Prior reference to Morality
Debate Rounds (3)
So on to the first point, no. Just no. Our perception of good and evil is definitely not based on religion. By our current standards or morality, there is a tremendous amount of "evil" acts in the bible that are apparently justifiable as long as you believe that your chosen deity is the "real one" so to speak. Like I stated in the original opinion piece, cherry picking just the stuff you agree with, isn't a good way to go about basing any morals on.
An origin of a word doesn't have any bearing on it's use today. Just look at the original meaning of the word "gay" for example. Secondly, stating that a book is really, really old does nothing to give it credibility. Just because something has been preserved over many years does in no way prove anything about the validity of its content.
On to your point of the concept of morality always referring to biblical doctrine. If an old book mentions a topic and many people choose to believe in it, it once again does not in any way prove any sort of validity. Also, stating that morals are based on biblical doctrine implies that no one had morals before the bible was written, which is just not the case. It also implies that people who have not been exposed to our society, eg. some tribe in the Amazon for example, don't have morals, since how could they if they never even heard of the bible.
So on to my main argument. I think that our morality is primarily based on societal pressures and evolution in general. Being good to one another is beneficial to the species in numerous ways, such as allowing us to build complex societies, not killing each other to the point of extinction and many other reasons. Then once we have societies, their shared experiences and knowledge transfer enable us to create and adapt new sets of morals, like how most people agree now that slavery and abuse is morally wrong. So just using that last example of slavery, we don't consider that moral now, but in biblical times, it was just a normal part of society, so it wasn't regarded as morally wrong.
So in conclusion, old texts should not be a basis for any moral judgements, rather think for yourself and base it on the abundance of knowledge our species has gained.
cbcullen84 forfeited this round.
cbcullen84 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Silentsvc 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: As a Christian I was looking forward to observing this one. Con in his only statement used arguments that are not the best to use when discussing objectivity. Although I agree with Con's position I am almost certain that he would not have had any proper documentation to back up his claims. Pro, although we disagree, you present your argument well. Maybe we can debate this someday???
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.