The Instigator
truthseeker613
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

logical rational for moral without god

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,052 times Debate No: 15935
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (8)

 

truthseeker613

Con

I challenge anyone to provide a logical and rational reason/ motivation to be moral without belief in god. burden is on pro. last response of debate is not for making new arguments but rather for response clarification, and summarization.
Ore_Ele

Pro

All I have to do is "provide a logical and rational reason/ motivation to be moral without belief in God."

First, lets do some definitions, since they were omitted.

Morality [1] - "Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong." "Ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong."

Logic [2] - "Reasoned and reasonable judgment."

Reason [3] - "Is a human mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises."

Before starting my argument, I will give my opponent the opportunity to challenge these definitions.

[1] http://www.google.com...
[2] http://www.google.com...
[3] http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Pro

Will my opponent agree that murder (the un-justified killing for another human life) is immoral?

Only 78% of Americans (according to a recent Gallop Poll [1]) believe in a God. This is not specific to a particular religion or particular God, but just a God. That means that 22% don't believe in a God (though 15% believed in a higher power, but not a God). However, most of those 22% that don't believe in a God, still believe that murder is wrong. Therefore, they have reasoned some degree of right and wrong without believing in a God.

If my opponent wishes to dispute this, he is free to try to show that the 22% that don't believe in God either don't see anything wrong with murder, or reached those conclusions without logic.

[1] http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Con

I personally agree from a theistic point of view that murder is immoral. However from an atheistic view I state it is not immoral as there is no such thing as moral.
Regarding your second point I argue not with your facts but your conclusion. The fact that many people don't believe in god yet have a standard of moral, doesn't mean much. We count reasons not people. After this I don't believe that I must explain the data but I will do so any way. This data can be explained in1 of 3 ways: a) cultural influence. b) Survival of the fittest. c) genetically through evolution.
a) Life continues better in a moral society. Therefore intelligent beings created something called morals, and inculcated it into society through a number of means including punishment of criminals and the education of people from early on. It is interesting to note young children have much less moral if any. It is comparable to Plato's idea of creating a perfect society through fabrication. On a social level, its good but for an individual to bind himself to it I consider that to be not based on logical reason.
b) Similar to my previous point in that I assume moral creates a better society more capable of survival. From there it follows using the laws of survival of the fittest and natural selection that the more moral societies will dominate the less moral.
c) People with "moral genes" work together better and there for create better society in terms of survival. This created moral societies in which the more moral a person was the better liked he was which increased his survival and continuation abilities. From there it is standard evolution. Here as well morality is only shown to be logical in situations in which people will find out. However, for a person to abide by a set standard of morals I maintain is not rational.
I apologize if any of this is unclear I am in a rush now. Please state any points you would like clarified and I will clarify in the next round. (I will respond in approx. 35 hours from now. (that is sat. night or Sun. morning.))
Ore_Ele

Pro

My opponent states that from an Atheistic view, murder is not immoral. However, he does nothing to reconcile the fact that most Atheists do believe that murder is immoral and wrong.

As for the rest of the argument that my opponent makes. I completely agree with his three points. However, those three points only further my claim. He makes three arguments for the existence of morals in our society WITHOUT BELIEVING IN GOD.

Since nothing was argued that God is needed for a logical belief in Morals, I have nothing to refute. So I will pass and let my opponent post their next argument.
Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Con

My opponent states I did not respond to the point that most atheists believe murder is not moral.
I would like to quote myself from the previous round, "Regarding your second point I argue not with your facts but your conclusion. The fact that many people don't believe in god yet have a standard of moral, doesn't mean much. We count reasons not people." It's the equivalent of saying since most people believe in god it must be so. Furthermore I presented reasons why people would believe in morality despite it being illogical. One was cultural influence/indoctrination, another was genetic. Please see previous round.
Regarding your next point I specifically anticipated and addressed that in the previous round and stated it makes sense for a society to adopt such behavior however for the intelligent individual it makes no sense to abide by these rules as a moral standard. For ex. If no one will ever find out about what was done.
I eagerly await your response, (I will not be online for the next 2 days).
Ore_Ele

Pro

My opponent states again,

"I specifically anticipated and addressed that in the previous round and stated it makes sense for a society to adopt such behavior however for the intelligent individual it makes no sense to abide by these rules as a moral standard. For ex. If no one will ever find out about what was done."

He then states that "for the intelligent individual it makes no sense to abide by these rules as a moral standard."

I would first like to point out that intelligent =/= logical. I would secondly, like to point out that it is still wrong. An intelligent (and a logical) person would understand that there is actually a high chance that they would get caught and convicted of murder. To claim that they know, for a fact, that they will never get caught implies a much higher understanding of every influence factor around them (to what people will be where, and see what, at what times to how long it will take for the person to be viewed as missing, to the odds that the body would be found, compared to how long that may take, and various other factors) so that no one qualifies under that label.

Meanwhile, we still have millions of atheists opperating under a set of morals without a belief in God. Whether these morals were reached individually, or as an agreement with society doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is that they reached these morals through reasoning and logic, and without the belief in a God.
Debate Round No. 4
truthseeker613

Con

As this debate draws to a close I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for his timely response. I remind my opponent to see the rules stated at the beginning regarding the last response. I will now proceed with my closing arguments which I direct to you the voter:
Response:
I would like to address the 2 main points that my opponent made in the previous round.
1)It is logical and rational for an individual to be moral bec. There is a high chance that he will be caught.
2)"Meanwhile, we still have millions of atheists operating under a set of morals without a belief in God. Whether these morals were reached individually, or as an agreement with society doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is that they reached these morals through reasoning and logic, and without the belief in a God."

Regarding the 1st point, my response is that: a) it is not always true, and b) to be moral only in a case where people will probably find out is not very moral.
Regarding the 2nd point, I don't see much of a point at all. The challenge was "to provide a logical and rational reason/ motivation to be moral without belief in god. ". That was not done in this statement.

Summarization and clarification:
I challenged any one to "to provide a logical and rational reason/ motivation to be moral without belief in god. "As far as I can tell it was not done by my opponent. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to the voting of this debate what is relevant is that my challenge has not been met. Any attempts on my opponents part were refuted.
I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this and the reader/voter/commenter for their time and impute. In my humble opinion I encourage all voters to vote con, primarily in the section marked off for best arguments, the other categories are tied. Thank you all.
Ore_Ele

Pro

Responce-

Just like in previous rounds, I'll agree with my opponent.

"a) it is not always true." It doesn't have to always be true as the challenge was not every Atheist, but only plural Atheists.

" b) to be moral only in a case where people will probably find out is not very moral." It doesn't have to be very moral, only moral in general. So while we can agree that it isn't very moral, it is still moral.

Summarizations-

I never really had to make much argument, as my opponent made them for me, from saying that Atheists reach moral decision based on genetics and social pressures, to saying that it isn't very moral, but still moral. The agreed definition of moral was, "Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong." (my Round 1)

So the challenge was met and never refuted.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and look forward to more in the future.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
"Pro seemed to show that Atheists are moral because they are afraid of getting caught which is more of a practical debate than a moral one."

I didn't have to provide a moral reason for being moral. Just a reason for being moral, which means "any" reason, including a practical reason.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
Thats a good point, but the voteing was on who argued the point better. Inevidably personal bias often messes up the acuracy of the voteing. Thats why its important to see who voted thier reason and thier original opinions. Quality over quantity count reasons not people.
Posted by wizkid345 6 years ago
wizkid345
this is not a mater of importance, most country it is illegal to murder someone, so poling people will not help because people on the street (not in jail) are most likely law going citizens. now if someone were to go and pole people inside prison answers would be different
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro could have won fairly easily by holding that morality is self-evident, which is to say it derives from the observed nature of humanity, Codfish eat their young, because that;s their nature; humans do not. Complying with the majority is not a logical reason for morality, it is practical compliance. In some cases, morality may not be well-defined because humans have conflicting instincts to self, family, and tribe. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that morality is not based on human nature and logically derived.

Arguing that morality was a logical invention to make society operate might have worked, but Pro didn't make that argument either.

Morality cannot be logically derived from religion, because the leap of faith can land one anywhere. However, the burden of proof was on Pro, not Con, and Pro did give a logical reason for morality. Con wins arguments. There was no conduct violation and no significant sources or S&G errors, so the rest was a tie.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
I chalenge cobo or anyone else to point out where I was abusive.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
morality is a standard of good and bad not just a means of staying on good terms with people.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
I beg your pardon I didnt consider that point "smearing".
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
Correction, not "accept that you self-defeated" but "accept that voters think you self-defeated."
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
You need to accept that you self-defeated and not try to smear the people who voted against you.

"People with "moral genes" work together better and there for create better society in terms of survival. This created moral societies in which the more moral a person was the better liked he was which increased his survival and continuation abilities. From there it is standard evolution. Here as well morality is only shown to be logical in situations in which people will find out."

That's an argument for a logical motivation to be moral without god. Nothing in the standards for judging made an exception for "only when no one will know their behavior" or even that it has to be a form of morality you find agreeable.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
I would like to point out all votes for my opponent come from athiests who agreed with my opponent from before. coments are apreciated. sorry for the spelling.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
truthseeker613Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I could barely understand what Con was saying but in accepting the debate, Pro also accepted the BOP. Pro seemed to show that Atheists are moral because they are afraid of getting caught which is more of a practical debate than a moral one. Overall, not the best debate I read. Both debaters are better than this.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
truthseeker613Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both parties do a rather poor job, Pro takes his time in directly attacking the resolution. Con self-refutes on more than one occaision and fails to address the points that pro makes.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
truthseeker613Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Simply stating that people assert morality does not mean it is logically or rationally supported.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
truthseeker613Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: assertians are not arguments
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
truthseeker613Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: The logical reason for believing in morality is that, as the founders asserted, it is "self-evident." that means it is derived from the nature of man. Pro, alas, missed the argument. Pro only argued the belief was common and that it was wise to escape punishment by complying with the common belief. That's not concer over morality itself. Pro had the burden of proof, so the argument fails.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
truthseeker613Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was abusive. Pro Had better Arguments and Sources.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
truthseeker613Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although con did provide better arguments, they were for pro's position that belief in god is nor necessary for morals. con showed that it is beneficial for society to punish those who murder as it benefits society, thus providing a logical and rational reason for morals.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
truthseeker613Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I wasn't sure how to vote here, because Con made more convincing arguments ... to vote Pro. According to the goals and definition established in round 1, Pro had to give reasons for atheists to be moral. In round 2, Pro did not do so, simply arguing that atheists were moral without giving reasons. Con then gave reasons for atheists to be moral in round three, which Pro extended, satisfying the established win conditions. Con tried to then shift the goals, but had no relevant argument as to why.