The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Morals Exist Without 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 198 times Debate No: 93105
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Morals are a man made concept that were created to serve a purpose of a specific group. Religion has nothing to do with morals. If morals were dependent on religion than the morals of today would be sick and twisted.


This first round is let the opponent know that I have accepted the challenge. Now, let us hear Pro's argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Honestly that was a waste of a round. I am just looking for an exchange of ideas. But if I must, than here is my argument.

Morals are created by man. Objective morality does not exist. If morals came from religion, than the world would be a thousand times worse.


According to you, if morals did derive from religion, how would the world be a thousand times worse?

Morals exist because man realized that he wanted to maximize his life, which is to do good. There would be no point in causing chaos and mayhem among others, which would cause unnecessary stress and other negative emotions. I pose you this question out of sheer curiosity: how can morality exist without God? You are right in saying that objective morality fails to exist. But you are wrong in saying that religion has nothing to do with morality. Religion is, in fact, based on morality. Why else would religion exist? What man is so powerful to have influenced on the world what is right and what is wrong? This is why I believe God is the reason for morality existing.

(I hope you have realized that you have foolishly misused the word 'than' in the past rounds, the proper word being 'then'.)
Debate Round No. 2


First off I apologize, I sounded somewhat hostile in my Round 2 opening. This was not my intention.

Morals are completely dependent on the agenda of the stronger power. Both sides of a war claim that they are correct and that its the other side that is immoral and bad. obviously there is no set objective morality. It always is changing based on what people want. As for morality and religion, what religion teaches is terrible. For example, lets follow the morals in the Bible. The Bible says we should judge others and discriminate. If we followed the Bible people would be stoned left and right for stupid things. According to the Bible homosexuals should be stoned and killed. That is not a good moral to follow.


I accept your apology. Now, if morals are completely dependent on the agenda of the stronger power, what is this stronger power you refer to if it is not God? It seems that you only think of religion as Christianity, which is not true. Also, what you say about the Bible is wrong. You have not thoroughly researched enough to get your facts straight. The Bible does not say that we should judge others and discriminate. In fact, it is completely against it. I see your basis for stating that the Bible teaches us Christians to stone homosexuals is the Old Testament, whose teachings are virtually irrelevant to today's world. Instead, shift your focus to the New Testament. Its teachings are more updated, morally sound and more logical. Plus, the New Testament was written during the period when God the Son (who goes by the name Jesus) came to earth.

Back to your statement 'that is not a good moral to follow'. To begin with, the outdated teaching that says that homosexuals should be stoned and killed is NOT a moral. Rather, it is an (obsolete) rule. It is a punishment for those who refuse to follow the moral of being heterosexual.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
>Reported vote: KeyserSoze115// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Jesus and the New Testament do not represent good moral values. Jesus says give away all of your material possessions and follow me. Telling people they have to give away all their material wealth in order to get into heaven is immoral. How can you feed, clothe, and provide shelter for your children if you give away all your possessions and wealth? And don't say that God will provide. If that were true then no Christian child would ever starve to death.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter merely provides their own view of the topic, failing to assess any specific arguments made in the debate or explain conduct.
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
bet math is subjective to this guy
No votes have been placed for this debate.