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

atheists don't have objective morals

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 98534
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




I'll be arguing that atheist don't have objective morals like Christians do.

Their morals are all subjective and opinionated.

Who's willing to accept?


Christians don't have objective morals,they're just following orders like the Nazis- that's not morallity. The basis of this argument is that Christians have a book, the bible, which decides morality for them, whilst Atheism has no official book, but this is just non sequitur- al an atheist has to do is get, or write, his own moral code, and this arguent falls flat on the ground.
Debate Round No. 1


Christians do in fact have an objective morality. The bible is the objective source of morals to them. They know why things are right and wrong because they get their SOURCE of morality from the bible/ their God.

The same can't be said for atheism because morality is only subjective to them. If an atheist were to just randomly make up his own moral code then it'll all be opinionated.

Christians or other religions tend to get their source of morality from somewhere, thus making it objective, while atheist don't, thus making it subjective.

If an atheist were to right a book of his own moral code, then another could write one that is completely different. It'll be all subjective to an atheist.


It is true tht Atheistic moral codes would be written by man and contradict, so how is that different from the Bible? It was written by men and contradicts itself?
Debate Round No. 2


How is it possible for an objective morality to contradict it's self? Atheistic morals "contradict" its self because there are atheist who have different morals than other atheist.

Christian morals can't "contradict" its self because all Christians tend to follow the same objective moral code. They can't just make up their own like atheist. Christians morals aren't subjective or opinionated. They get their morals from an objective source. It's not opinionated, thus it'll be impossible for a Christian to contradict their own moral code with another Christian since they believe the exact same thing.

They can IGNORE their objective morals, but they can't really "contradict" it.


Objective morality doesn't contradict itself- atheist opinions on morality can, but like I said before, this is no diferent in Christianity. The Christian moral code, the bible, is merely the opinions of multiple humans that contradict, so ultimately nothing is different- it contradicts itself on virtually every occasion.
Here are a few examples of this:
1. The bible says that it is an abomination for a father to offer up his son as a human sacrafice (Deuteronomy 12:31), yet you worship a God that offered up his son as a human sacrafice (John 3:16), and praise him for it (Romans 5:8)- while criticizing the ancient Israelites for doing the exact same thing.
2. The bible says that God punishes the sons for the sins of the fathers (Numbers 14:18), but later says that the sons shall not die for the sins of the fathers, but that everyone will be punished for his/her own sins (Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20, Jeremiah 30:29)
I could go on, but I think I made my point.
Debate Round No. 3


Again. Christian morals cannot be opinionated because their morals come from a specific source.

The bible was created by people who still believed in a God. Specifically the same God. The people that wrote the bible still didn't write it based on opinion they believed that they got their source of morality from an OBJECTIVE and ABSOLUTE TRUTHful God. They still had an objective source as to where they got their morals, then wrote it all down.

They didn't just think. "Hey, I think killing is wrong so I'll write it down"

It was more like "killing is wrong because God said it was wrong"
You see? Still an objective source.

I don't think it really matters if that objective moral source contradicts it's self or not, it's still an objective morality.

Let's ASSUME that the Bible actually DID contradict it's self and said something like "do not kill" and then said "killing is fine". If you were to ask a Christian what do you think about killing EVERY SINGLE ONE would say "well killing is wrong but it's also the right thing to do, BECAUSE that's what's written in the bible, it's God's word" even though their objective morality is contradictory they wouldn't be contradicting THEMSELVES.
They still have an objective source as to where they got their contracdictive morals. It still wouldn't really be an opinion to them.

If you were to do the same with atheist, they'd all have different opinions on killing they'd disagree amongst each other. There's no absolute truth in atheistic morals. It's all based on opinions.

Alright. Your arguments about bible contradictions are a little off topic, but I'll play along.

1. That was never a contradiction. I'm positive that God meant for US not to sacrifice our actual sons for rituals. The pagans and other idol worshipers were notorious for things like that.

When Jesus said that he was the son of God he never actually meant God's actual son, because Jesus himself was God in human form. The son the father and the Holy spirit are all one being. Which is the God of Abraham.

2. No contradiction there. Your not reading these in context.
Numbers talks about how we're already BORN INTO SIN. It talks about the long lasting effects of sin.

Num 14:18 The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.

Ezekiel talks about the individual responsibility of sin.

Ezekiel 18 20 The soul who sins shall die."The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son."The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself,"and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

You see...everyone is born into sin, but we won't be judged based off the sins that someone else committed. People can also ask for forgiveness and accept Christ so ALL sins can be forgiven.

See? No contradiction.

Oh btw. If you're going to a verse try to quote the WHOLE thing. Don't quote like 3 or 4 words and then take everything out of context. It's a little dishonest


Enable for Christians to have objective morals, objective morals must first exist- and enable for objective morals to exist, they must exist separate from any supreme being, as, if morality is defined as the decrees of a supreme being and has no substantiation aside from this, then morality would merely be the opinions of said supreme being, and thus, subjective- not objective.

Therefore, if objective morality does exist, and it does, then it would be evident to all, and would not require a holy book enable to determine. My opponent has attempted to prove that atheists have no objective morals, while Christians do; because Christians have the bible while atheists have no official moral code.

This theory is riddled with flawes in every step of its logic:
Firstly, it makes the assumption that objective morality can come from a book, but as I stated before, if morality exists no further than the opinionated decrees and mandates in a book, it is not objective- but subjective, as it is founded entirely on opinions.
Secondly, any atheist could simply adopt a moral code of some sort that is not the bible, they could become confucians, for example, and base their morals on the Analects.
Thirdly, if morality is objective, as Einstein once said, it must exist separate from a supreme being- so Christian morals cannot be objctive, as they are entirely dependant on a supreme being.
Fourthly, the bible is not the word of God- this is mere unsubstantiated claims backed entirely by "faith," it's like fiat currency- it's worthless because there's nothing behind it.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by lemontiger123 1 year ago
Objective morality is flawed? And why do you say that?
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Objective morality is a flawed concept in the first place.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
I'm a Deist
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
you are an atheist fool
Posted by lemontiger123 1 year ago
*write. Man I wish you could edit.
Posted by lemontiger123 1 year ago
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
I will accept if you change the time to post to 72 hours.
No votes have been placed for this debate.