The Instigator
Solomon_Grim
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
autodidact
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Without God, there is no morals

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,051 times Debate No: 31658
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Solomon_Grim

Pro

I will be debating whether morals would have to come from God.

Definitions.
Morals, the divide between right and wrong.
Right being something that is considered good or helpful
and Wrong being something that is considered bad or hurtful

I will be going from the perspective that the person defines his or her own morals. Society is based on the largest accepted moral system of it contributors and/or rulers. If the society is a dictatorship or other government-centered society, than the morals still come from the people who make it up.
autodidact

Con

I would like to thank Solomon_Grim for this debate.

Pro states "I will be going from the perspective that the person defines his or her own morals."
It would seem that Con agrees with this statement.

It is Con's view that morals arise from empathy and education within the self, and that this has no need of a god.

Con Asks that "God" be defined by Pro

Without "God" defined Con can not address Pro's claim " Society is based on the largest accepted moral system of it contributors and/or rulers." It is unclear how this statement supports the proposition.
Debate Round No. 1
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Let me define.
God as a all powerful being.

Now, here is my argument.

Atheists claim that morals come from Evolution, but that still does not explain why it is bad. If I kill someone, why is it bad. Evolutionists usually claim that it is evolution urge to protect people so that we will get it in return, but that does not explain rape or other sexual crimes. I know I'm not explaining this well, but let me say this.

If I told you I was going to kill you, who has the right to say that I am wrong to say that. How could societies possible decide their morals.
autodidact

Con

I thank Pro for defining "God" it is clear this is the deist god and not the christian God due to the vagueness of the description.

I am an atheist I make no claim that morals come from evolution my claim is that morals arise from empathy and education within the self, and that this has no need of a god for its existence.

Pro asks "If I kill someone, why is it bad." taking a life may be the moral thing to do in some cases. For example in WWII there was a failed attempt on Hitler's life via suitcase bomb. If Hitler would have been killed would it have been a bad thing?

If killing exceeded birth rates the society breaks down. Now it turns out empathy is a good tool to limit inner-tribal fighting and promote cooperation. As a result social groups emerge and are sustained. Empathy may or may not be a result of evolution, but empathy is not the same as morality. Morality is a byproduct of empathy. Education brings about the understanding and reasoning. Ideas that some kids are witchesand the cause of crops failure and must be killed and other irrational beliefs are defeated by education. In this way what was thought of moral (killing kids who are declared to be witches) is then viewed as immoral.

Pro asks "If I told you I was going to kill you, who has the right to say that I am wrong to say that. How could societies possible decide their morals."
There are cases where killing me would be seen as immoral and other cases where it would be well within the moral framework.

Now I must ask this god from which Pro asserts that morals come from, can it interact in human affairs? Does it?
The anemic definition of "God" notes only that it is all powerful, how does power equate to morality?
Is the god Pro asserts as the giver of morals also moral?

One last question for Pro, given the definitions of "right" and "wrong" is it possible that a singular action can be both?

It would seem to me that Pro has yet to make a case that morality can only exists if there is a moral giver and that this moral giver must be all powerful. I hope Pro better spends his time putting forth an argument for his case before he attacks arguments that I have not made.
Debate Round No. 2
Solomon_Grim

Pro

I loosely defined God due to the fact that I am going to show that proper morals have to come from somewhere, regardless which god. I am I Christian, so I go with the Christian God.

You have stated that with internal education and self empathy does someone find morals. However, if this is true, than everyone makes their own morals, making it hard for justice to exist. If I decide killing someone is moral, who is to say different. You answered this with stating that in some cases it might be moral, but that does not explain. If everyone does what is moral to them, than who can say it is wrong. You decides which morals are above other peoples. If I decide to kill someone, who can say that is wrong if I have my morals and they have theirs.
autodidact

Con

Pro Starts off this round agreeing that his definition of "God" is vague. Pro has up to this point failed to explain how an all-powerful being must be the source of morals. Pro has not shown this all powerful being to exist either.
So far all I can see of Pro's argument is circular reasoning that morality is from a god, and we know this because we in general think killing lying and stealing is wrong.

Pro falsely summarizes my position as "You have stated that with internal education and self empathy does someone find morals."
I did not state any adjectives to modify education or empathy, nor did I suggest that education was of an independent study nature. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I have no clue what Pro means by self empathy? What is it? Is it the ability to understand and share the feelings of oneself, if so then it is just called feelings?

If Pro were to think killing children who he believes are practicing the dark arts is right, it is likely that barring a third party convincing Pro of his error that Pro would think his actions moral along with those that agree with Pro. If Pro was part of a majority then by Pro's first round comment "Society is based on the largest accepted moral system of it contributors and/or rulers." negates the idea in his last round that everyone making their own morals would make it hard for justice to exist. But justice is not morality.

"If everyone does what is moral to them, than who can say it is wrong."
This is a good question, Pro. I will address it in the next few paragraphs

"No one is an unjust villain in his own mind. Even - perhaps even especially - those who are the worst of us. Some of the cruelest tyrants in history were motivated by noble ideals, or made choices that they would call 'hard but necessary steps' for the good of their nation. We're all the hero of our own story."
~~Jim Butcher [1]

"If I decide to kill someone, who can say that is wrong if I have my morals and they have theirs."
Pro, you could, if you learn that your reasons for killing are misguided.

Pro has yet to meet his BoP for the claim that morality must only come from a god figure, with the property of omnipotence.

Sadly Pro failed to answer my questions:
~~~~~~
Now I must ask this god from which Pro asserts that morals come from, can it interact in human affairs? Does it?
The anemic definition of "God" notes only that it is all powerful, how does power equate to morality?
Is the god Pro asserts as the giver of morals also moral?

One last question for Pro, given the definitions of "right" and "wrong" is it possible that a singular action can be both?"
~~~~~~
On the last question I note the folk hero Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Was his actions moral or immoral? As I see it the answer depends on where one views this problem. If stealing is wrong then why is this thief seen as a hero? Unless morality originates in the self by means of education and empathy.

The post limit is 8,000. I ask that if Pro has the space to please answer the questions I have restated from R2.

Pro I ask that you stop asking questions of the nature "If I told you I was going to kill you, who has the right to say that I am wrong to say that." As I have noted it depends on the situation. If I entered your house in the middle of the night armed and you told me you were going to kill me and then you did after I failed to flee, you would be hard pressed to find someone to say what you did was immoral. The reason people would see your actions as moral is because of empathy and education. Now make me a cop who identifies himself as such and suddenly the morally justified action is much more murky. Again this is due to empathy and education.

[1]http://www.goodreads.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Solomon_Grim forfeited this round.
autodidact

Con

Vote Con please.
Debate Round No. 4
Solomon_Grim

Pro

I am sorry for missing the last round, I was without Internet for a while. Now, on to the debates.

God
Once again, I have stated that which god is pointless due to the other side being illogical. You ask if an all powerful being implies morals, but as it stands, you cannot debate the moralistic views of a god, so we assume yes, perfect morals exist to the god.

Situations
You have stated that depending on the situation along with prior education and empathy allows morals to be decided. However, this does not explain why it is wrong or how each of us decide that. I asked if I said I was going to kill you, who has the right to tell me I am immoral at which you claim that if I was shown that I was misguided in my reasons to kill you and/or depending on the situation It may be moral to kill you. Because of this, I believe you think that each person decides his/her own morals, but there are problems with this.

Problems with personal morals
1. They can be minimal/nonexistent
If I decide my own morals, can I not decide to have no morals. I could kill, rape, steal anyone or anything I want. If I decide the morals, than these morals have to be right. How can someone tell me otherwise if each person makes their own morals? You have ignored the fact that this sets up a power problem. How are parents to have their kids obey them if they (the parents) have no control over morals. If god did exist, than this problem would not exist. God gave the ultimate morals, government enforces it, than parents.

2. Last statement
In your side, you claim that empathy and education lets you decide morals for yourself. However, in your last statement you spoke of how few people would find me killing an intruder immoral, but from a view of a cop it might be different. You claim that this shows morals through education and empathy, but this shows how your idea is flawed. If the idea of morals is changeable between people, than no one could rule over someone else or tell them what to do because their morals are no better than anyone else's.

3. Movable line
Morals are basically a line that shows where we should never cross. One side is bad and one side is good. But without a god giving definite lines that should not be crossed. Just look at the modern society. Fifty years ago, abortions were terrible things, gays were not open, kids respected their parents. Now, in not debating if these things are right or not, but look at it now. The country's moral lines how moved unbelievable. What is the point of morals if they conform to what you are doing or want. It doesn't work that way.

Last statement
Morals must come from a god because otherwise everyone could do what they want and not be in the wrong.
autodidact

Con

I understand that life does happen. I recently missed a debate post as well.

"I believe you think that each person decides his/her own morals, but there are problems with this."
I do and I look forward to clearing up your perceived problems.

Sadly What I think the voters and I were really looking forward to is how one gets from a being is all-powerful therefore it is the giver of moral absolutes.

"If I decide my own morals, can I not decide to have no morals." Pro asks.
Well given that I noted morals come from education and empathy and those 2 qualities while variable, they are not variable by the self. Meaning that one cannot choose how empathetic they will be nor can one decide what they will or will not learn.

"How are parents to have their kids obey them if they (the parents) have no control over morals. If god did exist, than this problem would not exist. God gave the ultimate morals, government enforces it, than parents."
Parents could talk to their kids and actually explain why a given action is bad. Given that ideas on morality have in different cultures have been taught differently and thus a wide variety of behaviors have been considered moral and/or immoral depending on culture. It would seems that inconsistencies across cultures and time are problematic for your idea that God is the ultimate moral giver and that the government and parents are the enforcers thereof.

"You claim that this shows morals through education and empathy, but this shows how your idea is flawed. If the idea of morals is changeable between people, than no one could rule over someone else or tell them what to do because their morals are no better than anyone else's."
Similar empathy with the same cultural education will yield similar results. It is not flawed. I have indicated that with more education one can see their previous actions as immoral where at the earlier time they did not. I have no idea how you get from morality to implications over political power.

"Last statement
Morals must come from a god because otherwise everyone could do what they want and not be in the wrong."
I shall requote Jim Butcher
"No one is an unjust villain in his own mind. Even - perhaps even especially - those who are the worst of us. Some of the cruelest tyrants in history were motivated by noble ideals, or made choices that they would call 'hard but necessary steps' for the good of their nation. We're all the hero of our own story."

There is no reason given for the claim that morals come from an all-powerful being, which is the only quality that Pro defined the idea "God" as, nor is there reason to think this being actually exists.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Why are you on this website. You are obviously so ignorant and immature that you can't even reach a basic conversation level.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Research 2:7--If you want evidence we came from a "primordial soup", pull out next time :)

Poisonous 6:8--At the end of the day, when all the dust settles, its just a matter of splitting hairs, semantics, and different interpretations of lunacy, then put it together, call it a religion of some sort, and a human can be poisoned by religious dogma, regardless of genius level intellect, to also be a creationist . Now thats some powerful poison :)

GAMEOVER 1:7--The number of scientific research papers that directly and indirectly confirm and support theory of evolution is close to a million, but yet there is not one scientific paper that refutes the theory of evolution or in any way support creation myth. Theory of evolution is the grand unifying theory of biology, and it is 100% right. It is as much true as the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is more than a "just" a theory, it is triumphantly a Theory. Evolution is the most rigorously proven scientific fact, with over 150 yrs of scrutiny and overwhelming evidence in 2013, while creation is a myth created by the ancient mind that didn't even know why there was a rainbow :)

TrueOrFalse 7:2--Theory and mathematical definition of the Butterfly Effect, clearly illustrates, the reason for everything will walk on water, will experience torture and human sacrifice, then rise from the dead after 3 days :)

CryBabies 2:37--Widdle kids will whine "Well science cant answer questions like "What is our purpose as humans on Earth?", that is correct, and Wal-Mart cannot answer those questions for you either, so go pout and stomp your feet that nobody will answer your questions and nobody will help you go potty and wipe your butt for you. Put on your big kid pants and figure out your own purpose and legacy :)

Ideas 5:40--Leave education and government to the big kids and take your holy binky and go night night :)
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Crime and punishment. Yes, genie, its this great thing called justice. Oh, and how does evolution explain DNA, by saying it randomly appeared through natural selection (which doesn't add information) or mutations (which destroy or mix up mutations). Oh yes, we can see whose wrong here.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
"This is a huge offense that has to be punished"

Translation:

The reason for the sub atomic world and DNA is also a petty Master of Morality with a List of Offenses and how to punish them accordingly :)
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
He is stressing how badly he will punish the priests that drug THE ENTIRE NATION DOWN. This is a huge offense that has to be punished. I do believe that they later get killed.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Scatology in the bible? In psychology, a scatology is an obsession with excretion or excrement, or the study of such obsessions. In a sexual context, scatology refers to the romanticism of fecal matter, whether in passing admiration, the use of feces in various sexual acts, or simply the act of seeing it. Entire subcultures in sexuality are devoted to this fetish. Look up lazy "god did it" kids :)

Malachi 2:2-3

New International Version (NIV)

2 If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name," says the Lord Almighty, "I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.

3 "Because of you I will rebuke your descendants[a]; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it.

Your Love in Poop,

The Morality Master
No votes have been placed for this debate.