The Instigator
GainWisdom
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
400spartans
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Morals come from 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 71247
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

GainWisdom

Pro

Morals come from God. I believe what Fyodor Dostoyevsky said, " If God does not exist, everything is permissible." Since we know that certain actions are right and certain action are wrong there has to be a standard on how one ought to live. The Moral Law shapes us how we should live and we all know the right thing to do. It's all a matter of choice to follow the law. God has given us the Free Will to choose to do the right thing.

Everyone's input is welcome.
400spartans

Con

I think that morals come from human experience. We found that if we kill each other, we'd all die off, and other morals as well.
Debate Round No. 1
GainWisdom

Pro

Humans may choose how to act (For the better good). For example, I may choose to say that killing six millions Jews is justified like Hitler believed. He got pretty much the whole Nazi party to buy in to what he was doing. A long with Stalin and Mao Ze Dong killing 60 million people combined. I'm not saying that you can't be moral without believing in God. But without God everything is justified by your/someone own actions. Atheists combined in the 20th century killed 100 million people. Christians, during the crusades and Inquisition killed 100,000 people.
400spartans

Con

In short, your argument says that because some killers were atheists, atheists are bad. Well, 4 out of 5 of the most important communists had mustaches, so does having a mustache make you a commie? No.

Also, atheists who killed weren't "killing in the name of atheism." If you look at most religious killers, they'll probably be "killing in the name of their religion"

"But without God everything is justified by your/someone own actions."

Nope. Everything is justified by the group you are in. If you kill your friends, you will most likely be hated, and probably executed. Refer back to my round 1 statement.

"Atheists combined in the 20th century killed 100 million people. Christians, during the crusades and Inquisition killed 100,000 people."

Let's find links for that!
http://www.juancole.com...
http://www.skepticink.com...

Looks like Christians actually did kill more people in the 20th century! Who would have known? (anybody with a straight mind)
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
GainWisdom

Pro

You gave me those sources... One of those sources is skeptics.org... Your biased towards your own opinion. I am too. I wouldn't be able to trust those sources even if I were an atheist/agnostic. You can argue that morals are completely subjective all day long but you know a long with everyone else that morals are objective. C.S. Lewis summed it up good,"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too " for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist " in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless " I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality " namely my idea of justice " was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.*
400spartans

Con

Let's look back at one of my statements:

" Also, atheists who killed weren't 'killing in the name of atheism.' If you look at most religious killers, they'll probably be 'killing in the name of their religion' "

This means that even if atheists killed 100 million people in the 20th century, they weren't killing in the name of atheism, unlike the crusades and inquisition for Christians.

But let's get back to your argument.

"Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

Can I have a minute to laugh at that? Thanks.

*chuckle*

Saying the universe has a meaning is like saying that the number 3 has a color.

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning"

No, because we know things that have a meaning, which means that we can deduce what it means to not have any meaning.

"just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

This analogy doesn't work because in our universe, we know things that have a meaning, but in this "universe", we don't know what light is.
Debate Round No. 4
GainWisdom

Pro

Yes, you are correct by saying that life has meaning. But, from an evolutionary point of view... You can't explain it's meaning.

We have in our universe a standard how one ought to live. We know, lying, rape, child abuse, murder is all wrong. When people say these actions are wrong, they are borrowing from a theistic point of view.

Scientists can't explain how we got a conscience. They can't even all agree on the origin of the universe.

David Berlinski, a professor at Oxford University, An agnostic who leans closer towards Atheism said this:

"What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society."

And he also said, "Has anyone provided proof of God"s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on."

I personally see that atheism is really flawed. And I'm happy being a Christian not only because I trust Jesus. But, also because it is historically accurate.
400spartans

Con

This debate has been pointless so far. Pro, you are repeating the same argument, just in different words. So, I shall say my Round 2 argument once again.

Atheists who killed weren't "killing in the name of atheism." If you look at most religious killers, they'll probably be "killing in the name of their religion"

"We know, lying, rape, child abuse, murder is all wrong. When people say these actions are wrong, they are borrowing from a theistic point of view."

Your point being? Just because it's borrowed from a theistic point of view doesn't mean that it comes from God.

"Scientists can't explain how we got a conscience. They can't even all agree on the origin of the universe."

Not relevant to an argument about morals. Would be relevant to an argument about the Big Bang and evolution.

"Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close."

Well, secularism has played a major role in science, and science has:

Got the first people to the moon.
Got the first person to break the sound barrier.
Made computers.

"Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?"

Yes, look at my statement from round 1.

Look. Even if God existed, that doesn't mean that morals come from God. I've provided my evidence for the subject at matter, you've provided evidence for something whose relation I've already shown false.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 400spartans 2 years ago
400spartans
I think it's just a small glitch.
Posted by GainWisdom 2 years ago
GainWisdom
Dang, you're right. Hahaha... Sorry, I'm new on here. Kind of still getting use to things...
Posted by 400spartans 2 years ago
400spartans
I think we just skipped Round 3.
Posted by GainWisdom 2 years ago
GainWisdom
I have to disagree with you that believing in a certain religion is immoral. Being in a certain religion has nothing to do within a culture.... Ravi Zacharias was an atheist living in India before he became an atheist. Josh McDowell was an outspoken atheist who went out to disprove Christianity only to be converted to a Christian with the evidence that he found. World famous atheist, I cant remember his name but he wrote, "God is not Great".... His brother was an atheist as that author only to trust Jesus as his Lord. If anything is false and someone believes it still.... That is ignorance. But, I don't believe Christianity is false. In fact, I find it to be historically true.

Can you disprove Christianity, or God for that matter. I don't think so. Even world famous David Berniski, a non practicing Jew, who is an Agnostic leans more to the side of Atheism said that Atheists can't even know that what they believe is correct. Atheism is the most irrational worldview in the world.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
We need to turn that argument around completely. Not only is it possible to be a moral person without a belief in God, there are some very good reasons for thinking that in many cases believing in God is itself actually immoral.
In general, isn"t it a bad thing to believe a claim that you know is false, contributes to the confusion or false beliefs of others, encourages supernatural, spooky, non-critical, fuzzy-headed thinking, fosters fear and anxiety, creates complacence about social problems, social policy, and the future of humanity on this planet, undermines the advancement of science, contributes to the stagnation of human progress, encourages a historically outdated, over-simplified worldview, stalls our progress in dealing with new, complicated and important moral issues, has no good evidence in its favor, encourages cultural and ethnic strife, gives people false hopes, is self-deluding, fosters fear, confusion, and fuzzy, magical thinking in children, fosters false beliefs in children, impedes children"s acquisition of our most important, modern advancements in knowledge.
Posted by GainWisdom 2 years ago
GainWisdom
What you are stating with all the killings are true. But, lets take a closer look at the scripture to see why it happened.

Some would argue that executing the innocent is murder; thus, when God wipes out whole cities, He is committing murder. However, nowhere in Scripture can we find where God killed "innocent" people. In fact, compared to God"s holiness, there is no such thing as an "innocent" person. All have sinned, and the penalty for sin is death. God has "just cause" to wipe us all out; the fact that He doesn"t is proof of His mercy. When God chose to destroy all mankind in the Flood, He was totally justified in doing so: "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

During the conquest of Canaan, God ordered the complete destruction of entire cities and nations: "But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you". And Joshua did what God had told him.Why did God give such a command? Israel was God"s instrument of judgment against the Canaanites, who were evil, almost beyond what we can imagine today: "Every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods". Their utter annihilation was commanded to prevent Israel from following their ways: "Lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God.

God is faithful to His word. He will destroy the wicked, and He holds "the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment" (2 Peter 2:9). But He has also promised that "the gift of God is eternal life in C
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
A close reading of the Old Testament is filled with horrendous lessons on how to treat people. A god that kills almost everyone on Earth in a flood: that"s pretty crazy. A god that commands Joshua to murder all the women and children except for the young girls, who can be taken as sex slaves: That"s horrible. A god that condemns anyone who eats shellfish: what is that all about? And of course. The 10 commandments tell you that working on Saturday or saying god"s name without a good reason makes you a bad person in the eyes of god. God eventually goes into great detail about how to deal with cattle thieves, isolating women on their period, and which fabrics to wear at the same time; but nowhere in those ten commandments, or in the six hundred and three that come after it, does it say "Don"t abuse children," or "Don"t enslave people," or "Don"t rape." Religious morals are immoral.
Posted by GainWisdom 2 years ago
GainWisdom
Morals are objective. C.S. Lewis said, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?" We may disagree on what is truth. However, that doesn't mean that objective truth doesn't exist.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Albert Einstein said, "There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair."
Where do we get our morality? From the constant development of our culture. From the evolution of laws and guidelines that help us create a peaceful and prosperous society. We are who create our morality and we pass it down to our children and grandchildren. That is why Muslim people can live prosperously in the US along side Baptists, Mormons, Hindus and Atheists. We have a morality that supersedes all religions and is beholden to none.
Posted by 400spartans 2 years ago
400spartans
Leo, does those two morals come from my experience? No. Humanity's experience? YES.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
GainWisdom400spartansTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I accidentally clicked vote.