The Instigator
Kreakin
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
TheCommonMan
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Morality does not come from any religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Kreakin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 658 times Debate No: 42879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Kreakin

Pro

I would like to debate against the religious perspective in the supposition that our sense of morality & doing the right thing does not come from any religious teachings, that morality possibly evolved as a necessity for living in a group together. That learning to trust each others behaviours instinctively before we evolved to a stage we could utilise language was critical to group success and therefore the driving force for the evolution of behavioural morality. This is why we do not sacrifice people to harvest organs as it goes against the greater good of the group as trust is lost.

If you would like to debate this from a religious point of view in that morality was created by and without religion lost to people I would be genuinely interested to read your perspective and your counter to my position.
Thank you.
TheCommonMan

Con

I accept. I will give a brief statement on what general direction I will go in this debate.

Resolution: "Morality does not come from any religion."

My opponent (pro) has claimed that morality doesn't come from any religion. This means that my opponent has stated that no morals, no matter what type of morals, exist in any religion. Therefore, I (con) must show the following statement to be true).

There are morals that exist within at least one religion.

I look forward to an intriguing debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Kreakin

Pro

An interesting start with canny use of extension and false syllogism, however your inference that morals cannot exist within religion is incorrect and not the intended debate. Clearly religions can have morality as part of there teachings, I would not argue this. The point I would make is that morals were adopted by religions and then claimed as coming from religious teaching when in fact they already existed as favourable behavioural traits in humanity evolved from group living.

Your self set task of proving "There are morals that exist within at least one religion" will not win this round of the debate as it avoids my supposition..
TheCommonMan

Con

Rebuttal Number One:

“…your inference that morals cannot exist within religion is incorrect and not the intended debate”

Yes, this is the intended debate. My opponent’s resolution was “Morality does not come from any religion”. Since he is pro, he must prove that no morals come from any religion whatsoever.

“Your self set task of proving 'There are morals that exist within at least one religion' will not win this round of the debate as it avoids my supposition”

Yes, proving my claim will be enough to support my position. Since I am against the statement “Morality does not come from any religion”, then I would have to show that morality does come from at least one religion. That will show that my stance is correct.


Rebuttal Number Two:

“…morals were adopted by religions and then claimed as coming from religious teaching when in fact they already existed as favourable behavioural traits in humanity evolved from group living”

All my opponent has offered so far is his own opinion and theory. He did not give any proof as to why his claims and theories are true. In fact, my opponent offered up many of his opinions and theories without proof or logic.

“…our sense of morality & doing the right thing does not come from any religious teachings, that morality possibly evolved as a necessity for living in a group together”

“That learning to trust each others behaviours instinctively before we evolved to a stage we could utilise language was critical to group success and therefore the driving force for the evolution of behavioural morality”

My opponent must give evidence to show why his theories should be accepted as fact. He must also show why his opinions are the most logical way of looking at the subject.


Argument Number One:

Resolution: “Morality does not come from any religion.”

Since I am taking the con side, I must show that at least one religion has morals attached to it. However, I will offer many morals of one religion in existence.

Christianity:

It’s likely that most people have heard about the Christian religion. Not only that, but they have heard of the Ten Commandments. Let’s list the Ten Commandments taken directly from the scriptures.

Exodus 20: 2-17
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

The Ten Commandments is a list of ten moral standards by which the God of Christianity would want his people to live. So, I have showed that the Christian religion have morals. Once again, my opponent hasn’t showed exactly how all of these morals have been adopted by the Christian religion from the standards that humans created for themselves. So, my claim still stands to be true, unless my opponent proves otherwise.


In conclusion:

My opponent hasn’t defended his resolution with any evidence. He claims that religion obviously has morality, but he is arguing that no religions have any morality. So, he has not met his burden of proof of defending his resolution. He has also offered up opinions and theories, but hasn’t defended them with any facts, data, evidence, or logic. So, he must also meet his burden of proof for that, as well. I must show that at least one religion has at least one moral. I have given 10 different morals for one religion. My opponent must show why all 10 of the morals I have taken directly from the bible are morals that humans have created.

http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Kreakin

Pro

Re.Argument Number; One Rebuttal Number One & Rebuttal Number Two:

Resolution: "Morality does not come from any religion."

"The Ten Commandments is a list of ten moral standards by which the God of Christianity would want his people to live. So, I have showed that the Christian religion have morals. Once again, my opponent hasn"t showed exactly how all of these morals have been adopted by the Christian religion from the. So, my claim still stands to be true, unless my opponent proves otherwise."

I agree that there are moral teachings within religion; however Religions adoption & exploitation of our naturally occurring morality, likely done so to add weight to the given belief system, is not proof of creating the original morality that they reinforce. Hence the morality came from another source and Religion plays on it.

"standards that humans created for themselves" We did not create these standards, they are traits that evolved and were favoured. Language was not required as they started out originally as behaviours and were instinctual and /or emotional responses.

Quote from interview with Professor Psychology, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University Marc Hauser.
http://www.abc.net.au...
"Those people who believe that morality and religion are synonymous need to think twice out that. Well, I think it's a completely misguided view. I mean Peter Singer and I have written about this. But I mean what we're finding now is that in many cases when you ask 'do people with a religious background show different patterns of moral judgement from those who are atheists or agnostic'?
The answer is no.


What we're interested in doing now, which is one of the projects that we're engaged with, is if you ask questions that are morally live right now like abortion, and euthanasia, and stem cell research, you'll pretty much find religious groups kind of lining up on one side and non-religious on the other side.
But the intriguing thing is that when you can conceal the dilemma in terms of the real role case and give a kind of an artificial dilemma that captures some of the crucial ingredients, there does not seem to be differences between people with a religious background and those without."

I understand and contend therefore that we all share the same sense of morality as we evolved it together, it is no wonder that Religious people deny this as the science vs religion divide makes them feel understandably threatened in their beliefs & there is psychological value in the beliefs held. This does not change the fact however that there is significant evidence that people behave in a moral way with or without Religious teachings and that evolution and group theory provide a logical and evidenced based proposal that i believe reinforces the argument "morality does not come from any religion".


Marc Hauser's Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong published by HarperCollins provides lots more than I ever could on the subject.

This has been my first debate , so please forgive any informalities and thank you to my opponent whatever the outcome.
TheCommonMan

Con


First of all, I would like to let my opponent know that any and all informalities are forgiven.



Rebuttal Number One:


“Religions adoption & exploitation of our naturally occurring morality, likely done so to add weight to the given belief system, is not proof of creating the original morality that they reinforce. Hence the morality came from another source and Religion plays on it.”


This is just another theory that my opponent offers that has no factual backing behind it. There’s a problem with this line of logic. I could give any personal theory I wanted to and say that it is true. For example:




  1. It is possible for cows to fly, but they don’t do it in front of humans.




  2. White isn’t the absence of color, it’s actually all of the colors put together.




These claims sound ridiculous. That’s because I have no facts, data, evidence, or tests that support these claims. The same thing goes for my opponent’s claim. He’s claiming that religion plays on the morals that come from other sources, but he never explains why or how.


My opponent didn’t specifically pinpoint how all of the Ten Commandments came from other non-religious sources. I could list more moral standards of other religions, but I don’t need to. I have showed that one religion has morals, and my opponent hasn’t showed how they were derived from non-religious sources. I have met my burden of proof.



Rebuttal Number Two:


I will not copy and paste my opponent’s entire quote from Marc Hauser, considering it’s too long. However, I will comment on it.


“do people with a religious background show different patterns of moral judgement from those who are atheists or agnostic? The answer is no.”


This isn’t proof that religion adopted their morals from non-religious sources. It just explains that atheists/agnostics and religious people might share the same beliefs. However, religion adopting non-religious morals isn’t the only possibility. Non-religious morals could’ve been adopted from religious morals. I’m not here to defend that statement. I’m just stating that just because atheists/agnostics and religious people share the same morality, that does not mean that religion adopted their morals from non-religious resources.


“But the intriguing thing is that when you can conceal the dilemma in terms of the real role case and give a kind of an artificial dilemma that captures some of the crucial ingredients, there does not seem to be differences between people with a religious background and those without.”


This quote is along the same lines. Hauser is using an “if, then” argument.


“If atheists/agnostics share the same morals, then religion adopted their morals from non-religious sources.”


But I could easily claim:


“If atheists/agnostics share the same morals, then non-religious people adopted their morals from religious sources.”


This doesn’t make my claim true. My claim has no evidence behind it. Likewise, the insinuation that Hauser makes has no evidence behind it, and therefore, his claim hasn’t been proven to be true.


Now, I will analyze my opponent’s claim.


“I understand and contend therefore that we all share the same sense of morality as we evolved it together, it is no wonder that Religious people deny this as the science vs religion divide makes them feel understandably threatened in their beliefs & there is psychological value in the beliefs held. This does not change the fact however that there is significant evidence that people behave in a moral way with or without Religious teachings and that evolution and group theory provide a logical and evidenced based proposal that i believe reinforces the argument "morality does not come from any religion.”


This entire claim is a giant theory with no backing. He talks about how religious people deny that they and non-religious people share the same morals. Not only does this not have any evidence/logic behind it, but it doesn’t have any relevance to meeting his burden of proof. He talks about evidence that all people have the same moral standards, but he offered no evidence in any of his arguments. He talks about how the evolution and group theory provide evidence to meet his resolution, but he doesn’t show why. Overall, his claim had multiple statements without any backing.



Conclusion:


My opponent hasn’t met his burden of proof. He hasn’t shown why morals don’t come from any religion, or why religion adopted morals from non-religious sources. I have responded to everything my opponent has said. I also offered an example of morals of Christianity, the Ten Commandments. My opponent didn’t show how these morals were taken from non-religious sources. Overall, my opponent hasn’t shown the reasoning behind any of his claims.



I would like to thank my opponent and everyone who has taken the time to read and vote on this.


Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Caploxion 3 years ago
Caploxion
"Come" should have been "originate," so as to avoid the confusion.
Posted by Somecrap 3 years ago
Somecrap
without religion there is no morality cuz with equable rules u cant change things.. without permanent rules everybody choose there rules, how to live, how to treat people - in brief morality. pro says
"That learning to trust each others behaviours instinctively" - this is your idea others dont give a danm if they have fun abusing people they keep doing it cuz they r the gods of themself... i personally saw people that from religion they moved to atheism and their lifes changed north to south they allways abuses,exploit, became a selfish craps... they choose thier morality life not by god! its like evolution the stronger one take advantage of the week and unfortunate must people is like that today... sh1ts.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
KreakinTheCommonManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to mis-guide the debate where it wasen't intended Pro had better arguments and showed that morality dosen't origniante from religon.
Vote Placed by rugbypro5 3 years ago
rugbypro5
KreakinTheCommonManTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with who ever commented that you should have said "originated" instead of "come from" to clear up any confusion, because half of the debate was spent trying to figure out what the debate was about. Con gave better arguments though and Pro didn't supply his burden of proof. My vote goes to con.