The Instigator
FoxTrot16
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

You don't need religion to have morals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
FoxTrot16
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 614 times Debate No: 92824
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

FoxTrot16

Pro

As an Atheist I have heard so many times that I have no morals or ideas of what is right and wrong and I strongly disagree. You should not need religion to tell you not to kill or rape someone. I also will mention how religious books often promote bad behavior like murder, rape and discrimination.
ViceRegent

Con

The issue is not whether you have rules. The issue is that your atheism provides you no ability to account for the existence of morality or know what is right or wrong. In other words, you can no more reason to say that murder is morally wrong than murder is a moral obligation. Being evolved pond scum has its own disadvantages.
Debate Round No. 1
FoxTrot16

Pro

Although Atheist have no written down morals that we must follow like religions have, we do carry social morals. It is socially recognized( at least in most places) that murder is wrong and is frowned upon. Likewise with rape. Different cultures have different morals as well that have nothing to do with religion. Religious people, most often Christians, choose to cherry pick morals and take what they don't like out and leave what they think is right in. Which would make their morals as relative as the atheists. Not to mention the fact that morals differ between religions. For example, the Islamic people are sinners to the Christians and vise versa. To quote an atheist on morals Dr. Darrel Ray is an excellent example. He states, "A close reading of the Old Testament is filled with horrendous lessons on how to treat people. A god that kills almost everyone on Earth in a flood: that"s pretty crazy. A god that commands Joshua to murder all the women and children except for the young girls, who can be taken as sex slaves: That"s horrible. A god that condemns anyone who eats shellfish: what is that all about? And of course. The 10 commandments tell you that working on Saturday or saying god"s name without a good reason makes you a bad person in the eyes of god. God eventually goes into great detail about how to deal with cattle thieves, isolating women on their period, and which fabrics to wear at the same time; but nowhere in those ten commandments, or in the six hundred and three that come after it, does it say "Don"t abuse children," or "Don"t enslave people," or "Don"t rape." He is absolutely right. If anything the bible promotes rape rather than disagrees with it. To say my first statement again, there are social morals. Always have been, even before the days of Jesus or any of the modern religious idols.
ViceRegent

Con

As I said, you have rules, but you have no way of knowing if they are right or not. You claim to get your morals from society, but this is the ad populum fallacy and begs the question, for you cannot know if one should go by what society says. Your rules are simply arbitrary, not moral.
Debate Round No. 2
FoxTrot16

Pro

I can see your point and must give you some credit for that, I still can not full heartedly agree. We must simply look more closely at how weird morals in religion are. Let us look into the most popular religion among Westerners, Christianity. One of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." I think we can all agree here that this a very important moral that most Christians follow. However, even though this commandment is held to humans, it does not seem to come into affect with God. There is multiple passages were God contradicts this moral rule and smites humankind. Yet most Christians are not cold blooded killers. For your comment saying that we have no idea on what is right or wrong is absolutely true, but nobody really does. Right and wrong is basically a human made concept, it does not truly exist. I think it is morally wrong to deprive somebody on the right to love who they want to love, but others think differently. Going by what society says is the same thing as going by a book. Nobody knows what is right or wrong but we all try to make sense out of both. Empathy is a huge factor in the atheistic view on morality as well as human beings in general. Most of us have the empathy to imagine what the other person feels like or what it is like to be in their shoes. This is called the "golden rule" which actually predates Christianity and modern religion. Since I can imagine what it would be like to have something very dear stolen from me, I would not want to cause that pain to another human being.
The main system of morals for atheist is simple, moral reasoning. This is basically where an individual tries to process the difference between right and wrong in a personal situation with logic. This is a daily thing where humans are presented with a problem or dilemma and then has to decide what is morally right by the choice and consequence with the action we choose. For example, if you are presented with an opportunity to lie, you morally decide if that is right or wrong then take action after dealing with the consequence.
To sum up a bit, morals are not the same for everybody. We live in a gray world where we make our own ideas on morals based on empathy, moral reasoning, and culture. Religion is not needed here. No morals are correct or wrong because they differ from person to person. It is up to each of us to make our own beliefs and to pursue a path based on them whether you and I think it is morally right or not.
ViceRegent

Con

Your opinion as to what is "weird" is irrelevant, especially since you have admitted that you have no way of knowing what is right or wrong. Indeed, this admission causes you to lose the debate because you are admitting that you cannot have morality without religion. You lose.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: pensfan// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a more convincing argument

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a restatement of the decision.
*****************************************************************
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Morality is a choice, compliance to an authority is not moral, fear of punishment and promise of reward is nor moral.
Even if FoxTrot is incorrect, VR will never be right. A billion Atheist are moral without gods.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you think.. nice try
Posted by AveryBenjamin 1 year ago
AveryBenjamin
I think we need religion for every thing we want in our life. Many people think they can achieve things without any guidance because every religion gives guidance to it's followers. http://www.intellectsquare.com... gives brief article on "You don't need religion to have morals" topic you must visit and read the article.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
religion has no moral, its all commanded
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
FoxTrot16ViceRegentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con states that in atheism there?s no ability to account for morality in knowing what is right and wrong. Pro rebuts social morals exist. Since religion?s morality can be selective and differs from religion to religion, religious morality is just as subjective as atheist?s/social constructs. Con again states but how do you know if society is right? PRO: No one ever truly knows what is right or wrong; empathy and the golden rule are guiding forces for moral reasoning and consequences of actions. Debate to Pro; Con fails to rebut how religion establishes morality in discerning what is right and wrong or why it is preferable to social morality. S&G tied, no readability issues. Conduct ties, both respectful, Sources ties, neither side used them to give weight to arguments.