The Instigator
Oltex
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Morals cannot exist without a god.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,017 times Debate No: 15971
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Oltex

Con

I'm looking for someone to debate this topic with me. I'm Con, which means I believe that morals CAN and DO exist without god (I'm an atheist). If you think that morals must come from religion or from god, please except!
petersaysstuff

Pro

Since my opponent has failed to define morals I feel that I must do so. Moral(s) are defined as "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"[1] This is showing that in order for there to be morals there must be some right or wrong. Right and wrong are aspects of moral law and thus there must be a law giver to say that X is right and Y is wrong. If there is not than you have a bunch of people with differing opinions on things. We can see that our world does not have morals because there is no god, all we have a rudimentary societal constraints ergo there cannot be moral law if there is no law giver [God].

I await my opponent's response.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Oltex

Con

I agree with your definition of morals. The definition of moral law is where we differ. You think that a moral law implies a moral law giver, but I submit that it does not have to come from divine ordinance. I think that morals can come from truth of reason. Morals are an evolutionary trait that we've acquired that prevent us from doing immoral actions that risk damaging our own species. This is why, as a society, (not through god), we know that killing someone is wrong, or bad, because it is risks the survival of our species. As long as we have the truth of reason and the built-in, instinctual knowledge that murder, genocide, etc. are evil, there can be morals. These ARE morals. And I don't think there is any controversy over this. It is wrong to kill, and commit immoral acts because these acts endanger our race. This is what good and bad is, nobody really "decides", we just have to be this way or else we'd kill ourselves off and we wouldn't exist. The question is this though, where do these morals come from? Divine ordinance or truth of reason. You ask who the law giver is. I answer: truth of reason, our evolutionary ability to discern right from wrong, a.k.a what is helpful or harmful to our species.
petersaysstuff

Pro

//You think that a moral law implies a moral law giver, but I submit that it does not have to come from divine ordinance.//
Here you contradict yourself. If we go with your claim before the comma then we must ignore the last part which implies a law giver (but not god) but if we go with the second half we must ignore the first. You see the problem correct?

//we know that killing someone is wrong, or bad, because it is risks the survival of our species.//
How do we know that killing is wrong when it is done in the name of land and lord and people who do kill are seen as patriots. I am arguing that there are no morals but if there were they must come from a god and this statement proves my point exactly. The reason this is so is due to the fact that not everyone thinks killing is bad. Anyone that has supported any kind of war, any kind of occupation, any kind of blockade ect has supported killing and thus there are no morals in our society. If there were morals ie. X IS wrong and Y IS right then that would require a law giver, something that is all knowing, a god.

But assuming we ignore this and go with the assertion that subjective are morals we could still say that the morals come from god due to the fact that god says "Thou shalt not kill" ergo, if we follow the line of reasoning that killing/commiting genocide is immoral then we can safely assert it came from a god due to the fact that god told us that these things are immoral long before our society, long before humans for that matter.

I do not ask who the law giver is, I say this "If we ignore my previous argument regarding morals and assert that they do, in fact, exist, then they come from a god of sorts".
Debate Round No. 2
Oltex

Con

Oltex forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Pro

Extend. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
OltexpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments and Con forfeited and Pro had sources
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
OltexpetersaysstuffTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof, and did not succeed in overcoming Con's argument. Pro basically claimed that all laws imply a divine lawgiver, but a law of nature" is simply an observed property. Pro wins Conduct for the forfeit, but failed to overcome the argument.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
OltexpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit