The Instigator
V5RED
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Secular Morality is superior to Christian morality

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
V5RED
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 849 times Debate No: 79717
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

V5RED

Pro

The debate is closed, if you wish to challenge me, comment on the debate.

Rules:
Timer is set at 48 hours per turn

Round 1: Pro and con both make cases for their positions. Pro must demonstrate that secular morality leads to a better and more morally correct world while con must argue that Christian morality leads to a better and more morally correct world. No rebuttals this round.

Rounds 2-4: Anything goes, make any rebuttal or new argument you feel like.

Round 5: No rebuttals or new arguments from pro. Summary only. No new arguments from con, but rebuttals are allowed if pro introduces a new argument in round 4. The rebuttals will be limited to the new argument. If pro does not introduce a new argument in round 4, then con may only give a summary. No politicking(Ie saying "vote pro"), that just looks stupid.

Each side must offer a definition for morality and explain why what they consider to be moral behavior is good and why what they consider to be immoral behavior is bad.

My opening argument:

Morality is the field dealing with what we should or should not do based on the well-being of sentient beings other than ourselves. It is important to make the distinction that it is the well-being of others that is what matters in morality because otherwise purely selfish acts could be offered as morally correct. An act is morally good if its net effect is to improve the well-being of sentient beings and morally bad if its net effect is to diminish the well-being of sentient beings. This definition comports with the concept that every ethical system in philosophy is aimed toward and it is what people are referring to when they refer to morality.

Any being that can suffer is a being that deserves moral treatment because the definition of a morally good act is one which increases well-being of a sentient being and the definition of an immoral act is one that diminishes well-being of a sentient being. Since sentience is a necessary condition for suffering, all beings that can suffer are sentient and thus the subjects of morality.

A moral patient is a being who is deserving of moral treatment, but lacks the capacity to understand morality. Lions, dogs, mentally retarded humans, and iguanas are all moral patients.

A moral agent is a being who both has the capacity to understand morality and is deserving of moral treatment. Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, and Ninja Turtles are moral agents.

This is not moral relativism, I am not saying that this is morality for me or for my society. I am saying that this is the objective way to assess morality and any society that does not consider inflicting suffering for the sake of inflicting suffering to be immoral is wrong. Their understanding of morality is less than mine.

Secular morality is based on something that is real and actually matters to the beings it applies to. It is evidence based. When we learn more about the capacities of others, we change our ethical standards to comport with our moral standards. When people became more aware of the fact that African Americans were not sub-human, but just as sentient as white people, the abolitionist movement began.

The world at large becomes a better place in which to live if secular morality takes over the moral landscape. If everyone comes to the understanding that it is wrong to inflict suffering and good to cause happiness, then the actions taken by those who care about being moral beings will be driven to improve the lives of all sentient beings.

Why is this better than Christian morality?

Christian morality, and any other religious moral system, is morality that is not recognizable as anything remotely moral. The rules are simply following the orders of a dictator, god, who has been shown to be a moral monster. He committed genocide, endorsed genocide, killed innocent children in Egypt, punishes people forever for the thought crime of not believing in a being playing a never ending game of hide and seek, and much more. Aside from god being a monster, it makes no sense to peg morality on a being because of the Euthyphro dilemma.

Is an act good because God favors it or does God favor it because it is good?

In the first option, slavery, rape, torture, and murder all would be called morally correct if God told you to do them. In this case you are defining morality as whatever the most powerful being wants which has nothing to do with morality. Additionally, what if God and Jesus disagree on something? If morality is what a supernatural being wants and the supernatural beings disagree, then does morality become the wishes of the being that can beat up the other being?

In the second option, the act's moral goodness is not dependent on God, it is good and he approves of it because it is good. He does not cause it to be good.

Both systems of morality have led to atrocities, but in the case of secular morality, it is the misuse of the moral systems that led to atrocities while in Christianity, it is the correct use of the morals in the Bible that leads to atrocities.
Lexus

Con

I agree with pro on what morality is; morality is the idea dealing with what we should or should not do to other sentient beings (the only thing that I disagree with his definition is that morality also takes into account ourselves, not just the needs of other people, but that is not vital to this debate). An act is morally good if it is meant to have a net improvement on the well-being of ourselves, others, or both; an act is morally bad if it does the opposite.

My reasoning for Christian morality being better than secular morality is hinged upon the fact that there is something to compare your actions (whether they be moral or immoral) to something and confirm whether or not this is moral or immoral (an agent of God - a priest, or the Bible, or something similar). This does not exist in secular morality - all that exists is the belief that something is moral because we think that it is; we are not given a set of commandments to follow to say what is or isn't moral from someone who is above us all.

In a Christian setting, if there is a dispute over whether or not lying is a moral or immoral action, we are able to confirm that this is not a good thing by referring to the decalogue within our holy text; the Ten Commandments. The moral worth of this action is able to be assessed first with what our texts or religious leaders say, and then what our intuition says. For example, there is not a commandment saying "thou shalt not rape" (and if we can imagine that there exist no verses in the Bible dealing with rape), but that does not mean that it is a moral act.

This is what I like to call a "two-pronged check for morality". First, we need to look at what God commands us to do in order to be moral beings (the decalogue or the Levitcal laws, or other commandments). If there are no results in what He commands us to do, we need to try our best with what we are given and what we understand to try and reach a conclusion about if something is overall moral or immoral. Essentially, what we need to do, is look to God and then our own circumstances.

In secular settings, this is not the case at all; we look to our own circumstances (and we do not necessarily look to evidence as my opponent suggests, but I will touch on that in a later time), and immediately assess the moral weight of something. This is essentially a circumstancial stance on morality; if we believe that it would benefit us all to sacrifice someone (as the Aztecs thought, but they were not secular nor Christian) due to the circumstances in which we would do so, that does not mean that it actually will benefit us all - and a secular sense of morality does not ensure that any potential actions would be in an objectively moral sense "good".

A secular stance on morality is a circumstancial stance on morality; a Christian stance on morality has a check in place which first makes it an objective stance of morality (God's morality), and then a circumstancial stance on morality, if it is necessary.

Jesus commands those that have not sinned to cast the first stone at a sinner - while in this story, literally it does not apply to what the course of this debate is about, the essence of what he says is that in order to make a decision (either moral or immoral), we need to be aware of what is happening around us, and to check if it is actually in line with God's will and the evidence of the circumstances at the time (which my opponent suggests secular morality does as well, but I will disprove this next round).

This means that secular morality is based around circumstances; Christian morality is something that can be compared to what has already been decided to be moral (that murder is immoral, for example), and if there are no showcases of if something is immoral or moral, then it is based around evidence and, only if there is no choice, then circumstances in which choices are presented.

Obviously, Christian morality is superior to a guideline-less morality, which is secular.
Debate Round No. 1
V5RED

Pro

"I agree with pro on what morality is; morality is the idea dealing with what we should or should not do to other sentient beings (the only thing that I disagree with his definition is that morality also takes into account ourselves, not just the needs of other people, but that is not vital to this debate). An act is morally good if it is meant to have a net improvement on the well-being of ourselves, others, or both; an act is morally bad if it does the opposite. "
I am glad we can agree on definitions, that makes the rest of the debate much more straightforward.

"My reasoning for Christian morality being better than secular morality is hinged upon the fact that there is something to compare your actions (whether they be moral or immoral) to something and confirm whether or not this is moral or immoral (an agent of God - a priest, or the Bible, or something similar). This does not exist in secular morality - all that exists is the belief that something is moral because we think that it is; we are not given a set of commandments to follow to say what is or isn't moral from someone who is above us all."
This runs counter to the definition we agreed upon. The standard that secular morality relies upon is well-being. You do not need any authority to refer to when asking if an action promotes or diminishes well-being. Additionally, if you want to use the Bible as an authority, you need to provide justification for asserting that the rules given in the bible are actually morally correct. The Euthyphro dilemma I posted addresses this problem. Another way to look at is that you need some way to verify that the book is useful for morality, but to do so you would need an independent way to verify it. I see no reason to refer to this text to determine if an act is morally correct if you already have an independent method of verification. We can determine the outcomes of actions and assess whether they benefited those impacted using our secular tools of assessment.

"In a Christian setting, if there is a dispute over whether or not lying is a moral or immoral action, we are able to confirm that this is not a good thing by referring to the decalogue within our holy text; the Ten Commandments. The moral worth of this action is able to be assessed first with what our texts or religious leaders say, and then what our intuition says. For example, there is not a commandment saying "thou shalt not rape" (and if we can imagine that there exist no verses in the Bible dealing with rape), but that does not mean that it is a moral act. "

This is where more problems with Christian morality arise. The Bible explicitly condones and provides rules for slavery which is clearly counter to the well-being of the slaves. For example, "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money." Exodus 21 https://www.biblegateway.com...
You will also see in Exodus 21 that he condones the sale of your daughters as slaves.

Additionally, homosexuals are to be put to death which clearly diminished their well-being. "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13 http://biblehub.com...

The God himself is responsible for genocide in the story of Noah's Arc and he murdered innocent Egyptian children in the story of the Exodus. What makes the latter crime so severe is that it was a punishment for something he forced Pharoah to do. Pharoah tried to free the Hebrews very early in the story and God "hardened his heart" to force Pharoah to not release the Hebrews. He then murders the Egyptian children because of Pharoah doing that which God forced Pharoah to do. Exodus 9
http://biblehub.com...

God's laws force a raped virgin who is not engaged to be married to her rapist if he pays her father 50 pieces of silver. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 http://biblehub.com...

"In secular settings, this is not the case at all; we look to our own circumstances (and we do not necessarily look to evidence as my opponent suggests, but I will touch on that in a later time), and immediately assess the moral weight of something. This is essentially a circumstancial stance on morality; if we believe that it would benefit us all to sacrifice someone (as the Aztecs thought, but they were not secular nor Christian) due to the circumstances in which we would do so, that does not mean that it actually will benefit us all - and a secular sense of morality does not ensure that any potential actions would be in an objectively moral sense "good". "
Human sacrifice fits Christian morality, not secular. At least not in a general sense. Yes, there are cases where one must be sacrificed for the many. A classic example in philosophy is being given a choice where if you take no action many die and if you take action, only one person dies. We look to see what actions will bring about the greatest well-being. Secular morality, however, will not accept something like human sacrifice to pay for the sins of others. As to it being circumstantial, a consequentialist view is, by definition, based on the circumstances. Some acts will be immoral or moral depending on the circumstances. For example, it is immoral for me to punch an innocent old lady, but it is moral to punch a man trying to rob her. In this case, a rule banning punching would lead to very immoral conclusions because it would ban defending that innocent old lady.

"A secular stance on morality is a circumstancial stance on morality; a Christian stance on morality has a check in place which first makes it an objective stance of morality (God's morality), and then a circumstancial stance on morality, if it is necessary. "
As I have shown, that check would not be needed if it was useful, and it is not useful because the authority to whom Christians appeal is extremely immoral based on our agreed upon definition.

So to recap, using the agreed upon definition of morality, relying on the Bible leads one to commit heinous acts and secular morality can easily assess what is in fact a moral act. A society run under Christian morality would be one in which Neil Patrick Harris would be executed, slavery would still exist, and we would be appealing to the authority of a monster, the Christian god.
Lexus

Con

It seems like the only reservations that pro has is that the Bible has some things within it that are not popular in western cultures or societies. The reservations I have against secular morality is that it doesn't actually have a basis in evidence. and its morality is completely dependent on the wants of people, not what should actually be so.

Before I prove that pro's reservations are not valid, I would like to remind the reader to not vote with an internal bias, instead vote based on the content and quality of the debate. The reason that I bring this up is because I will be saying some very controversial stuff in this round, and if you do not get rid of your own biases during this debate, you will certainly dislike me and vote in line with your biases, which is against the goal of this website; we are here to speak about new ideas and open our viewpoints, not to have an echo-chamber where our own biases are only heard.

With that out of the way, I would like to try and prove that my opponent's reservations for Christian morality do not have a basis in the topic of this debate.

Slavery -
My opponent here is actually taking the entirety of the Bible out of context. In Exodus 21, as my opponent has quoted, there is actually a commandment to NOT take slaves; "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:16). But God knows that there will be slavery, many of the early Christians were slaves to the Romans, so He put commandments in place to actually protect the slave. He put laws in place saying that if you damage the eye of a slave, the slave shall be set free; if you kill a slave, you shall be killed; if you return a runaway slave to his "master", you will be punished (Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 23).

What this means is that God is actually against slavery (rightly so), but He knows that it will continue to exist, so he protects the slaves with multiple commandments to punish the slave master; in those times if you were a fair master, then you actually treated your slave "as a brother" (or even better), and in the end of days, you will realise that he is more than a slave to you, but a son.

Homosexuality -
I would like to offer a reasoning for why the Bible says this verse, and you will easily see that this verse, without context, is not condemning homosexuality in total. Leviticus 20:13 is a reference to what has been said earlier in Leviticus, in Leviticus 18:22 (which says, "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable").

The full context of this verse is a bit complicated, but in essence, this is referring to not having homosexual activity with a prostitute in the Pagan temple of Molech; this was a large issue at the time, and it was necessary to put this into the Bible, because worshipping a false God does not allow for moral absolutism [1]. Basically, this does not condemn all homosexual activity, just that in which is in the temple of Molech, which was rampant and abusive.

Egyptian children murder -
I completely understand why you have your reservations for this passage, but the reasoning for the deaths was justified, and if it were not, then the numbers were relatively low.
In Exodus, the Pharoh is actually completely limiting the population ("Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live.""). God tells the Pharoh that he needs to stop killing the Hebrew people, and the Pharoh doesn't listen. God needs to show that he means business, so he decides to kill every actual male firstborn (the Hebrew word used in this passage is for males only, when translated it often just says "firstborn"). What actual means, is the actually first born child, who happens to be a male; having the first born die and then the second born becoming first does not constitute for first.
It was calculated that around 4% of all children were possible victims of this, and around 70,000 children in total could be infected by the plague [2]. When you are faced with either total elimination of a people (Hebrew), versus having to kill 4% of children in Egypt, you must choose the children if you wish to have morality.

Other things-
I am running out of space, so I will just touch on them. Rape is seen as an attack, not on a woman, but on the idea of household and community. You must protect a household in order to have a community thriving; if you do not, then chaos may ensue. So, we must try to keep households intact, and if there is not a household in place, then an attack on the head of household (the woman's father), may warrant a marriage between the two.
As for the Flood, it was necessary.


Now, I would like to show that secular morality does not have a basis in experiment or fact.

Secular morality is morality guided by our moral cravings and desires; it is not based around an absolutist moral guide that lets us know what we should do and how we should do it. When we do not have rules in place to follow, we are left only to what we crave, and what we crave becomes what we consider to be our own morals; if I crave to kill someone because it will make me feel good, then my morality allows me to commit a crime, whereas a Christian morality standpoint would not condone such behavior.
If I want to steal something because it smells good, it benefits me enough that I would think that it is moral; but what it does is break down society to its very structure, and if we could see that through a moral absolutist viewpoint, we would know that this is the case.

In essence, secular morality is a self-centered morality based around cravings and desires, Christian morality is a morality based around moral absolutism, Godly desires, and the knowledge that something is moral, whether or not we crave it.

[1]. http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[2]. http://christianthinktank.com...
Debate Round No. 2
V5RED

Pro

Let's pretend for the moment that Con's rationalizations were successful. They were not, but I will get to that later.

Con's entire objection to secular morality is that it is based on desires. This is not always the case, as shown with the example of vaccinating a child. The child does not desire the vaccine, but it is in his best interests because it will promote his well-being. Con tries to paint secular morality as some selfish, base way to deal with morality, but this is a caricature. Even if con could show that all secular morality is based on desire by going through some mental gymnastics to link all well-being to desire, so what? What would that do to diminish secular morality? It is still promoting well-being. I am not sure if Con is aware that the well-being refers to everyone impacted by your actions, but even if you include yourself in that estimation(I don't), you still don't get to just go around stealing because the negative impact on the well-being of all those affected(the one you rob and society in general by forcing people to spend money to protect goods instead of on more goods).

Con claims that secular morality is not evidence-based and then holds up biblical morality as the correct method. This is backward. Secular morality is based on evidence used to determine the kinds of things deserving moral treatment. We understand that if something can be self aware then it should be given different treatment than something that is not self aware and we can understand the effects of actions based on the evidence of the effects of similar acts in the past. Biblical morality uses no evidence and just follows decrees that Con has yet to justify.

Con has ignored my arguments that show that there is no good reason to accept the content of the bible as a good moral guide. Con tried to rationalize my examples of how the bible does not promote well-being, but has ignored the issue that without secular morality, Con has no way to determine if the bible is a moral document. It would seem, therefore that Con is trying to redefine morality as doing whatever God says which is dismantled by the Euthyphro dilemma.

"It seems like the only reservations that pro has is that the Bible has some things within it that are not popular in western cultures or societies. The reservations I have against secular morality is that it doesn't actually have a basis in evidence. and its morality is completely dependent on the wants of people, not what should actually be so."

No, I very clearly objected to the fact that there is no reason to accept the bible as a moral authority. Did you not read the Euthyphro dilemma and my pointing out that the only way you can determine if the bible is a moral guide is by using secular morality as your guideline?

Now, let's get to the rationalizations Con tried to use.

To Con's Slavery rationalization: All of of Con's attempts to justify this are incorrect. Con has cited a passage banning kidnapping, not slavery. As to God needing to soften slavery because it would already be happening, this is a common and completely unconvincing rationalization. If an omnipotent God that can commit worldwide genocide on a whim, create people out of dirt, and blink time into existence opposed owning people as property, he could just ban it. This is the same God that will torture people forever for not believing in him as he plays the world's longest game of hide and seek. As to the rules supposedly forcing people to treat slaves well, I literally cited the passage where people are told they can beat their slaves and as long as they do not immediately die from the woulds, the master is not to be punished.

To Con's Homosexuality Rationalization -
It literally tells people to execute homosexuals. It does not say throw homosexuals out of the temple of Moloch or tell homosexuals to stop having sex in the temple of Moloch, it says to kill them. There is a small reference to Moloch, but this is just a ban on worshipping the pagan gods of that temple, and in all the verses in Leviticus 20 dealing with that, it is explicitly mentioned. After Leviticus 20:5, people are then given explicit instructions to kill homosexuals, children who curse their parents, witches, etc.

To con's rationalization of murdering babies in Egypt:

You do not kill babies because the leader of the country is making you mad. If God wanted Pharoah to stop doing bad things, he could have just killed Pharoah, killing babies as a penalty for someone else's actions is obscene and so is that rationalization. That same rationalization could be used to justify killing my kids because you hate Obama.

To Con's other rationalizations:
No, rape is seen as defiling the father's property so the rapist pays for the property because women were basically not people in the Bible with few exceptions.
Please explain why the flood was necessary. Why did children need to be killed and why was it necessary to use such a horrible method. This was a slow drowning of everyone on earth except for a drunk, his family, and a bunch of animals.

I would love to hear the rationalization for Hell. Bear in mind that the crime you commit to be sent there is lack of belief in God. You cannot escape it via good acts. Christian priests are very clear on this, Hell is eternal punishment for lack of belief in a God. This God, however, makes it impossible to be justified in belief in him because of his eternal game of hide and seek.

So to recap, Con objects to secular morality because Con claims it is based on desire yet con fails to show how this would have been bad even if it was true. Con has yet to justify accepting the Bible as a moral guide and just throws out this idea of an absolute authority without explaining why one is necessary or why it should be the Christian bible. Con also tried to rationalize the bible using secular morality, so even if con had successfully rationalized the bible, it would have been by using secular morality as the standard by which to judge acts, including those of a god.
Lexus

Con

This is boring, I'm forfeiting the rest of the debate.

The outline of what I was going to say is this:
1. Slavery = kidnapping, if you do not know this then you are ignorant of how this thing called owning people works.
2. The Pharoh had 2 million people that would kill all Hebrew men. So killing the Pharoh wouldn't do anything, he'd continue. There's this thing called "believing in what a leader says", it's pretty cool, look it up some time.
3. This isn't a debate about if God is real or not, and if we accept that the Bible is the enerrant word of God (for this debate, we must accept that he is real, otherwise we are literally debating secular v. secular morality), then it has this thing called "the word of a perfect being that is entirely moral".
4. Rape actually is an attack on the foundation of the household. Rape is not amoral according to your guidelines, saying that if it harms one individual then it is not moral. God-1 you-0.
5. I don't need to read your Euro-whatsit, since I am only supposed to read what is actually in the text of the debate. I used my discretion and didn't point out that you are advocating for outside of debate knowledge when voting, but whatevs.
6. It is about Molech worship - you literally have no defense against it, it just says to kill homosexuals (when referencing Molech). Yeah, people worshipping a false God and having sex with tons of prostitutes is kind of not moral, so *shrug*.
Debate Round No. 3
V5RED

Pro

At least you forfeited the debate before going into your churlish arguments, but I will still address them.

"1. Slavery = kidnapping, if you do not know this then you are ignorant of how this thing called owning people works."
In the bible they got slaves by conquering people from other lands. Kidnapping is a reference to capturing your fellow citizens.

"2. The Pharoh had 2 million people that would kill all Hebrew men. So killing the Pharoh wouldn't do anything, he'd continue. There's this thing called "believing in what a leader says", it's pretty cool, look it up some time."
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but people are not going to follow the charred remains of a leader when the demon that just rained hellfire down on that leader tells them to stop doing what the leader said before he was charred by the godly demon.

"3. This isn't a debate about if God is real or not, and if we accept that the Bible is the enerrant word of God (for this debate, we must accept that he is real, otherwise we are literally debating secular v. secular morality), then it has this thing called "the word of a perfect being that is entirely moral"."
No, just no. You are now defining morality as just doing whatever the bible says, and then the debate would be about whether secular morality, which deals with well-being, or Christian morality, which deals with obedience, is superior. Secular morality leads to the betterment of the lives of sentient beings at large by design. Christian morality, if it led to betterment of lives, would only do so accidentally. It is all about obedience, not well-being.

"4. Rape actually is an attack on the foundation of the household. Rape is not amoral according to your guidelines, saying that if it harms one individual then it is not moral. God-1 you-0."
No, just no. I said that an act's morality is defined by its net effect on the well-being of all sentient beings involved.

"5. I don't need to read your Euro-whatsit, since I am only supposed to read what is actually in the text of the debate. I used my discretion and didn't point out that you are advocating for outside of debate knowledge when voting, but whatevs."
It took me a minute to realize what you were talking about. I specifically outlined the Euthyphro dilemma in my opening post. That you did not bother to read it is not my fault. And I quote:
"Aside from god being a monster, it makes no sense to peg morality on a being because of the Euthyphro dilemma.

Is an act good because God favors it or does God favor it because it is good?

In the first option, slavery, rape, torture, and murder all would be called morally correct if God told you to do them. In this case you are defining morality as whatever the most powerful being wants which has nothing to do with morality. Additionally, what if God and Jesus disagree on something? If morality is what a supernatural being wants and the supernatural beings disagree, then does morality become the wishes of the being that can beat up the other being?

In the second option, the act's moral goodness is not dependent on God, it is good and he approves of it because it is good. He does not cause it to be good."

"6. It is about Molech worship - you literally have no defense against it, it just says to kill homosexuals (when referencing Molech). Yeah, people worshipping a false God and having sex with tons of prostitutes is kind of not moral, so *shrug*.""
No, it does not and I demonstrated that by referencing the complete chapter which clearly is only referencing that temple for the first few verses. The chapter also tells us to kill children that curse their parents which is obviously unrelated to Moloch. Also, murdering people for their beliefs is, itself, immoral.

Boom....roasted.

So, to recap, Broasted.
Lexus

Con

Nah brah, you missed the whole point.
Read Exodus again :)
Debate Round No. 4
V5RED

Pro

Summary:

Con never addressed my main objections to accepting the bible as a moral guide, never demonstrated that following it would help anyone in any way, had all of her points clearly and completely taken apart, and in the end forfeited when she realized she had lost.

By any sensible measure, I won this debate, but more importantly, I was able to demonstrate the superiority of secular morality.
Lexus

Con

I'd like to say sorry if I was condescending or rude during this debate, I never meant for tempers to flare or anything.

You won this debate since I forfeited. But in my mind, as an atheist, you haven't proven that a morality that has no basis for confirmation of if something is moral or not, other than circumstances. I agree that secular morality is superior, but for the reasons you gave, I wouldn't be persuaded. Now, I wouldn't be persuaded by mine either, but I had said earlier to throw away internal biases that may impact voting (you didn't >:D), so IF the Bible is the word of God, and for the purposes of this debate God exists, then it's on a moral absolutist level of morality, something that cannot be confirmed with secular morality.

Anyways, it was fun to think about, thank you for allowing me to debate you, and again, sorry for any harmful words I have brought into this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JamesTeranov 2 years ago
JamesTeranov
Fair play V5RED, haven't been on debate.org in a while but you have been doing well for yourself. Great debate there. Fair play bud :)
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers. This is why when you read through the Bible or Koran, often what is described as "evil" are such victimless crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. Other moral issues and labeled "abominations" have to do with failure to adhere to rituals and traditions, like not working on the Sabbath or not eating certain kinds of food.
Read the 10 commandments if you don't have time to read the whole Bible. You'll notice that the first four, the one's that Yahweh thought of first and foremost, have to do with religious adherence and not real moral issues. A few deal with how we treat others (don't murder, don't steal, etc) but the majority prohibit victimless crimes. This muddying of the waters is not helpful to our understand of what is moral or what morality is.
By contrast, secular morality focuses on the issue with laser-like precision. Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
2 days probably. I realise that I'll be taking the Christian morality side- saying that that type of morality is better than secular morality.
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
I see that in your profile, you list yourself as an atheist, you realize you are taking the side that Christian morality is superior to secular morality correct?
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
How much time will you require Lexus?
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
I'd love to accept. Sometimes I have a large workload so if you could expand the amount of time per round, I'd appreciate that - I usually have a response within 12 hours but sometimes I cannot get on the site due to work
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
That depends on what you mean by the word morality. People tend to not give a definition that is actually meaningful. When defined as the field dealing with what actions should or should not be taken with respect to the well-being of others where diminishing well-being is negative and improving well-being is positive, it is objective.

This definition would also comport with the manner in which morality is often spoken and it makes sense even from a cold mechanistic perspective because that way of thinking is what allows us to live as a social interacting species.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
DATXDUDE
Morality is subjective.
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
If anyone else wants to take up the debate, I will accept you since Karl has still not accepted the debate.
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
Aceepted
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
V5REDLexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Con in the following statement. "You won this debate since I forfeited"