Theists are no more moral than the irreligious
Sincere, interested debater wanted; I ask everyone to keep affairs civil; thanks in advance.
I accept your debate challenge. I asked no questions ahead of time in the comments to confirm the intent of your debate because I have all I need in your resolution to argue with.
Considering it’s a positive phrased version of the statement, and you are PRO, that leaves Burdon of proving ones position more with you than with me.
For the bulk of this debate I will actually not be arguing about what I think as a Christian or as a consequence of being Christian but plan to focus on the atheist standpoint and shall be using my arguments as if I were an atheist, playing devils advocate in a half-sort-of-way. What I mean by that is as a Christian It may be more strong position of there being a ‘morality’, I have had to defend ‘objective morality’ before from a few atheist who reject the concept all together and use arguments to say its an illusion.
I understand that’s not the thinking of all atheist, but for this debate I’ll role play those atheist arguments and ask you answer all of there typical challenges to it. so in a way this is atheist to atheist debate more than it will be atheist to Christian even though I am a Christian.
But for this first round only I will say what I will as a Christian about my Christian faith’s affects on this issue because it sets the premise for at least half of the resolution.
I have given a link to one of my favorite movies. Its shocked me a little actual how entertaining a movie could be with low special effects and no big name actors in it. just something about watching man from the past taken out of it and put into ours is an interesting gimmick to watch. It’s a Christian film called ‘Time Changer’. It’s pretty much made to speak against this debates very resolution sort of. The theological scholar wants his colleges endorsement for his book, but one man wont give it to him because he suggested people teach morality without referencing the name of Christ when speaking to the unsaved. He said that because he meant it, there’s nothing wrong with telling a kid to just not steal and not adding ‘because Jesus said so’ right?
But he gets to take a trip to the future that later results from losing the authority of that name. in the past he told a boy to not steal and the boy just got upset. In the future he was in a similar situation but the girl responds to his telling her its wrong to steal ‘who says’ and walks off. The movie implys many more consequences as well but I’m not giving you a breakdown of the whole movie. Watch it for yourself if you want, its not boring.
Anyway when you come down to it for me personally should I try challenging that that stealing is wrong I wont take that logic very far successfully. Jesus, the Word that is in all creation, the Truth itself, the son of God, he said stealing is wrong. He’s the boss for me politically, theologically, spiritually, ect. He has a rightful last say in this issue no matter what I want to think.
But you, an atheist….well while I have a solid authority (to my perception anyway because I believe in him) backing up the matter, you have no authority out there to back up anything you say about morality.
You can write on a piece of paper ‘jaywalking is punishable by death’ but unless you get the mayor or someone like that to put there rubber stamp the statement is not really true. So it is with morality. What do you have to build off of to claim one thing is ‘right’ and another is ‘wrong’? just your reasoning?
To begin our debate I ask you to give me your ‘atheist morality’ say on what is moral in the following issues. Please give an answer for each one.
6) Premarital Sex
8) Gay Sex
9) Sex with nuclear family members
11) Drinking Beer until you pass out
12) Smoking in someone else’s face
13) Kicking butt when someone pushes your buttons
15) Cyber bullying
That is all for now, you will hear no more from me about my own religion for the rest of this debate because what grounds I have to build off of are not really important to this resolution, its what grounds do you have to build off of that’s being questioned.
I await your response.
"Jesus, the Word that is in all creation, the Truth itself, the son of God, he said stealing is wrong. He"s the boss for me politically, theologically, spiritually, ect. He has a rightful last say in this issue no matter what I want to think."
Why does Jesus have a rightful say in the issue? Where does his morality derive from? Let us assume that he was the son of God, that he was a divine figure that appeared before stupefied, illiterate, superstitious goat-herders in a benighted 1st century Palestine. What moral concept did he introduce that hadn"t been in the reach of Man"s intellect or sense. Treat your neighbour as yourself? Confucius, who predated Jesus, had also remarked on the Golden Rule. The fact that he too could be used as a moral grounding (in the same way that you would use Jesus) shows that is it meaningless; that these figures do not give us morals; rather, it is an inherent function of humanity, and is part of our evolution.
As a Christian, what do you make of a God who endorses slavery, genocide, the smiting of cities, mass floods for the putative claim of immorality (even for babies)? In this day and age, do you agree with these actions? Well of course you don"t: Our collective principles have evolved and improved.
You take morals from someone because of their authority? In 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul states that, "Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says." Do you still believe in that? What about Jesus" sneering attitude towards a non-Hebrew woman (Jesus only "arrived" to save the "Chosen People"): Mark 7:26-28: "26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27 "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children"s bread and toss it to the dogs." 28 "Lord," she replied, "even the dogs under the table eat the children"s crumbs."" True, he did eventually help her, but only subsequent to her importuning"what happened to being the saviour of mankind?
"You can write on a piece of paper "jaywalking is punishable by death" but unless you get the mayor or someone like that to put there rubber stamp the statement is not really true. So it is with morality. What do you have to build off of to claim one thing is "right" and another is "wrong"? just your reasoning?"
Actually, yes. Reasoning is the chief tool that enables a more moral society. A hundred years ago, people, including (and especially) Christians, viewed African-Americans to be inferior to white Americans, not quite human, barbarous in nature. But with greater awareness, more information, more reasoning, it has been acknowledged that people should not be discriminated on because of the colour of their skin, a trait that is incontrollable; and that we are all equal, regardless of race. Forward to today, and it would be completely unacceptable to be disparaging towards another race. Morals have evolved.
"But you, an atheist".well while I have a solid authority (to my perception anyway because I believe in him) backing up the matter, you have no authority out there to back up anything you say about morality."
I, as an atheist, do have something to back up a moral tenet. Let"s examine each other"s.
Who is more moral?
"A theist who doesn"t steal because "Jesus" or the "Bible" said so.
"An atheist who doesn"t steal because it would bring pain and discomfort to the affected party.
"A theist who doesn"t murder because he wants eternal bliss in heaven.
"An atheist who doesn"t murder because he finds it wrong to deprive a person of their life and the pleasure of their friends and families.
I will now answer your questions:
1)Murder is wrong: It halts a life being fulfilled to its fullest extent, it brings grief and pain to the members of the victim"s friends and families and it causes a great deal of pain towards one"s self having performed the act. One will notice that murders happen due to:
a)The murderer being psychologically damaged;
b)The murderer fervently and genuinely believing that his/her action is right (like if the Bible says that a "witch shall not live");
c)From heat of the moment and its concomitant factors which pressures someone into a murder they later regret.
2)Lying is wrong if it brings pain towards a party or has injurious consequences.
3)Polygamy is not a primordial moral that should be considered significantly. All I can say is that polygamy without polyandry is unfair, and that humans are rarely noted to be faithful. By the way, the Bible places no restrictions on the number of wives a man may have (research the number of wives King Solomon had).
4)Monogamy: See above.
5)Stealing, again, is wrong, for it causes displeasure and woe to many parties.
6)Premarital sex is not necessarily amoral: name one victim that arises that unwillingly becomes one?
7)Abortion"honestly exasperated by the debate on this. I"ll just give you this: When a couple undergo IVF, they discard many fertilized eggs to allow one to be born. Should barren couples be denied children?
8)Gay sex: Look at number 6.
9)Incest: It goes without saying that it"s wrong; anyway, most of us are hard-wired to repulse such tendencies anyway. It comes from the evolutionary process, whereby we repudiated it due to its limiting affects on survival (because of the diseases and genetic disorders that arise from the offspring). By the way, how did Adam and Eve populate the Earth?
10)Gambling: Not an important moral concept to talk on, but I personally don"t approve of it.
11)Alcoholism: A sordid act, chiefly because of the harm it brings to society and crime rates.
12)Second hand smoking: Again, has secondary effects that are injurious, so not something I approve of.
13)Suicide: Something that must be tackled before it can transpire.
14)Cyber-bullying: Same as bullying: A disgusting act due to its effects on the victim.
I now await your response, and I anticipate what you have to say. I leave you with one request: Name one original moral that Christianity has produced...
Premarital Sex) interesting so consent is important to you?
Abortion) okay so its not immoral in your eyes, is it morally good though?
Gay Sex) Interesting so consent is important to your moral standard?
Incest) why does it go without saying? Abortions okay in your eyes so if two cousins or siblings or parent and child are consenting why shouldn’t they? And for that matter if a family has superior genetics isn’t it true in incest breeding while most offspring have defects (said offspring that can be killed) are not about 1 out of 10 inbred children gifted with exceptionally good DNA?
Its that way with livestock. You bread a Bull with its mother and she will probably give birth to a crappy weak calf, but on rare occasions it’s the recipe for a champion bull or cow that the farmer wants to keep. There so good some farmers purposely force incest among there livestock to try and get one. http://extension.missouri.edu...
Gambling) why not? Why don’t you approve of people doing whatever they want with there money?
Secondhand Smoke) what if helps injure all those who are not born with a mutation that gives there lung resistance to smoke inhalation?
Alcoholism) did alcoholism really increase crime or did the outlawing of it? and does a man really have a reason to care what harm he does to others when he takes a drink of booze that he wants?
Suicide) previously you told me consent made the difference in other issues. Why does your standard double over back on itself now? Why ‘must’ it be talked? If one is of the sort to want to kill themselves shouldn’t they die?
Cyber Bullying) So? Because it grosses you out cant make it immoral. Operating on someone can be gross with all the blood and body parts but it saves lives. Why care about there feelings?
Can you see some recurring themes in your answers and my rebuttal questions?
There is a fundamental problem with evolution as a standard source for morality (from your perspective anyway) because it makes too many baseless assumptions. For example most of yours is ‘we must do moral things so society is benefited and the species goes on.’ But When was a reason given for why we must help the human race ‘go on’? why not just let all society die out, advocate anarchy and have some short-lived but amazing ‘sinful fun’.
To quote Aristotle “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”What he means by that is everything we try to do is in some shape or form a means to the ends of happiness. There are no other true ends we try to achieve.
If ensuring the human race goes on and progresses makes you happy than of course you’d try doing the ‘moral’ things that are a means to that ends but that isn’t good enough to make right or wrong its just what you want to do. Another person may just want to watch the world burn, so if that’s what would make them happy then of course the would have to pursue means to make that ends if they want to be happy.
So because while doing what you perceive as ‘moral’ may make you happy, it wont necessarily make someone else happy and even be abrasive to there happiness sometimes. So they would end up with a different ‘morality’ than you that better suits there pursuit for happiness. And if any ‘morality’ cant apply to all objectively, independent of what anyone ‘thinks’ or ‘feels’ then there really is no such thing as ‘morality’ at all.
Evolution may make things ‘beneficial’ or ‘pleasurable’ but it does not give you ‘moral’. This a made up concept as far as you can prove. Thus you have failed to provide solid grounds for believing in a morality and thus have failed to prove the PRO side of the resolution.
I find it interesting that you denied to address my request. You say you're refusing charges against Christianity, for the 'burden' of proof is on me; strange, really: Surely you must prove that Christianity augments a person's morals or furnishes them with better morals? I hold the default in that a person is moral. You indirectly propound that with religion they are more moral. So the burdening of proof works both ways, and cannot be used as a cop-out when faced with challenges I assume you cannot contend with (I happily answered your enumerated requests which I assume you used as a clever snare--that unfortunately fails).
Firstly, evolution is not 'my' theory: It is the theory which explains the diversification of species (but not where life came from). I acknowledge that this debate does not regard whether evolution is true or not (but it is), and I assume you don't believe in it. It appears that you've only just glossed over the facts of evolution, and have distorted them to justify that they didn't birth morality. Evolution is the slow process in which species change over time through random mutations, whereby the most beneficial ones are carried through via natural selection.
"Murder) why must a life live to its fullest extent? Why should it be considered inherent life is better than death? Why should pain of another concern you over your own desires? These questions all take on a serious new life of bringing skepticism to your claims there is a morality at all when put under the standard of ‘evolution’. Perhaps your not familiar with your own theory but evolution…it works through natural selection, it works through death, it works through survival of the fittest. For evolution to progress the weak who cannot ensure there own survival must die. A mass murderer is the future genetics provider for the whole race because he cancles out others DNA and may ensure the progression of his own if this Clyde can hook up with a Bonnie."
I don't know what's more laughable: your understanding of evolution or your grammar. It is not, "Oh, I'm superior, so I have to pass on my genes, so I can have humanity evolve." Remember, up until the 19th century, we weren't properly sure of the existence of the concept of evolution. No, for 2,000 thousand years, it has been your tenuous idea of Adam and Eve that has reigned the Middle East and the West. And how glorious was life then? How moral was it? Morality isn't underpinned by man's urge to evolve; it is underpinned by man's urge to simply survive. You could raise an isolated, feral child in the wilderness, bereft of education, and he will intrinsically feel the need to not die. Evolution is not a concept that knows itself, or was waiting for us to discover it: It is just a process that we've categorised as a science. There's no sentient force that says, "That creature is weak; if we don't kill it, the species won't evolve optimally." You have misunderstood and overcomplicated an indifferent process of slow, random--but efficient--change. Man's exponential growth in intelligence has given rise to many moral problems that we've had to address. But don't you think that because there's some flux, a book of dubious origin with bronze-age, patriarchal myths, doubtful historical information and no evidence can guide us, let alone gift us morality.
I am sure you don't agree with the endorsed slavery in the Old Testament, or the decree that women are inferior to men in the New Testament (look at my previous Corinthians source). Why not? Where did your morals come to ignore the sordid aspects within the bibe?
"There is a fundamental problem with evolution as a standard source for morality (from your perspective anyway) because it makes too many baseless assumptions. For example most of yours is ‘we must do moral things so society is benefited and the species goes on.’ But When was a reason given for why we must help the human race ‘go on’? why not just let all society die out, advocate anarchy and have some short-lived but amazing ‘sinful fun’."
Evolution is not a 'source' of morality. Morality is a product specifically of the evolution of humans. Imagine this. Humans first kept moral tenets to be adhered within their own group. It was wrong to kill a member of your own clan: they looked like you, they protected you and they were similar to you. As groups merged and more information was acquired about other clans, morals became extrapolated to others: That's why Jesus was so sneering of the non-Hebrew woman--she was not part of his group, the Hebrews (of whom he came to save).
You question why society should continue if there's no purpose, such as God. Why not descend into anarchy? Well, it is about human selfishness. Humans have a tendency to co-operate because of their selfishness: more can be gained through work with a group and dependence than from a solitary life. We are born dependent on others (your parents or guardian), and it is a firmly ingrained principle. Scandinavia is perhaps the most atheistic region in the world, and you don't see the Norwegians burning town halls: rather, the Nordic states have the highest standards of living and have arguably the happiest residents in the world.
"To quote Aristotle “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”What he means by that is everything we try to do is in some shape or form a means to the ends of happiness. There are no other true ends we try to achieve."
You're not telling me if you're agreeing with this statement or not. If you are, then your arguments about my evolutionary morality being solely for pleasure are hypocritical. If you're not, then explain, with your own principles, how Christianity provides a purpose. Do not arbitrarily quote a philosopher who thought we only had 5 senses and expect to benefit from it.
"So because while doing what you perceive as ‘moral’ may make you happy, it wont necessarily make someone else happy and even be abrasive to there happiness sometimes. So they would end up with a different ‘morality’ than you that better suits there pursuit for happiness. And if any ‘morality’ cant apply to all objectively, independent of what anyone ‘thinks’ or ‘feels’ then there really is no such thing as ‘morality’ at all."
Any morality? I'm sorry, but are there types of morality like there are types of chocolate bars? You say that proper morality must exist independent of what we think... No, you're are very wrong. Morality is what we think, for all assumptions we make and deduce are from thought. Morality is not objective. If it were, then we'd still have institutionalized slavery, segregation and rampant, public sexism. You make the boldest of claims without a second thought. You don't take into account that your own faith comes into fire from your remarks. And you fail to understand the principles of evolution, instead twisting it to suit your own primitive idea of what morality 'is'.
I apologize for the length of my retory, but abundant foolishness calls for an abundant response. And, as I mentioned at the start, perhaps you'd better start expounding on your own faith and morality to seem more credible.
Again, no I don’t have to defend my own faith. I thought I explained this well enough the first round but I guess I’ll have to try again.
At minimum you have argued Christianitys morality is equal with atheism, at maximum you have argued it is below atheism, a poor morality, but still existant.
And that’s all I need for the form my argument for this debate takes. That Christianity has some kind of rational basis for morality. It clearly does (from its own perspective). There is a Creator of all things, this Creator had a few things to say on morality. Being God gives him authority to have the last say at what is right and wrong.
While any given person might disagree with that god, they don’t have greater authority in the matter (from Christianitys perspective), So Christianity has grounds for a morality.
If you really would desire to get me to answer your specific charges against the religion, then PM me and I will. But I do not here because it not relevant to my argument unless you start arguing Christianity has no grounds for any kind of morality from its own perspective.
Meanwhile I make my arguments to attack that there is morality at all, but while adopting an atheist perspective instead of my own. For all purposes in this debate you can just go ahead and consider me an atheist until its end as I make my case about morality from an atheist view. From and atheist view I agree that things such as Darwinism is considered a nonnegotiable fact, that there is no God is a fact, that the bible is just a story book that does not reflect reality as a fact.
From this premises in this debate I choose to take the position that there is no True Morality, that the concept is an illusion of the mind, I lie we have been told. I understand not all atheist take this view, but I argue that if reasoning is applied correctly they would. That a whole country does not take its own beliefs to there logical extreams does not change anything, the fact that there are many does not make there beliefs totally sound or actions coherent with there beliefs.
Aristotle on means and ends:
I personally from an atheist perspective that I am adopting this debate to be fairly profound in general about human’s ultimate objective for any given action, and I suppose I respect the quote even outside this debate as a Christian.
We seek means to an end. And while the different means we use for a variety of goals, all those goals can be reduced to an objective of happiness. I’ve not been able to personally come up with a practical real working example that disproves Aristotle. If we try to start peace talks and compromise between disputing countries, that’s a means to the end of not having war or to have peace. But wanting peace can be reduced as wanting something that would make oneself happy. War would not make me happy. If it did I would seek War wouldn’t I? Peace is the desired of the two to say the least. And to be able to say something is ‘desired’ is by definition admitting its the one you get happiness from.
This truth I use in my general assault on the existence of morality. That all things we do, we do them to pursue happiness. If an ends is something we desire, we consider that ends a route to happiness.
Adolf Hitler considered it a virtue to kill Jews. I and (probably) you consider doing any such a thing bad.
The question is, why should We be considered more objectively right than he? As long as man is trying to do what is right in his own eyes doesn’t that make him right concerning ethics? In order for Hitler to be wrong about morality, there must be an objective standard you compare his take on ethics to, a standard that has authority over all. I however see none that exist and you have failed to show me one.
Evolution and Ethics:
My original argument in this heading was longer but I overshot charchter space so ill just left my point about raceism and inbreeding. Its documented were otheres have used evolution to say raciest things in the past.
“If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.” –Hitler, Mein Kampf
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”- Charles Dawin, The Decent of Man chapter 6.
Of course what did Dawin know about the rational conclusions of Dawinism?
You probably didn’t know Inbreeding is done on purpose some time to get genetically superior livestock, or you wouldn’t have so quickly dismissed it as an obvious wrong indicated by evolution. Intresting fact to consider when deciding what an understanding in evolution should teach us to pursue to further the human race.
But again remember just cause I’m pointing these things out does not mean I’m arguing there wrong, from my perspective I’m adopting this debate, convince me I’m wrong using only the premises an Atheist can have. From this premise I see the people behind project Eugenics have fairly solid ground to stand on. http://personal.uncc.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org...
You point to human selfishness as evolutions product that drives what we call moral. To help others is to help oneself kind of logic. I point to the same selfishness though to show the drive for what we typically call immoral. I think though If youd be intellectually honest about the issue you’d at least concead that both of what we bring up exist within us in inner turmoil with each other as a product of evolution http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... And with not authoritative standard given, why should one side of that turmoil be considered more right than the other?
I am so very happy you have conceded your view on morality is that its not objective. The whole premise of my arguments have been to prove that you should think that way about morality. Really as long as you concede this is your view on morality I’m just wasting space talking about Aristotle and Evolution. This is the debate point I must focus on.
Morality that is not objective, meaning that if it wrong to lie in my case, it has to be wrong in yours as well. Meaning that Murder is not just wrong for me who agrees murder is wrong, but for Adam Lanza who believed Murder was right when he did it. Objective Morality is a kind of morality that someone could be ‘wrong’ about what they say is moral because it is independent of there agreeing or disagreeing with it.
Morality that is not that way, not objective, can not be considered a real thing, just an illusion, a lie of the mind. Because if it is unethical for me to have sex before marriage by my own ways and understanding, but to you it perfectly fine and natural, even a recommended step to occur on your 3rd date with someone in your ways and understanding of whats right, and neither of us is considered ‘wrong’ on the issue, you have one standard and I have another, then our standards are not real, they are as fictionalized Harry Potter, Garfield the Cat, and Spiderman. If its based on just something my genetic code caused me to think up, but not based on some objective reason independent of my self and sourced in the reality that I live in, then its not truly real. Its just some stupid set of rules you or I made up to annoy other people with.
'At minimum you have argued Christianitys morality is equal with atheism, at maximum you have argued it is below atheism, a poor morality, but still existant.'
If you truly acknowledge that, I've already won the debate. Have a look at the title: I'm arguing that Christianity, and religion in general, has no significant effect on one's initial morals; religion didn't initiate morality, nor does it rightfully dictate it. What I find perplexing is your categorising of 'atheist' morality and 'Christian' morality, as if the two were synoptic of the respective adherents' morals. Not every atheist supports abortion; and not every Christian (and there are hundreds of denominations of them) is against same-sex marriage. These generalisations have disadvantaged you already. Some of the issues you raise barely even concern morality. Sex before marriage is a cultural issue, not a moral or ethical one.
'That Christianity has some kind of rational basis for morality. It clearly does (from its own perspective). There is a Creator of all things, this Creator had a few things to say on morality. Being God gives him authority to have the last say at what is right and wrong.'
Really? Zoroastrianism, a faith espoused by the Archaemenid Empire, prohibited slavery and allowed for the freedom of religion. This was practiced by the Persians centuries before Christ was putatively born. Confucian texts also contain many moral tenets that predate Jesus. If the Christian god begat morality through his texts and figures, why did he send Jesus to Earth in circa 3 AD? It has been calculated that modern humans have roamed the Earth for about 40,000 years (give or take). And after millenniums of suffering and privation, God 'gave' us morality through the medium of ancient text with oudated practices? You cannot prove that, even if God exists, the God that effected morality was the Christian god.
Further to this, nothing can be 'good' or 'bad' to God; after all, if he is omnipotent, what evil can be done to him? And even if it were so, can you honestly say that Christians are more moral than atheists?
'From this premises in this debate I choose to take the position that there is no True Morality, that the concept is an illusion of the mind, I lie we have been told. I understand not all atheist take this view, but I argue that if reasoning is applied correctly they would. That a whole country does not take its own beliefs to there logical extreams does not change anything, the fact that there are many does not make there beliefs totally sound or actions coherent with there beliefs.'
What are you babbling on about? I'm not sure if it's the lack of conjunctions or the spelling, but I'm struggling to discern any kind of point being made.
Your talk on Hitler's ethics is interesting, but I think you're missing the point. There are many factors that moulded Hitler's and the many millions that lived during his time views. You're making the rashest of conclusions from the most tentative of cases.
The point is, morality is an inherent function of humanity that evolves for the better over time, and does so without the service of religion. Many factors alter the zeitgeist of a current epoch, and our collective perception on morality changes to be at its most optimal. If morality were objective, at what point was morality at its most ideal? If slavery was morally acceptable a thousand years ago, and isn't now, objective morality invariably favours that slavery is moral; else, it is no longer objective for slavery to be amoral, as that would indicate and evolution in moraity (where its goes from slavery being acceptable to it being morally reprehensible).
Its tempting for me to go ahead respond to this particular way you have brought up the slavery issue that appears in the bible a number of times. That you ask in specific context with our topic on the objectiveness of morality. I do very much enjoy debates on the objectiveness of morality on just about any day.
However I must remember the specific line of argument I have chosen to take this debate. And with my line of argument its not in my interest at all to rebut you right now and defend what I personally believe in, that morality is Objective. This is because the unique case I have been making this whole debate as I said before rest on me showing that you, from your own perspective, your own starting point preconceived notions, your own axioms that is God does not exist, should not rationally view morality as objective.
By your arguments, you have conceded this point and failed to argue against my actual argument that uses that point. You have agreed with me on this, by stating it is your view morality is not objective and by arguing against the idea of it ever being considered objective. And why would you think of morality as Objective? I don’t expect you to, which has been my point. You rationally should not think of morality as an objective concrete thing.
The thing you should have challenged me to answer (from your side of the debate) was not “if morality is objective when was it most ideal?” but rather you should have asked “Why must an non-objective morality be considered less real than an objective one?”
You see while the first question (the one you asked) does have to do with a disagreement that we hold with each other, it is not strictly the debate at hand that we are having now. The second one that I suggested is the very debate we have at hand.
I pride myself on my effort to keep each debate focused and not to stretch out an inch more than required from the debates resolution. It is the beauty of having a resolution, the opportunity to drop all other disagreements we might have all over the spectrum of any given issue or set of issues and just put all our efforts into tackling one.
And I pride myself on my ability to argue devils advocate and how I use that skill to help me with my efforts to keep each debate focused, and to utilize devils advocacy arguments to better use the Socratic Method. This is because it allows me make arguments starting from your own premises that I do not and probably will never agree with to take on just one individual point that you have set up based on those earlier premises. I removes the need I disprove the foundation of your entire way of thinking I’d normally have to satisfactory defeat to get a shot at refuting something you concluded based on your foundation of thought.
And that is what this debate resolution is all about. About one foundation of beliefs (irreligious) against another (religious) on a particular issue (morality)
I have argued….
a) From my own starting foundation axioms, I do have rational grounds to believe in an objective morality
b) From your own starting foundation axioms, you do not have grounds for an objective kind of morality, but rather it rationally leads to a non-objective kind of view on morality.
c) And that only an objective morality can be considered ‘real’. The non-objective kind cannot really be considered a ‘real’ thing even from its own standpoint.
These 3 things are the only points I have tried to prove and argue this entire debate, with a few deviations from this to directly answer some of your arguments I felt was a little relevant to our debate.
At this point in the debate you have conceded I have some sort of grounds for belief in the existence of morality (point a), you have conceded your own view is of a non-objective morality (point b) and you have failed completely to specifically address the argument that objective morality is concrete and ‘real’ by definition and non-objective morality is not concrete or ‘real’ by its own definition (point c).
So thus, I rationally should win the debate as you have either agreed with my main arguments or dropped them all together by not responding to them.
What you have done is….
a) Attack the ‘evolvedness’ of Christian morality in old testament times, something which from your perspective should be considered an irrelevant thing considering your arguing that morality was what ‘man evolved’ at the time and morality is not objective and is subject to change over time.
b) Repeatedly attempted to one particular ‘religious’ mindset (mine) as getting its teachings from other ‘religious’ mindsets even though supposedly your arguing against all of them together compared to the ‘irreligious’
c) And argue our morality that ‘evolved’ as a result of our ‘selfish gene’ is not objective, which is a truth about the rational ends of your beliefs I was trying to build to showing anyway.
I would like to think after this debate, you will learn to focus your arguments on the issue at hand, and not the other issues that while you like to argue them too there just not the issue at hand at the moment.
|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:||1||2|
|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:||5||0|