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

Religions are the sources of moral values

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ThePostMarxist has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 95619
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Round 1 - Acceptance of challenge
Round 2 - Both sides present their arguments along with their justifications
Round 3 - Try to rebut each other's arguments
Round 4 - Answer to rebuttals
Round 5 - Concluding remarks


I accept the debate.

But is the debate based on the morals and ethics of society: when you say morals do you mean the established morals we have in society as a whole, or about religion being the root of morality?
Debate Round No. 1


Argument I :
1.Morals have objective physical basis and not religious. this is because there are evidences that suggest so. ( For example , developmental psychologists have discovered that the intuitive jurisprudence of young children is complex and exhibits many characteristics of a well-developed legal code. For example, 3"4-year-old children use intent or purpose to distinguish two acts that have the same result. They also distinguish "genuine" moral violations (e.g. battery or theft) from violations of social conventions (e.g. wearing pajamas to school). 4"5-year olds use a proportionality principle to determine the correct level of punishment for principals and accessories. 5"6-year olds use false factual beliefs but not false moral beliefs to exculpate)
2 Religions themselves are unreliable and mostly self contradictory, based half on fiction , half on metaphysical claims which are actually irrelevant.
2.1 metaphysical claims are based on common sense.
2.2 common sense is only meant to help us survive. we can see it in case of complex systems, large numerical values , quantum scale.
2.3 these examples bear no analogy to any religion. but analogy is only a poetic thing. here the point is that common sense is irrelevant.
2.4. Therefore something abstract and exists only in imaginations can't be the basis of something that is objectively true and not a pure abstraction.
3. Religion might affect the details, but so do other social and political conditions.
4. the scope of moral values is determined biologically(genetically). for example, we are genetically predetermined to grow legs and hands, not wings.
5. this also suggests that there is no moral relativism.
Argument II :
1. the realization of our common moral basis is also seen in the fact that the more we are beginning to think about them with an open mind, we are reaching common conclusions.
Argument III :
There is also a tendency to use unthinkable terms like non-physical . Some argue that there is something called objective moral and something called as subjective moral. These claims are baseless as in order to define non physical one has to understand what physical means. but it just so happens that there is no definition of physical. there was one ancient concept, materialistic definition, which was given up by the scientists in the early 20th century. Physical is just anything that we understand. (for example, time is a physical quantity. we can't feel it that way but it does get affected by matter). To understand what subjective means one needs to understand what is consciousness. but we don't have a clue what it is. but we do know that it is affected by concrete objective things . so this otherworldly claim of subjective experiences and thoughts as something non physical entities is a poorly defined embarrassing idea.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by moral10 11 months ago
All religion
Posted by Zaephou 12 months ago
Which religion?
Posted by canis 12 months ago
Great to see an otherwise very, very boring debate, (topic), getting the potential to becoming very, very unique.
Like your idea, (fact) that morals have objective psysical basis, ( how could it realy be otherwhise).
Like your idea that we have no clue what consciousness is, (maybe it is just the abilety not to see things for what they are. And it is just our own reconstruction/imagination. In that case humans are "blind" compared to animals).
Subject/object ? A subject is an object in the sence that we can not "overwrite" the morals that have objective psysical, (evolutional), basis. It means that we are in the end just "lemmings"...That is true when we look at how we destroy the world...
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
immorality is religion
Posted by ShivamMishra 1 year ago
yes i can . there are many types of religions. some without God and some allowing immoral deeds
Posted by moral10 1 year ago
Actually . Religion itself is morals
You can not separate them unless if the religion is false
Posted by ShivamMishra 1 year ago
@ThePostMarxist : the topic means that our societal moral values have their roots in the different religions that ever existed
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.