The Instigator
Macman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The Bible is not a good source of Morality

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 3 votes the winner is...
blackkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 661 times Debate No: 75694
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Macman

Pro

In this debate, I will advocate for the position that: the Bible is not a good reference for human morality. Filled with contradictions and atrocities, it is a mythos that should be read only as such- a fairy tale. The lessons that actually do reflect basic human empathy (secular) currently exist in our current society, and the character of God should be judged by the standards of real human morality. I will also advocate there is no existence of 'Divine Morality' (that which is innate to humans by birth or creed) and acting as if there is- is in itself immoral. An opponent must be able to argue the effect of the Bible without merely quoting verses. (Verses will be accepted with valid arguments attached.) No trolls please. This is is for a friendly debate.

5 Rounds.
R1- Initial Position/ Acceptance of Debate
R2 Arguments
R3 - Rebuttals
R4 - Rebuttal Responses
R5 - Closing Arguments
blackkid

Con

Okidoke

So it looks like it's my job to show that the Bible is fine as source of morality when a critical look at the value of things stated within it are truly elucidated. I'll not be doing anything else though I imagine this is about Divine Command Theory brand ethics.
Debate Round No. 1
Macman

Pro

Thanks for the open and friendly debate. So yeah, we can stick with Divine Command theory for the bulk of if you like. It's an awful lot to get at for 5 rounds. I will try to tie it together to make for a good discussion. For the viewers, sorry if we harp on one degree of the debate, but it was only in hindsight I realize how much information is involved. Good Luck!
As to avoid Red Herrings, I assert any one thing only to the degree of maximal certainty, not absolute.

Definitions:

Bible- Both old and New Testament

God- A personal, omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful, transcendent being (as described in the Bible)

Morality - A decision of action or actions in regard to well-being of the individual with respect to the impact of said actions on the overall well-being of the population.

Humans- The Human Race, Society of Humans

Morality has been a debate for some time and often haled by the religious as a consequence of a Holy book, Divine being, or both. One of the most popular of religious scriptures is that of the christian Bible. The Bible itself is often touted as 'The good book', yet fails to meet the definition of morality as put forth above, and is a far-outdated, static
pronouncement of barbaric practices as genocide, slavery, and rape.

Morality is important to understand in today's world. And before jumping in, it's important we recognize it as a complexity- the many people, with different lifestyles who want a beneficial model of interactions in an ever changing world. In the vast majority of moral situations, we have a goal of preference for life. We know this, because we continually as a race have made advances in areas such as, law, medicine, agriculture, ect. that better our chances of living life by protecting and aiding our societies in their growing needs. However, creating a method in which we can judge the likeliness of a good action vs. that of a bad to promote this life, is essential. Further, we need a system that allows us to understand WHY an action is good or bad for us as humans, not just a declaration of omniscience. This notion of I submit is the cornerstone of morality.

We have come to a time in humanity, where moral pronouncements are now being seen as an out dated practice, as it offers very little, if any, methodology in addressing the question of "Why should or shouldn't we?" and even less in the realm of situational ethics the, "When should and shouldn't we?". In fact, a large number of solutions mandated for some of the most mundane infractions within the contents of the Bible, happen to be the punishment of death- a punishment that is in direct conflict and violation of the state of well-being. To name just a few examples: Wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), Planting more than one kind of seed in the fields (Also Leviticus 19:19), Clipping your beard (Leviticus 19:27) Sex based Crimes (Deuteronomy 22:22- :27) We also note the Bible endorses slavery (Exodus 21:7- 11) and has very little regard to women's rights, on subservience: (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Though I find it interesting these parts of the Bible are seemingly not advocated in mainstream christian ideology. Only a small front of fundamentalists seem to advocate these types of atrocious social injunctions. I posit that Christianity (as mainstream) has adopted secular values in a society who has found a better way to approach societal needs with the application of reason. As I stated in my opening, that the character God should be judged by the standards we set as a human race, for as we are the only forms demonstrated to exist in reality thus far.

Below is my argument for the most attainable (and current) ideal system of determining moral baselines.

P1 Morality is objective in terms of well-being
P2 Humans can measure, collect and share information
P3 Humans have a reliable method in which to discern data
P4 Humans can independently exercise the mind as a moral agent
C Humans can, independent of an outside agent, make moral decisions based on discerned collective data

P1:

Ex. Battery acid, if quaffed, will harm you. Irrespective of any subjective opinion of the use of battery acid, it's objective effect when swallowed on well-being is that of harm. Therefore, advocating the use of battery acid (for drinking) despite objective knowledge of it's consequence, is immoral.

P2:

Ex. I think this is evident, but the fact we have a variety of polls, scientific equipment, E.G. in medicine, research studies ect.
demonstrates we collect data.

P3:

Ex. Scientific Method, Analytic Induction, Et. Al. Examples of some of the most reliable methods we have to date.

P4:

Ex. Considering God has not been sufficiently demonstrated as existing, let alone having an influence; It is reasonable
to assert that we act independent of a God, as a moral agent; until such a time existence and causation of any
supernatural entity or agent is demonstrated.

.
blackkid

Con

[ P1 Morality is objective in terms of well-being
P2 Humans can measure, collect and share information
P3 Humans have a reliable method in which to discern data
P4 Humans can independently exercise the mind as a moral agent
C Humans can, independent of an outside agent, make moral decisions based on discerned collective data ]

I want to start by just looking at this syllogism. It is neither valid nor sound by means of being both circular and affirming the consequent (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) and this is important because the foundation of any argumentation must be sound. I shall demonstrate in two ways, one with the examples given by the opponent, and one with the actual discussion of the syllogism itself. First the example:

"Battery acid, if quaffed, will harm you. Irrespective of any subjective opinion of the use of battery acid, it's objective effect when swallowed on well-being is that of harm. Therefore, advocating the use of battery acid (for drinking) despite objective knowledge of it's consequence, is immoral."

The practice of seppuku (http://www.britannica.com...) was done out of honor and though a punishment in many cases was a means of maintaining one's honor as a samurai. We know for a fact that stabbing yourself is very much so detrimental however the moral value of seppuku as suicide is high not low. Many objectively harmful practices as a means of proving social status including ones that end in the participants guaranteed death are not considered immoral. In modernity this can be even as simple as a tattoo since the grounds for this is a lack of harm and obviously needles piercing the skin for aesthetic pleasure or as recognition and symbolism are both quite harmful regardless of longevity. Harm aversion is not a basis of morality.

Another very easily noted example is alcohol consumption; with 56% of individuals reporting they drink alcohol, a known poison, at least monthly (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...) it is entirely impossible that one's knowledge of said poison drives one's aversions to said substances. Knowingly imbibing poisonous materials (from here on known as "drugs") is very common and many humans support it regardless of it's harm value. There are even times when the damge is permanent and still continued even for only psychoaddictive substances such as cocaine (http://www.dependency.net...) which, contrary to popular belief, are not physically addictive.

"Considering God has not been sufficiently demonstrated as existing, let alone having an influence; It is reasonable
to assert that we act independent of a God, as a moral agent; until such a time existence and causation of any
supernatural entity or agent is demonstrated."

This is the fallacy of the consequent. The premise states that due to the lack of evidence for something it must be reasonable that something else must be true which is not true and easily demonstrated by simply using a hotdog:

If Chad is German he will know what a frankfurter is and he did know what one was therefore Chad is German!

Chad's being German has nothing to do with knowing what a frankfurter is. In the same sense humans having moral sensibility on the basis that there is no deity has nothing to do with their ability to discern things accurately in a moral sense and because it has been at least posited that human morality is not based on safety or harm aversion the premises relating to physical prospects of discovery are almost nullified since, again, humans willingly drink alcohol often to drunkenness and at times beyond safe limits (presuming there is such as thing as a "safe limit" in harm aversion logic for unnecessary poison intake). This is key because if the moral agency of humanity is so flippant it cannot be the basis for any sound version of ethics and even human logic, as demonstrated, is prone to an extreme array of what is and isn't acceptable and also a change in that acceptability at any given time since in an ironic sense I will demonstrate that people actually use battery acid (http://www.justice.gov...) is at times a key ingredient in Meth which humans most definitely consume.

Of course the conclusion itself must be circular (or non-sequitur, if you wish to choose that route) if one takes into account the invalidity of the premises themselves and above all the conclusion is unsound.

Now one might ask why I went through all that instead of posting Bible verses to prove my point and this is actually proof of that point: Human logic falters badly. It falls flat on it's face and because humans are actually not capable of forming sound personal morals their ability to form congealed and appropriate ethics is at best weak if not impossible thus why there is no one brand of ethics (http://www.csrnyc.com...) which, if there were any absolutism to human morality there would be, and no one universal basis for law. Human cultures differ so much that it is impossible to assert they actually have, with any real indicating factors, sense of moral agency that would be sufficient to do more than simply set up a mildly functioning society.

The God of the Bible is stated to be "True", that is, He does not lie:

Numbers 23:19 NIV "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (http://biblehub.com...)"

If God is stable and True then God's morality is an ethical standard, it does not shift, it does not change, it is impossible for God to do "wrong" or "sin", it is logically sound, and it is absolute. By this standard God is therefore without shadow of a doubt capable of both passing appropriate judgment on an individual whilst humans have shown they are not through false imprisonment (https://www.law.cornell.edu...), political imprisonment (http://www.rferl.org...), and even zealous murder for false crimes (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) such as simply saying "No" to another person.

Humans are petty and incapable and are willing to excuse their crimes without any particulars where in some societies you have oligarchial rule that allows for excuses such as "Affluenza" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) however before God all men are equal and appropriately judged regardless of wealth or any other such humanly satisfying value (https://www.biblegateway.com...) as shown in Romans 2:

"If you judge someone else, you have no excuse for it. When you judge another person, you are judging yourself. You do the same things you blame others for doing. 2 We know that when God judges those who do evil things, he judges fairly. 3 Though you are only a human being, you judge others. But you yourself do the same things. So how do you think you will escape when God judges you? 4 Do you disrespect God’s great kindness and favor? Do you disrespect God when he is patient with you? Don’t you realize that God’s kindness is meant to turn you away from your sins?"

All-in-all humans are, by far, horribly incapable of managing a stable form of morality that is actually based anything concrete whether it be purposefully drinking poison, justifying stealing and killing, or just outright practices of favortism from which discrimination is born God is a far better judge and the Bible at least stable in it's approach to morality never shifting from Yahweh's word. Not a single commandment given, that would appropriately apply to modern day, seems to be troublesome to follow.

Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Macman

Pro

Macman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Macman

Pro

Macman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Macman

Pro

Macman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DanMGTOW 2 years ago
DanMGTOW
my favorite verses in the bible for this topic are
human sacrifice Exodus 22:29, and Judges 11:29-40
forcing women to marry their rapists Deuteronomy 22:28-29
selling daughters as slaves Exodus 21:7-11
child killing Psalms 137:9, and Numbers 31:15-18

and my personal favorite as a MGTOW
leave your wife and kids Matthew 119:29
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
MacmanblackkidTied
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: Forfeits by Pro, so conduct goes to Con. Con was the only one to use sources. Since Pro forfeited, all of Con's arguments stood throughout the debate and were essentially dropped, therefore arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
MacmanblackkidTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
MacmanblackkidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff