ. But, I believe and many other man, women are equal to men.

(1 Corinthians 14:34-35) Guys, aren't you tired of your wife babbling on about how you never help her around the house? Well, it looks like she needs a dose of the Lord! Take her butt to church, there it is disgraceful for them to talk and she must be submissive.

(1 Peter 3:1-7) Some more women being submissive rhetoric. Looks like my girlfriend needs to start calling me her lord.

There's more sexism in the Bible but I do not feel like quoting them. You may look them up yourself. However, women are submissive in the Bible continuing on in the New Testament.

Slavery: Looks like slaves can still be beaten for "bad" work, because it is the slave's fault .. I think I see where J.K. Rowling got the idea for elves. Love those masters even the ones that are harsh.

(1 Peter 2:18-21) "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."

(Ephesians 6:5-6) "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart."

(Titus 2:9)"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them."

Crazy:

(Matthew 5:27-30) States that men should cut off and gouge body parts, rather than get some eye candy. I would say a bit psychotic(Sorry, gentlemen), you can't question the lord.

Quoting my opponents words from the first round " I will be arguing that God is a basis to what we determine as to good and bad. Without God we are left with a bunch of different subjective morals that isn't good as the other. Western society has deep roots in the Bible and all of our laws are based on teachings of the Bible/Torah. Therefore the basis of those teachings directly stems from God."

I'm afraid my opponent's was incorrect. Western societies laws may have had motivation from the Bible such as the sexism, that begin our nation. But, to say all of our laws are based on the Bible. To have somebody be submissive to somebody else based on their sex is not only immoral but illegal. Not only having a slave, but beating them, is something that is also illegal and immoral.

To my opponent, I gave you at the founders may have been sexist and racist(slaves) Christians/Deist. But, this is a debate about morality. Also you said you wanted to include the Torah. I remind, you that that is the Old Testament given by Moses. Afraid, there are not many laws that include murder, rape, and slavery in Western society today. No matter what nationality or religion you claim to be, you cannot own a slave in the United States nor murder anyone in the United States, everyone is equal.

I have not read all the way through the Bible, it is quite a long book, 66 books plus the ones that were taken out. And I thought the Star Wars collection had a lot of books. I have read to Deuteronomy. However, I have demonstrate a better knowledge of the Bible, then you.

I don't see why you cannot explain what Jesus is in this debate, it should be an easy and quick answer. However I am interested in learning in Jesus, anyone I've talk to gives me a different answer. I'm sure yours will be no different. From my understanding, everybody has a different interpretation of Jesus, if he is God or the son of God. I see it all as fiction, so I really don't mind which way you see it.

Like my opponent said. Without God, Yahweh, we are left with "subjective" morals. With God our morals are terrible, even with just following the New Testament and ignoring the Old Testament, we are still extremely sexist and owning slaves this is not only illegal but not moral.

I would like my opponent to defend his statement saying that all laws are based off the Bible/Torah when, even just following the New Testament ,women are not as good as man and not every man is equal to the next. These are not a good basis for morality.

Here is a really good article on morals http://bigthink.com... it talks about relative morals. I really suggest the read. This makes more sense that sexism and slavery. ((((HERE IS MY EVIDENCE))))

I think I've demonstrated well enough, that the Bible including Old Testament and New Testament are not held up to today's standards for morality. Making women submissive to men and owning slaves is very frowned upon in Western society.

This only leaves us with relative morals that there is not only good and bad but a gray depending on the situation depends on what is good and bad I will not go into much detail about this because I shared a link in the above.

To my opponent:

I do ask that you show evidence, because I have shown you my evidence. Again, not from self interpretation, but using quotes from the Bible.
New Testament:
What is moral about sexism and having women be submissive?

What is moral about having slaves?

What is sane about gouging out eyeballs so you don't look at a woman?

Old Testament:
I will not ask questions on this because I know you cannot defend them, on what the morality is and lessons are from the Old Testament teachings.

I would like to thank my opponent, since this is our last round. For a good debate. It has caused me to think, learn, and research a lot.
Confucius1

Con

My opponent seems to not know his history about slavery. The fact that slavery is different back then than it was in the US is fact. This fact is external from the Bible, and if you take any world civ class you will learn this. Slavery dates back to human existence and it has changed over its course of time.

The verses you gave me I put into context for you and explained the meaning. What can you NOT comprehend? You literally copy and pasted verses and I explained every one to you. This is not my interpretation but facts! I've told you 3 times now that slavery is very much different than it was in history. I've explained the verses to you, but you still haven't addressed it but simply claim it is wrong. Judges when you go to vote please keep this in mind :

He has given me verses, and stated his claims. I refuted his claims and now he says its just my interpretation so I must be wrong. Yet he gives no evidence as to why my claims are wrong but they are based off of emotion. He wants the Bible to be immoral, not because it is immoral. The point of debate is provide evidence for your claim he has not done so.

For an example in round 1 he gives me a few verses. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), (Leviticus 20:3), and (Exodus 21:20). Note in round 2 I explain the verses, and I even tell him the historical context around the verses. He denies it by saying the Bible has too immoral teachings. I explain slavery to him in detail in round 3. He still claims its my own interpretation, but I gave him historical facts that are external from the Bible. He fails to know that the Bible is also a source of history, and from external sources they support what I've told you.

http://www.historyworld.net...
http://realhistoryww.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.freetheslaves.net...

When presented with facts he will still deny it. I've said all I can say about slavery maybe hearing it from another source can reinforce my point.

This debate has turned away from morality (which I was trying to remain) to a debate verses from the Bible.

First of you, if you are going to put a verse down please get the correct you. I've refuted this claim many times so I know what verse you are trying to go at. 1 Timothy 2:12.

In the case of 1 Timothy, Paul was writing a personal letter instructing Timothy about how to deal with heresy being spread by false teachers in Ephesus. Paul said : "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless geneaologies"They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm"" (1 Tim 1:3-4, -7) These false teachers were most likely men, much of the spreading of the false teaching was through women in the congregation. It is likely that most women in the Ephesian church had limited training in Christian theology and that their interest in false doctrine was proving to be dangerous. There is no evidence in the text that he was writing to establish a permanent restriction on all women for all time.

It is also very important to understand that the Bible"s ascribing different roles to men and women does not constitute sexism. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God expects men to take the leadership role in the church and the home. Does this make women inferior? Absolutely not. Does this mean women are less intelligent, less capable, or viewed as less in God"s eyes? Absolutely not! What it means is that in our sin-stained world, there has to be structure and authority. God has instituted the roles of authority for our good. Sexism is the abuse of these roles, not the existence of these roles.

Matthew 5:27-3 is avoiding the sin of adultery. Again you must understand the context of the verse and the commentary. This is the sermon on the Mount and Jesus is talking to an audience. He begins to explain what the audience already knows about adultery. Jesus is asking his audience to consider that unfaithfulness begins not in the actual act of adultery, but when one looks lustfully at a woman. The word translated "lustfully" is related closely to the word "covet." So to look at someone with lust is to want, in some way, to own or possess them. To lust after someone is to view them as an object, an object that exists to meet your needs, rather than as a person to respect and honor as one of God"s very own children. Now you said this is a bit psychotic but in fact its logical. Its quite simple if you had an infected hand that was causing you pain would you cut it off?

Jesus goes on to tell His listeners what they should do if some part of their body causes them to sin. He answer is very simple and straightforward. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. And what is the reason He gives for such radical behavior? Because "it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." It is better, Jesus tells His listeners to love being righteous than to hold on to some old thought patterns, indulgences, manipulations, that we have come to think of as being a part of who we are. Cut out those things which are keeping you from experiencing the full life of Christ. Jesus" intention for us, God"s eternal purpose for us, is that we be truly and completely holy, whole, like Him. To be righteous is to be all one thing--full of the good life of God, every nook and cranny of our being filled with His joy and love. Who would want to cling to some destructive habit or indulgence and risk losing life itself?

My opponent admits that I am right regarding western laws have developed from the Bible. Our basic laws and moral values developed from the Bible that I've given him quotes and examples of that he yet has to refute. Anyway he admits that Western law has basis on the Bible. When you go to vote please be reminded of this, he openly admits that I am right.

He claims to demonstrate more knowledge than me on the Bible, but I yet he can't comprehend the core principles of the Bible. He still doesn't know who Jesus is or his relation to the world. I've explained every verse he has given to me, I've refuted everything. He claims everyone's interpretation is different of Jesus, but I see this is a cop-out. He can't explain his own interpretation or give any input on the topic.

He claims our morals are terrible with God, yet how basic core laws of society stem from God. My opponent still has NOT answered my question. Judges take note I've asked him in round 1 what is the basis of moral value if not for God? And if there is no God, what moral accountability do we have? He has not answered these questions.

My opponent goes in circles, he never addressed what I said about the verse but claim they aren't true. His claims are based off of emotions not facts. I give him the context of the verses but he ignores it and says its not true. This is a fallacy called Hitchens's razor. If you make claims based off of emotions and not facts I can dismiss them without facts or evidence. I've debated this with multiple atheists and they at least take what I say of these verses, and not deny it because they don't want to believe in the Bible. I recommend you watch a few scholars on this debate. Dr.James White is one I recommend you watch. It seems as though even if the truth smacked you in the face you would still deny it. You seem to be one of these atheists who can't stand the fact at being wrong.

He still rejects that the laws are God-given and claims they can't be from the Bible because it is immoral. So let me refute this with the little bit of characters I have left.

Civil Government is divided into Three Parts: The Bible: Isaiah 33:22 says The Lord is our "judge", "lawgiver", and "king"
The parallel in our Constitution is that the federal government is divided into three branches: Judicial, legislative, and executive.No human can be trusted with all three functions, so our Constitution separates them into three branches, with each branch having checks on the powers of the other branches. Tyrants seek to exercise all three functions. Obama is making Congress irrelevant: When they refuse to pass a law he wants, he implements it by "executive order" or "agency regulation". He"s making the judicial branch irrelevant by ignoring their decisions which go against his will.

He is a hypocrite, first he claims I am right about western laws being from God. Then he says they can't be from God because they are not moral? Which is it? Be consistent in your argument. Judges note the multiple fallacies in his arguments.

Thank you for this debate! Up to the judges now. Good luck
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 3RU7AL 10 months ago
3RU7AL
Ok, I ran out of space.

Continued here:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Confucius1 10 months ago
Confucius1
1. Also what I mean by "no one makes sense of morality" I am saying that NO human makes sense of it because doing so would be subjective. Our morality is objective and God-given.
Posted by Confucius1 10 months ago
Confucius1
These are all logical questions you have to consider. You run into some roadblocks when you consider what I am asking. You and I know it doesn't make sense to subscribe to atheist point of view in relations to life. I'd even go further and say, God is the best explanation for how life came to be.

You have to also see the hypocrisy in your beliefs. I won't point it out until you give me your answers.
Posted by Confucius1 10 months ago
Confucius1
4. You repeated the same question you asked in 2. As I said nothing was changed, and you MUST read the account of Jesus. Read Matthews. I won't keep going back and forth on this because I'm telling you to read the account but you are not wanting to read it. Therefore you must be closed-minded and in your heart you want to be right. You ask ask ask questions, but when given something to read you don't. If that's,how you build with another individual intellectually I will pass on going back and forth. Many people I debate with give me evidence that I can read up on. Maybe I won't have the answer right away and I'll come back; or maybe I won't have an answer at all. The bottom line is I'm always willing to grow intellectually.

Let me ask you questions :

If not social conditioning what is the basis for morality?
Why do we have these "gut feelings" that leads us to think murder is wrong?
If murder is only wrong when the society deems it wrong, does that mean murder can be accepted?
But not only murder, rape, thief, arson, etc
What basis of moral accountability do we have?
What you really want to say is that God does not exist, and if he doesn't how can you prove it?
Do atheist also have faith assumptions in their beliefs?
If we are all meaningless beings that live on a giant rock, and when we die nothing will happen; why should anything be considered right or wrong? I mean we are going to die anyways and nothing else happens. Why not just live a little and murder some people? There is nothing offered after death, so why should we be concerned about anything? We are doomed from the start of conception, according to your logic. What I am basically asking is what is the meaning of life? What is our purpose? If our purpose is just to exist and die then why should we care about each other?
Posted by Confucius1 10 months ago
Confucius1
1. That question in its sense is flawed. You can replace that question and ask who or what made God? As to no one makes our sense of morality. The entity that wills it is God. That's like asking what does the color yellow smell like? It doesn't make sense. You aren't getting it, and you even agreed with me, so the fact that you keep arguing this is weird. An atheist might believe that murder is wrong but you don't really believe that it is wrong. You only believe it is wrong because of some sort of social conditioning. Your logic is flawed ,and if you hold onto it you hit some barricades. Murder is wrong because it is deemed harm to society, but you don't really believe it is wrong. If murder was acceptable to society you would allow it to happen, but that sounds highly unlikely you would. On the contrary we believe murder is wrong, even if we didn't have laws that prohibit it. Why? Because of God's moral nature, he wills us to have this intuition that murder is wrong.

2. No I didn't say they changed. I said that the laws were given to the nation of Israel. Jesus came and fulfilled the law, and he says specifically that he did not do away with them. 2 Timothy 3:16 read it. You might also want to read matthews. If you want to understand what I am talking about because I am not going to preach to you. Moral law and civil law are not the same, so don't mix them up. Laws might have been not to wear the same different fabric in the old testament, but we are not under that law anymore. The moral laws have remained the same.

3. Where did you come up with this fallacy? I've explained this to you already and I feel like I'm repeating myself. God gave us the ability to choose our own destiny. We can do whatever we want. You can choose to follow God or not. It is your choice at the end of the day. You can make your own path in life.
Posted by 3RU7AL 11 months ago
3RU7AL
1) I haven't intentionally evaded anything. In fact, in reference to your specific complaint, I have answered your question at least twice already. "What is the basis of morality if not God?" Our basis of morality is the same as it is for social animals. You seem to have a very good grasp of the concept when you say that "murder" is not advantageous to society. This standard works great for both humans and social animals. I'm not sure why you insist that some concept of "god" is needed for humans when even you are able to admit that it has nothing to do with allowing social animals to cooperate with each other. Your claim that "murder is not advantageous to society" seems to be a more than sufficient explanation for this particular social norm. It is easy to imagine that any group of people that openly celebrated "murder" probably killed themselves off and were very likely to be (violently) rejected by their neighbors.

2) So you're saying that the laws of "the bible" changed and/or don't apply to certain people and are therefore not "objective". Since we seem to agree on this, how can we possibly know what "god's" "objective" moral code is? Shouldn't we have it written down somewhere? If it's the same for everyone and never changes, it should be pretty easy to write down somewhere for easy reference.
Posted by 3RU7AL 11 months ago
3RU7AL
3) If "god" is omnipotent, humans are subject to "god's" will in all things at all times. Humans cannot even take a breath of air without "god's" explicit approval. If "god" truly wanted simply to give people a "choice", then "god" could send people straight to hell as soon as they "chose" to act against "god's" will, thus sparing the innocent victims of their suffering. All of our needs and desires and capabilities are given to us by "god" and we can only do and not do things within the framework that "god" designed. You can't say that "god" wrote some moral law on all humans and then say that "god" did not pre-program us. Without at least some kind of basic pre-programming, how can humans do anything at all?

4) You've already said that some laws in "the bible" only apply to certain people and apply to other people differently before and after the Jesus came down to earth to update the whole thing. This. Is. Not. Objective. An "objective" moral code never changes and is not subject to interpretation by the Jesus or you or me or anybody else.

Even though I've never seen anything that would qualify as an "objective" moral truth, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying you have not presented any evidence of one.

5) Here's your best argument.

"God" gave all humans an "objective" moral code. This code is not written in "the bible" it is only written on the souls of human beings.

If two people disagree on the morality of any particular act, then one of them is being dishonest about their opinion.

Therefore, we do not need any laws or judges or courts or juries, only lie detectors. Because everyone knows what is right and wrong (objectively) and anyone who denies this is simply being dishonest.
Posted by Confucius1 11 months ago
Confucius1
4. His laws didn't change. Where are you reading this? The law was fulfilled in the New Covenant. The law was never done away with. Maybe you need to read the book of Matthew.

I categorize atheist into two groups. First the group who asked a million questions and when given an answer they will immediately reject it. Their rejection is normally emotionally driven. This is called a hitchens razor, if you make a claim based off of no evidence then I am able to dismiss it with no evidence. These people do not want to learn, but they just want to find something to stump you to boost their ego. "Yes I proved him wrong that God doesn't exist!" They use that to reinforce their own ego, and potentially brag about it. Yet when given an answer they just won't accept it. In their hearts they have already determined that God can NEVER exist. The followers of Christ can NEVER be right. These are closed minded people.

However, there are atheist who will break bread with you and listen to you objectively as possible. These people will listen to your answers and if they do not have a rebuttal they will try to understand. These people will offer logical questions and really challenge your beliefs. These people are actually valued as friends to me. The debate is interesting and always engaging. It also helps to reinforce your own beliefs.

I am getting the notion you are the first person I described. Which is completely fine because I deal with these people on the regular. From debating with atheist, muslims, liberals, and anyone else. I'm not saying you have to subscribe to my beliefs but one must look objectively as possible. You have to actually read what you are criticizing. If I disagree with Democrats on policy (which I do) I will read their policy and try my best to consider their views. I will read it objectively as possible to understand what they are proposing. Then will I debate their policy if I disagree. I say this because you seem extremely ignorant to the Bibl
Posted by Confucius1 11 months ago
Confucius1
1. You keep evading my question. What is the basis of morality if not God? You haven't given me empirical evidence to make your claim. God's existence is enough for us to use him as a foundation of moral value. If God doesn't exist then objective moral values do not exist. Your claim that evolutionary process shaped our morality hits some roadblocks. If you hold onto this view, you are saying that murder isn't really wrong. We would only think murder is wrong is because it isn't advantageous to society. Your claim is extremely unlikely to be true. We all have a moral duty, and that duty is owed to someone. If our morality just exists, then who are our moral owed to? The only way to make sense of moral duty is to suppose that someone created moral law. We owe our moral duty to that someone, and that someone happens to be God.

2. I'm not sure if you are comprehending what I'm saying. Your attempts to simplify the story of Bible, yet prove your ignorance of it. It isn't that it's invalid, and I believe I explain this to you. Mosaic law was not assigned to us living today, but it was given to the nation of Israel. Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecy and renewed the law. We are under the law of Christ. However, you are missing the main point. Even if there was no moral code; the very nature of God gives as a guidepost as to how to be morally just. The Bible is a source of morality for all mankind, but if we didn't have the Bible we still may act morally just.

3. om"nip"o"tent
[G6;"mG2;nipəd(ə)nt]
ADJECTIVE
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything. God is above all and knows all. God doesn't pre-program us to act anyway. Are you reading what I'm typing? Our purpose is to have a closer relationship with him. That's like you wanting a girl to like you, but you force her to act a certain way. God doesn't force us to act anyway. We are given the ability to choose our own path. If the path is bad, so be it and if it is good so be it.
Posted by 3RU7AL 11 months ago
3RU7AL
1) If you can imagine an "atheist" or for that matter a "deist" conforming to social conventions as their guide to morality, how is this any different than what social animals do? You continue to insist that "god" inscribed some moral code on humans and only humans and yet you have still not shown any evidence of this except in your feeble attempts to reference christian dogma which, as far as I can tell does not offer even a single example of an "objective" moral guideline. If there truly is some "objective" moral code inscribed on all humans, why hasn't this been documented anywhere?

2) If the "Yahweh" has authored a book, purportedly as an "objective" guide to human behavior, how is it possible that it would change in any way? Oh, whoops, my original "objective" moral code is no longer valid, I better send the Jesus down in order to straighten this mess out with a new "objective" moral code. How is it possible that this book contains not one single solitary example of an "objective" moral truth?

3) You can't say that "god" is omnipotent and insist that they are pre-programmed and then say that humans control their own destiny. It is a perfect logical contradiction.

4) Wait, so there's no such thing as an immoral law? Or are you saying that only "god's" law is moral? If the moral law of "god" is "objective" then it can not, ever ever never ever change ever. Changing a law to suit a situation or time period is the very definition of subjective morality. Social norms are sufficient cause for moral behavior in both humans and animals. There is no evidence of "objective" moral truth.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by subdeo 11 months ago
subdeo
MesserMessesUpEverythingConfucius1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that Pro misunderstood cons intent when he said, "You can't spell good without God". I would say that it was not an insult, so I think that both sides had similar conduct. Looking at raw numbers of grammatical mistakes, Con had better spelling. Con also had better sources. Not only did he cite the Bible (like both did) he cited more external, valid sources. I also think that both parties used valid arguments, thus this is a tie. Great debate, both of you!
Vote Placed by AmericanDeist 11 months ago
AmericanDeist
MesserMessesUpEverythingConfucius1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct. Con had better grammar as proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized. Con also cited his sources. Pro had the slightly better argument, and his argument supports the concept of free will. Split vote.