The Instigator
HempforVictory
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
anikiforouk
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

Morality does not need God to exist

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,083 times Debate No: 6351
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (11)

 

HempforVictory

Pro

Morality is the product of an innate desire that most people have, which is to be accepted by other people. Often the best way to gain the acceptance of other people is to treat them the way that you would like to be treated, this is only logical. Confucius said it best when he laid down a very similar Golden Rule of morality (5 centuries B.C.), "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself," and he had no belief in any deity.

http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com...
anikiforouk

Con

Thanks for a debate offer and good luck,

Resolution: Morality needs God to exist

1. What I define as morality, and please accept my definition as its the only one defined with a source

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

2. History proves that we need God for morality to exist otherwise, the notions of good and evil lose their force; the terminal impact is that people become less moral, this is evident in our recent history

http://www.thirdmill.org...
"John Frame"
"To say God exists is to say that the world is created and
controlled by a person – one who thinks, speaks, acts rationally, loves and judges the world. To deny that God
exists is to say that the world owes its ultimate origin and direction to impersonal objects or forces, such as matter,
motion, time, and chance. But impersonal objects and forces cannot justify ethical obligations. A study of matter,
motion, time, and chance will tell you what is up to a point, but it will not tell you what you ought to do. An
impersonal universe imposes no absolute obligations."

3. Without God anything is permitted, when one think of morality, any terrible crime can be justified by any of the Pro's possible ethins

4. Onto my opponet's case
-The only evidence he has is about Confucious and in accepting this debate, my opponent cannot bring any new evidence because that will steal the ground since I'll have limited time to answer it and by bringing new evidence my opponenent will rule out his first speech as obsolete proving my argument to be superior
-http://books.google.com...
Confucius did believe in heaven and higher spiritual being, aka God; This proves that he drew his morals from the concept of God thus Con directly wins
5. Please vote Con
Debate Round No. 1
HempforVictory

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. I apologize for not defining morality at the onset of this debate, but your definition is fine.

"History proves that we need God for morality to exist otherwise, the notions of good and evil lose their force; the terminal impact is that people become less moral, this is evident in our recent history"

This statement suggests that those who believe in a God never act immorally, but that is far from true. Even if there is a religion that has an understanding of God that is 100% correct, there are almost certainly members of that religion that break their own moral code. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all have immoral believers, and all of them have horrible atrocities made in their name - Crusades, Holocaust, Zionist movement, 9/11 etc. People did not become less moral in recent history, just better informed.

Am I debating you or John Frame? Impersonal objects do not justify ethical obligations, other people do. There would be no such thing as morality if there were not people (or other organisms capable of higher thought) to exercise their free will.

"Without God anything is permitted, when one think of morality, any terrible crime can be justified by any of the Pro's possible ethins"
No, without law anything is permitted. We have laws to enforce morals that our society has deemed to be universal. The guarantee of basic freedoms for all Americans is a moral obligation that is independent of God. We determine what is right and wrong based on a consensus of representatives who use their own judgment to decide the moral code of our society.

"The only evidence he has is about Confucius and in accepting this debate, my opponent cannot bring any new evidence because that will steal the ground since I'll have limited time to answer it and by bringing new evidence my opponent will rule out his first speech as obsolete proving my argument to be superior"

The only "evidence" I have is logic. Even if Confucius did believe in God, that does not mean that his statement requires divine justification, as it can be proven to be self-beneficial with simple rationality.
anikiforouk

Con

Thanks for the debate and good luck.

The fact that you have conceded my definition proves that you need the concept of Good and Evil , which requires God to exist, thus the Con has already won.

That statement by no means suggests that people who believe in God always act morally, it suggest that people who have morality have because they believe in God, and therefore the notions of Good and Evil. In recent history people who don't believe in God, are less moral, there are way more people who arehooked on porn and just because they hear about God, doesn't mean that they will be moral, but when they believe in God, much more moral decisions result. To say that people don't need God for morality to exist is naive, while its a possiblity like everything I know of, it just doesn't happen, people who don't have God loose their distinction between good and evil and therefore their choices go skewed and the morality goes down, but in order for that morality to be there, they need to believe in God.
Look to the history, even when people didn't believe in that one same God, they believed that there is God and thus they developed morals, and these days, morals are passed down from Parents who generally believed in God, or on their relative's side someone had previously introduced the morality which was drwan from the concept of God. Morality is only made after there is the concept of God.

You're debating Arsen the Great ("John Frame" It was just the quote I found), people have the concept of God and therefore can belive in Good and Evil therefore they get the ability to think morally. Think of animals for example, are they moral, sure they might make a seemingly moral decision, but in general they don't think of God and therefore aren't morally capable.

You are factually incorrect. The declaration of Independance calls for all people to be treated equally as they were created by "God". Most, if not all of our laws were created by people who believe in God. If people get killed in some random city often, it becomes a norm, is it morall? NO, it is not, and int is not under the belief in God.

I agree that your only evidence is logic, the problem is in that your logic is faltered because it is simply naive and does not take into account the fact that people evolved based on believeing in a higher being aka GOD, sure at this point of time one is tempted to think that you don't need God to have morality existing, the problem is that without the concept of God, you won't get to "morality" and one won't last morall without God.

The fact that you agree that Confucius could have belived in God, proves that his logic was touched by the fact of beliving in a higher being, God, which means that without knowing about God, Confucius would not have though of that quote.

Thank you, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
HempforVictory

Pro

Thanks, and good luck to you

"The fact that you have conceded my definition proves that you need the concept of Good and Evil , which requires God to exist, thus the Con has already won."

Really? Your definition:
concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct

Right or good conduct is not determined by God, but by society. Evil in the sense used above does not have any supernatural connotation, it is synonymous with immoral behavior. The fact that the word evil is used to describe morality in no ways proves that morality is dependent on God. It's "good and evil," not "Good and Evil."

So you are asserting that atheists (and agnostics?) can not have morality, or at least "it just doesn't happen," correct? Do you know any atheists personally? Does every single one of them act immorally, more so than you and your fellow Christians? I find that very hard to believe, as I would consider myself to be quite moral, even based on Christian morality. In fact, it is rather ironic that you would write so extensively about the immorality of atheists, and than proclaim yourself to be Arsen the Great. I always thought pride was a sin according to you guys. Is it not immoral to sin?

Just because our founding fathers spoke of God, and perhaps Confucius believed in God (he believed in heaven and "spiritual beings"), does not mean that morality needs God to exist. The fact that moral codes were developed by people who believe in God is a result of the fact that people have been worshiping some sort of God or Gods for the past 10 thousand years. It is only now, in the age of information, that people are starting to develop a more complete understanding of their surroundings and so they do not need the security of believing in God and heaven.

Morality will still persist, because it has always been and will always be a product of the will of different societies and rulers. This is why there is so-called subjective morality that varies between cultures, it's the same reason different cultures have different beliefs regarding God. Not all cultures have the same beliefs regarding marriage, for instance. If you think that God is judging those people as immoral than you are arrogant for thinking that you are right and they are wrong.

The reason why there is objective morality is because all people are pretty similar in the fact that nobody likes pain. This is why murder, and rape, and beating people up are all immoral no matter what. Any person regardless of their upbringing should know that they do not want to die or feel pain, and therefore should not inflict it on somebody else.
anikiforouk

Con

Thanks again and good luck,

Correct, the distinction between good and evil needs God to exist, without God, one would not have the idea behind what is good and what is evil, therefore one needs God in order to have morality exist. The reason why any atheist knows morals is because that atheist was influenced by the beliefs of the other (Those who believe in God), unless you prove that the person who can act morrally without believing in God or having any interaction with those who do believe in God or those who have been influenced by the belivers, you can't prove morality exists; however, you can't since our origin (human kind) was throught he history influenced by higher beings (God).

Ofcourse I know atheists, the problem is, they know about God, and the concepts the society takes in are derived from the idea of God. Sure atheist may act morally but did they hear about God, YES, otherwise they ca't be atheists. Furthermore, your resolution calls for the idea that morality can exist without God, this is not possible to prove since the beggining of the human ind we believed in GOD, on form or the other.

Ironic? Ever heard of humor? "Arsen the Great" dude, if we were debating in person you'd know what I'm taling about. -.- Furthermore, we're not debating wether you and I are moral. I 100% sure not all atheist or christians are moral, that DOESN' MATTER, what matters is wether morality would exist without the consept of God, which i clearly prove to be false: You need God to have morality possible.

Dude, you want to debate the fact that morality doesn't need God to exist? correct? yes, so for me to win i have to prove that concept of God (weather he's rea or not) is critical for morality to have developed, it did, so if something is not developed how can it exist? it cannot! Thus CON wins.
Secondly your only argument to prove that morality can exist without God was that people make laws and thus we have morality, I argued that those lawmakes believed in God, so without them believing they wouldn't make such laws, as "all men created by God are equal", you are not responding to my answers, rather you're ignoring them. that is something that we debators call "naive", to ignore the facts of how morality was established in our society is simply naive, period.

"Morality will still persist, because it has always been and will always be a product of the will of different societies and rulers" No, you don't specify that those rulers don't believe in GOD, firstly most do, secondly, the rulers don't make people moral or immoral, they can't program people? can they??? :) Ok, now you're scewing this debate, and talking about being moral, wow, look in the resolution you've stated "God" not christian God, not Chinese heaven, just GOD, which means that this debate is about weather we need God (the concept of God) for morality to exist. This debate is not wether one religion is better than the other, learn to stick to debate topic.

People are inately selfsh, and sucre nobody likes pain, but when one sees that he can gan something from war, he will not be dettered by fear of getting hurt (Hermocrates)(Founding Fathers of USA) Just because I don't like pain, doesn't mean I would be inclined not to impress it on someone esle, unless one can read mind, which you don't . These things you're talking about have all been drawn from the fact that God exists, which means that without the concept of God, people would not b hae morality, therefore the morality could not exist. Vote Con

At the end of this debate ask your self: "Did the people 10000BC believe in God or not?"
The answer is yes; Now what about the Founding Fathers of our nation? Did they believe in God? Yes, therefore, I prove that laws are influenced by the fact that God exists!
Finally, do these "atheists" have contact with Christians and other believer of God? Yes, therefore tehy were influenced by God and I win!

Thank you for this debate once more, and I urge the voters to vote based on wht is said(written).
Debate Round No. 3
HempforVictory

Pro

My opponent insists that because the moral rules that we abide by today were developed by people who believed in God, that it is impossible for morality to exist in the absence of God. This is absolutely ridiculous; it is akin to saying that if Sir Isaac Newton had never lived and developed the general laws of motion, that it would be impossible for somebody else to develop the same equations. Just because the belief in God has been a popular belief in many cultures throughout history, does not prove anything about the necessity of God to have morality. The fact that all cultures interpret God differently suggests that the *idea* of what God is, is mostly dependent on other cultural differences. The fact that atheists can be moral, which you have conceded to, proves that a belief in God is not necessary to be moral. If a belief in God is not necessary, than God would not be necessary.

In fact, God is not even necessary in order for there to be a belief in God. Every single person on this planet can have their morality influenced by their belief in God, and the fact that God may still not exist would negate any impact that God had on human morality. However, do not vote based on this minor technicality (you can if you want to ;-) )

"if something is not developed how can it exist? it cannot!"

Would it be possible for a car to exist in the 1700s considering it had not yet been developed? If we consider the phenomena of a parallel universe, there's no reason to doubt that somebody might have built a car then, or even earlier. Perhaps there is a parallel universe where belief in God never existed, there is no reason to doubt that man would still act morally and form societies.

"People are [innately selfish], and [sure] nobody likes pain, but when one sees that he can [gain] something from war, he will not be [deterred] by fear of getting hurt" (spell check, seriously)

Yes, people are innately selfish, there is no denying that people will always look out for their own best interest. What I am arguing, is that morality has developed because it is in the best interests of individuals to act morally. If there was no morality, there would most certainly be anarchy and little cooperation because there would be no trust. The success of the human race is partly due to our morality and thus our ability to cooperate (and communicate) so that we may work together, form societies, and ultimately improve our standard of living. These things would not be possible without morality, we would still be cavemen otherwise. To argue that man would still be living primitively if it were not for the "concept of God" is foolish, to put it bluntly.

You argue that morals would never have developed without a belief in God, or more importantly it seems, the afterlife. If there is no belief in some sort of judgment after death, you think that nobody would act morally. I do not believe this to be so, I think that most people realize it is better to live a predominantly moral life strictly for the benefit it offers you while you are *alive*.

Please review your arguments before you submit them, and use the check your spelling function if you have to (which you do). Thanks for the debate.
anikiforouk

Con

My claim is simple, people throughout the history believed in God's existence and still do, the fat that they believe in God helps them to differ the good against evil, without this concept they cannot be moral, Atheists are influenced by the belief that God exists and therefore they are able to become moral, the very fact that they don't believe in God suggests that they know about this idea of God's existence therefore I win

First of all if God exists as long as you prove otherwise which no one can, the debate is about the concept of God's existence, therefore if you vote on technicality I ought to win.

Ask yourself: "How can we believe in something that we don't have the idea about?" meaning something that was never thought of, if something is never thought, it is therefore not existent to us.

I see what you mean however you are misinterpreting my quote, what I contend is that if you don't invent(discover) something how can it then exist, it cannot, therefore how can a car function if it is not yet developed, invented, or discovered which ever you prefer.

I apologize for no spell checking, but I am glad you've been able to interpret the quote.

The fact that people are innately selfish means that they are prone to act immorally, therefore the existence of God is necessary and thus I ought to win. Just look to history, it shows us how the people who didn't believe in God were violent and cannibalistic, not moral. The animals cannot reason and don't believe in God, and are they primitive? Yes they most certainly are. The thing is that morality is drawn from our distinction of evil and good, these now may seem as though ingrained into us, but they would have never been if our ancestors were not believing in God. Therefore I urge you to vote Con as I proved the Pro to be wrong.

The first thing about "I do not believe" is the part "I", sure I can say I don't believe in people dying in wars, but am I right? Certainly no, just because you believe in something doesn't mean it is right, and since this is a debate the fact that you stopped contesting with the arguments and turned to what you believe proves that I have won.

Thanks for the tip and thank you for the debate. I urge voters to vote based on arguments not their friendships or their beliefs.

VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ABHILASHGK 3 years ago
ABHILASHGK
This According to me is a spin less argument as MORALITY AND GOD ARE ONE AND THE SAME
Posted by anikiforouk 8 years ago
anikiforouk
HempforVictory, one point doesn't change the outcome of the debate
Posted by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
"besides it's the arguments said that matter not the spelling"

There is a voting option called "spelling and grammar" and there are people who voted in favor of con on that particular issue.
Posted by antony 8 years ago
antony
Lol, sure you spelled better, but looking at what you guys said and his last speech it seems as though he was in a hurry or didn't really care for spellchecking untill you told him about the issue, besides it's the arguments said that matter not the spelling, as long as one can understand it.
Posted by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
No offense to my opponent, and I hate to complain, but how can anybody say that he had better spelling and grammar than me?
Posted by antony 8 years ago
antony
"Atheists are influenced by the belief that God exists and therefore they are able to become moral, the very fact that they don't believe in God suggests that they know about this idea of God's existence therefore I win"
I never really though of that, that's the winner for the round.
Posted by anikiforouk 8 years ago
anikiforouk
Well I'll accept it wether its universal or not, as long as it is morality you can define it to be universal
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Change it to universal morality and I will accept.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 8 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
This debate is way too one-sided. Least off the bat it seems anyway.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by nateriverx 8 years ago
nateriverx
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dwest23 8 years ago
dwest23
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Spatz 8 years ago
Spatz
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by EnragedParrot 8 years ago
EnragedParrot
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Vote Placed by imperium 8 years ago
imperium
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by A_Rootless_Oak 8 years ago
A_Rootless_Oak
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by WonderBoy 8 years ago
WonderBoy
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
HempforVictoryanikiforoukTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70