The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Christian bible and god are responsible for the presence of 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 64841
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Please do not submit new points in your final round - this should be used to provide your conclusion.

Please only accept this argument if you are genuinely interested in debate with intellectual honesty.

I am taking the stance that the Christian bible and its contents as well as the Christian God are not vital components of morality and that the complete absence of these things would not leave a person morally void. I am an atheist and therefore do not accept theistic claims of there being the existence of an all powerful cosmic creator. My opponent may of course use their belief in a deity in an attempt to give their argument more weight. All I ask is that my opponent remain intellectually honest. I am prepared to move in the natural direction this debate takes. This topic has a large scope after all so I do not wish to restrict any approach my opponent may wish to take, or indeed my responses to such approaches. Let's keep this debate civil


Though I concur that the absence of the Bible would not entirely eradicate the presence of morality, in all fairness, my opponent should not disregard the fact that the Bible and the Christian principles are prevalent assets that contribute significantly to the perpetual existence of morality. Excluding the Bible from society would drastically reduce the number of conscientious individuals. Since my opponent is a heretic, it is easy for him to refute my assertion, using his personal experience toward achieving this objective. For instance, my opponent can say that he is a moral heretic, yet his morality is not derived from the Bible and therefore the Bible does not necessary instills moral judgment in an individual consciousness. Arguing from this point of view will defeat the entire purpose of the debate, and this is the sole reason why my first sentence admits that the Bible would not (I put great emphasis on these words) entirety eradicate the presence of morality. Therefore, instead of arguing from a personal perspective, the argument should incorporate society as a whole. Let"s argue from a view point which will easily allow everyone to judge our arguments fairly. In other words, let"s use empirical facts to support our arguments.

My contention is that yes, to a great extent, Christianity is responsible for the presence of morality. Comparing nation that have a Christian majority to those that have a Christian minority in its population will illustrate that the absence of Christianity increases the probability of immoral practices. First, let's consider the most totalitarian and perhaps the most barbarous perpetrator of wickedness in the world: North Korea. According to the New York Times, a study by a special United Nation Commission has produced shocking indictment against North Korea, "crimes against humanity including murder, enslavement, torture, rape, forced abortions and persecution on political, racial and religious grounds." According to the finding of the U.N. Commission, witnesses told "gruesome tales, including of guards clubbing starving children to death for stealing rice." And that "women are forcibly trafficked from North Korea to China for forced marriages and prostitution." Similar atrocities are practice in Syria, where the government uses chemical weapons to kill "nearly 1,500 civilians, including at least 426 children." CNN broadcasted the depiction of children, laying stiffly on the ground, foaming after being viciously attack by chemical weapons. Furthermore, in Saudi Arabia citizens who criticize the government are convicted to death and mercilessly beheaded. In Pakistan Women are killed for advocating equal rights of education. Malala Yousafzai, the youngest-ever Nobel Prize recipient, was shot in her head by the Taliban for supporting female education. A fundamental similarity between these countries that practices the most deplorable form of oppression and horrendousness is that they have a Christian minority population. Now, I kindly ask my opponent to cite countries, with a Christian majority population, that practice similar atrocities to the countries mentioned above.

To the contrary, the countries that perform the most altruism are Christian majority countries. To illustrate, I will cite a few occasion of these humanitarian aids. The U.S., a Christian majority country, was the first nation to assist in the outbreak of Ebola in Africa. When ISIS was slathering civilians in Iraq, forcing them to the take refuge in the mountain, Britain, Australia, and the United State, three Christian majority countries, saved these civilians by dropping food and water on the mountain. These moral efforts were enforced by Christian majority countries. The simple fact that the atrocities that are practice in North Korea, Pakistan, and other countries in the Middle East do not occur in Christian majority countries is empirical evidence that, to a great extent, Christianity enforces morality.
Debate Round No. 1


Sadly Pro has not read the debate premise properly - my statement was that the complete absence of the christian bible and god would not leave a person morally void. Pro is therefore concurring with a point I did not make. Pro, in his opening sentence also states "[...] my opponent should not disregard the fact that the bible and christian principles ["] contribute significantly to the perpetual existence of morality". This is a purely subjective statement so it saddens me further that Pro thinks an opinion automatically becomes fact. Pro then reasons that 'excluding the bible would 'drastically' reduce the number of conscientious individuals'. This is again subjective. As I am an atheist, Pro argues, it is easy for me to refute their argument, yet in the next sentence Pro implies I have morality?

Most striking of all so far - Pro is suggesting that to consider personal morals in a debate regarding morality would defeat the purpose of this debate. This is an absurd notion. Pro then states that society as a whole should be considered when questioning whether the bible and christian god are the sole cause of morality. At this point, before continuing, I would like to point out that Pro has faltered fatally - he says "[...] the bible does not necessarily instill moral judgment in an individual". Pro accepted this debate and took the stance that a complete lack of the bible and christian god would not leave a person morally void. Perhaps my opponent believes he is in a different debate.

I will continue none the less, despite this worrying start from Pro. Now in light of the driving factor behind this debate I cannot ignore Pro's next line - "[...] to a great extent, christianity is responsible for the presence of morality". He has, once again however, inadvertently conceded this debate, based on my stance. Allow me to highlight my opponents flawed logic. Pro believes that a lack of christian belief in a non christian country makes for more immoral practices. Conveniently perhaps, Pro has completely failed to look properly at stats for the most christian country in the world - America - and has also failed to look at statistics for the least religious countries in the world. With a sense of bewilderment I will make my rebuttal. Pro has kindly requested that I mention countries and stats. He mentions the '1500' people killed by the government in Syria. He also mentions the death of children to garner sympathy for his own stance. While the things he mentions are truly atrocious - also I would invite my opponent to ponder over how I, an atheist, am capable of labelling such things as heinous - he apparently forgets that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima by America killed roughly 45'000 people instantly. Now, for the purpose of sweeping my opponents misguided argument aside, I will provide evidence.

The 2005 United Nations Human Development Report shows that Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Belgium and Japan, to name a few, are among the least religious societies on earth yet have the lowest numbers of homicide per capita. The united States, in contrast, is one of the most religious countries in the world and has some of the highest numbers of homicide, rape, abortion, teen pregnancy and instances of sexually transmitted disease in the world. Three out of the five most dangerous cities to live in within America, in regard to crime, are in the highly religious state of Texas. I would like to point out that Pro has mentioned a few charitable acts and deems this as sufficient evidence that christian majority nations are most charitable. This is in fact false - the same study I have mentioned shows that countries with the highest rates of non-religiosity are the most charitable with their personal incomes.

Do not be fooled. Pro has used subjective reasoning, twisted logic and false information to argue his stance.

Finally, I would like to ask Pro if any good, christian acts could not be achieved through purely secular means?


My opponent is so clever at quoting my words out of context that I am absolutely convinced he has some background in journalism. Before I proceed to dismantle my opponent's argument, however, there is one point in particular that needs to be addressed. Let me assure my opponent that I indeed read the premise of the debate and that I also read his introduction, in which he states that he is "prepared to move in the natural direction this debate takes" and that "This topic has a large scope after all so I do not wish to restrict any approach my opponent may wish to take"" Ironically shocking, after I presented an incontrovertibly impregnable argument, my opponent is expressing "bewilderment" and saying that my argument is "worrying." These comments are truly comical and frankly, I am please with the discomfort that my argument ingrained into my opponent"s mind.

To recapitulate, in round one, my initial argument is that Christianity is responsible for the vast majority of society"s morality. In an effort to prove the validity of my argument, I represented countries that have a Christian minority population and cite the barbarism that is practice in these countries: beheading, "enslavement, torture, rape, forced abortions and persecution on political, racial and religious grounds, guards clubbing starving children to death for stealing rice," and human trafficking from North Korea to China, just to name a few. I then compare these immoral nations to Christian majority nation, illustrating that Christian majority nations do not practice these wicked extremities, but to the contrary, provide humanitarian aids to countries around the world. I then proceed by asking my opponent to kindly "...cite countries, with a Christian majority population, that practice similar atrocities to" North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, and China, which are all Christian minority nations. Instead of satisfying my "kindly" request, my opponent obliviously reinforces my argument. Allow me to illustrate my opponent"s fatal mistake.

He mentions that "The 2005 United Nations Human Development Report shows that Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Belgium and Japan, to name a few, are among the least religious societies on earth yet have the lowest numbers of homicide per capita." My opponent did not provide his source, depriving me of the pleasure of confirming his report. Another Very critical information that my opponent failed to mention is that Denmark is a Christian majority nation; 78% of its religious body are Christians. Switzerland is a Christian majority nation. Christianity makes up 76% of the country"s religious body. Norway is a Christian majority nation; 76.1% of its religious body are Christians. Belgium is a Christian majority country.

My opponent"s argument has just crumple like a falling building. He proves my point. The countries that he mentions, with the exception of Japan, are all Christian majority countries.

Another interesting point that I want to address is a preposterous assertion made by opponent, stating: "He also mentions the death of children to garner sympathy for his own stance." Frankly, I think this a monstrous accusation. To suggest that I mentioned the death of children to gamer sympathy for my stance, as if the gruesome slaughtering and clubbing of children is irrelevant, sinks deep into my heart, and have me wondering if my opponent, an audacious atheist, has the slightest trace of morality in his bone, or a drop of sympathy for these innocent children.

My opponent has not refuted my argument; he merely strengthens it. I will like to address how my opponent misquote me, but I have insufficient characters remaining.

please provide source. " Factbook " Countries " Norway
Debate Round No. 2


Pro seeks to paint me in a bad light by claiming I have quoted him out of context, then goes on to take the premise of this debate out of context himself. Indeed I did say I was prepared to move in the natural direction of this debate but I am under no obligation to accept subjective arguments as proof from Pro. I find it absurd and dishonest that my opponent would take this approach.

My rebuttal is simple. My opponents argument is flawed. He lists atrocities committed in christian minority countries and essentially, flippantly reasons "these do not take place in christian majority countries, thus the christian faith is responsible for morality". Stating several atrocities in christian minority countries does not bring us a single inch closer to proving christianity promotes morality. I will steal Pro's phrase and 'proceed to dismantle my opponents argument'.

In 2012, the percentage of christians in USA sat at 73% of the entire population [] - Pro can easily scroll to the 'Christianity' section.

According to this report from 2013, sourced from the United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime, USA has the highest reported crime rates in the world. The populations of the next three countries in the list, when combined almost equal that of USA. However, USA's crime rate is still 3 times greater than those three countries rates combined. The stats are located directly beneath the world map -

Provided is a breakdown of violent crime in USA - this encompasses murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault -
Notice that violent crime rates have increased.

Great Britain is one of the most non-religious places in the world. We can see that not only does Great Britain have a murder rate almost 400% less than that of USA (USA sits at 4.7 murders per 100,000 people) but USA shockingly has a higher murder rate than the rates of Japan, Germany, Australia, Finland and Great Britain combined - this info can be found on line 11 of the body of text. I would invite my opponent to pay particular attention to the title of this article;

I would ask Pro to next look at the following, which shows the homicide rate in Syria to be almost half that of the USA -

The population of Indonesia in 2013 sat at 249million. The USA pop sat at 316million. Indonesia is the most Islamic country in the world with 88.2% identified as muslim -

Indonesia has one of the lowest murder rates in the world - 0.6 people per 100'000 persons in 2012 (compared to the USA's 4.7). Scroll down to the 120th country on the list to see Indonesia's stats -

With these stats in mind, we can clearly see that both christian minority and muslim majority countries do not need christianity for moral guidance. Pro has been sloppy, providing incorrect info. I invite Pro to enlighten himself by clicking the link and scrolling to 'Norway' -

Pro should read my previous argument, paying particular attention to the sentence "while the things he mentions are truly atrocious" in response to his sexed up, dramatic attempt to make me out to be heartless. This was a dishonest and cheap means of attempting to discredit my character.

To finish, I would kindly ask Pro this: has there ever been instances of rape, torture, beheading, enslavement, and persecution on religious, racial and political grounds in the USA??

These figures decimate my opponents argument from all angles.


TheContentiousDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent, in the face of the solid facts I provided in response to his claims, has failed to provide a rebuttal. The crux of Pro's argument has taken many forms - I have been misrepresented and my opponent has attempted to slander my character. This amounts to nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and treacherous debating. Impressive rhetoric is used but it does not detract from the situation - the pillars of my opponents argument lie in waste.

Yes my opponent did attempt to validate his argument by referencing the heinous acts taking place in christian minority countries but a grave error was made - Pro staggering neglected to look properly at christian majority countries and to countries where the dominant religion is not christianity but instead another. As a result, an incomplete picture was provided by Pro, one which can never satisfy the burden of proof when arguing for the proposition that the christian faith and bible are responsible for morality.

I see it as prudent to take lead and move on to the matter of the christian bible. It is true that this holy book provides some examples of what the average man would deem to be acts of morality but it is absolutely vital to realize that any good deed mentioned in the bible could also be achieved through purely secular means. I therefore challenge my opponent to provide an example of a good act which could not be achieved in spite of the absence of christianity and its bible.

I believe the bible is not the paragon of moral virtue my opponent would likely have you believe it is. What moral lesson are we to take from a book in which over 2 million people die at the hands of the creator, the word of this god himself, a divinely inspired work. This figure is by no means an exaggeration - the bible gives numbers - 70'000 killed for David's sin, 42 children killed by bears sent from god for mocking Elijah, 24'000 Jews who followed Baal killed, all the Midianite's killed except for the 32'000 virgin girls spared, 500'000 Israelites who killed each other at the command of God. And the list goes on... This does not include all of humanity (except of course for Noah, his family and the animals) who were wiped out by the great flood, or the 65 entire cities sacked for which the death tolls were not mentioned in the bible, the so called source of morality.

My opponent may perhaps state that these are only allegories, but were he to do so I would ask him by what standard he is able to deem a story from the bible fact or allegory. There are just over 600 commandments in the bible - these are laws decreed by god himself - these laws are rigid. They are to be obeyed by all. I would therefore firstly ask my opponent if he is aware of this fact. I would also ask if my opponent follows each one of these commandments himself - does he keep the Sabbath day holy, does he abstain from eating shellfish? Would my opponent stone his child to death for being unruly or take a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath to the edge of the city to participate in his stoning to death?

The point I am making should be obvious - the bible and christianity is not needed for moral guidance and it's complete absence would not leave a person morally void. Were I accused of being wrong in my proposition I would ask why reports do not flood in daily, telling the world of yet another child stoned to death in American for being unruly, or a man killed for working on the Sabbath, for America after all is one of the most christian majority countries in the world.

As a final point and an exercise in thought, I wish to ask my opponent several questions - does Pro hold raping and killing to be utterly wrong like I, an atheist, do? Did Pro rape and kill before becoming a believer in god? And finally, were it proved undeniably that god was not real, would Pro then start to rape and kill? The answers to these questions will speak volumes. An honest answer to these questions will obliterate my opponents argument.


TheContentiousDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Sadly my opponent has once again waived their opportunity to provide a rebuttal to my arguments, and indeed to try to fortify their own stance, given that they have forfeited yet again. As agreed, in light of this being the last round, I will provide no new points and will instead reiterate points previously made.

To recap, the premise of this argument from my stance was that the christian bible and christian god are not responsible for a persons moral compass given that, as emphasized before, there is no deed, deemed good by the masses, which cannot be achieved through purely secular means. I invited my opponent to provide just one example which would defy my point but was met only with silence.

In an attempt to secure his stance, my opponent listed horrific acts which have taken place in christian minority countries - acts which I also hold to be atrocious - but this was as far my opponents argument went. Much of his efforts were spent trying to tarnish my character and twist my words, erroneously stating that my 'so called' facts were incorrect. I then provided sources as a response to these claims but my opponent forfeited. I made the obvious and vital point that in order to truly gauge whether the christian bible and god are responsible for the presence of morality, it was utterly insufficient, and I suspect in this debate intellectually dishonest on the part of Pro, to neglect looking to christian majority countries also.

With this in mind, I provided pure facts regarding one of the most christian nations in the world - America - I provided facts regarding one of the most muslim countries in the world - Indonesia - and I provided facts for secular states too. All three of these things must be looked at to complete the picture. This is a type of debate in which facts are most important - I merely used America and it's violent crime statistics to highlight that my opponents stance is wrong - a fact which I have already mentioned. I held these up to other countries and provided an obvious conclusion - one which is surely undeniable in both the eyes of a theist and an atheist.

The conclusion is this - based on overwhelming facts and figures, christianity is clearly not needed in order to have a well tuned sense of right and wrong. Indonesia is a muslim majority country - it's violent crime rates are well below that of America. Even Syria, which my opponent referenced in an attempt to fortify his stance, is statistically far safer to live in than America with regard to violent crime. The fact of the matter is this - the statistics I provided, the sources of which are there for all to see, completely annihilate my opponents stance. Unless my opponent were to demonstrate a brazen display of deceit, even he could not deny the obvious conclusions my rebuttals show.

My previous points can be viewed so I will spare any readers from further repetition. I am of the honest and sincere opinion that my opponent has failed to satisfy the burden of proof which is inherited from taking a stance such as his. The facts are there, in black and white, and it is these facts which strengthen my stance while simultaneously eroding my opponents. I would briefly ad that I did address the christian bible in my last round but had I neglected this, it would not have lessened the strength of my argument by the smallest degree.

As the debate proceeded, my opponents stance became more and more unstable until finally it crumbled. I have debated honestly, attempting to provide an informative approach so justify and fortify my stance. As the debate proceeded, my opponent resorted to acts of literary treachery in order to slate my character and drum up dislike for me. The emphasis should always have remained on the topic of debate at hand, a thing which I endeavoured to uphold at all times.

It has been an interesting and enjoyable experience to have participated in this debate.


TheContentiousDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff several times. Seemed to misunderstand the resolution