The Instigator
DATCMOTO
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
113 Points

without God there CAN BE NO MORALITY.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,077 times Debate No: 6724
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (68)
Votes (24)

 

DATCMOTO

Pro

If there is no God then where, exactly, does morality reside?
If morality is a purely human, subjective experience, Is it then subject to the tides of public opinion and the storms of history?
If there is no objective standard above and beyond human endeavor then how can we say one morality is better ( or even use the word better! ) than others?
How can we say that Hitler ( for example ) is evil if we have no universal measurement? no standard?
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate.

As it stands, my opponent argues that there can be no objective morality without a supernatural deity. I argue, however, for moral realism. Moral realism [1] purports that moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right.

My opponent's argument relies on a crucial premise: that an atheist HAS to be a naturalist. While most are, not everyone is (Bertrand Russell for example). Therefore, I argue that if one is a pluralist[2], then abstract entities such as moral facts can exist. A pluralist believes (in terms of metaphysics), that reality is made up of many different types of substances and not just matter - unlike the materialist or naturalist.

Because pluralism allows for moral facts, my opponent's argument has been refuted.

---References---
1. http://plato.stanford.edu...
2. http://www.philosophypages.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DATCMOTO

Pro

NO Sir, That simply will NOT do..
I challenged you to a debate and the very least you can do is to extend me the common courtesy and DEBATE ME.
By all means use arguments derived from moral realism and/or pluralism but you MUST argue each of my points individually. You MUST show that you understand the arguments! NOT just post a link and the briefest of outlines.
TheSkeptic

Con

My opponent states that I haven't "argued" or "debated" during my Round. He obviously does not understand my simple argument.

=====Counterargument=====

"I challenged you to a debate and the very least you can do is to extend me the common courtesy and DEBATE ME."
----> Which I HAVE. You argue morality is nonexistent without a deity to an atheist. I argue that this is presumes all atheists are naturalists or materialists, which is false. Atheists can be pluralists, which allows for the existence of moral facts. There are different arguments out there, but I decided to use this one. It should be common courtesy for you to UNDERSTAND my argument before bashing me.

"By all means use arguments derived from moral realism and/or pluralism but you MUST argue each of my points individually."
----> Which I intend to do when you give arguments against pluralism. Since you have yet to, my point still stands. Pluralism is still viable. I have showed that being an atheist does not necessarily make you "moral-less".

"You MUST show that you understand the arguments!"
----> You haven't even attempted to understand mine, so stop accusing me of such.

"NOT just post a link and the briefest of outlines.
----> And your first and second Round are SO much better? So not brief outlines?

=====Conclusion=====

I have shown that atheism can allow for morality by arguing for metaphysical pluralism. My argument still stands, and though it has no backing argument, my opponent has yet to even attempt to refute pluralism. He laments that my arguments seem short and trite, when he doesn't even bother to look at his own. A word of advice to my opponent, in a manner he can relate to:

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:5
Debate Round No. 2
DATCMOTO

Pro

The question is NOT whether an atheist can be moral or hold moral viewpoints, But whether there EVEN CAN BE morality without God.
Can you simply address the question of how we are to judge one moral viewpoint (say Nazism) against another (democracy) ? How is one thing 'better' than another?
By all means utilise moral realism or pluralism (If you understand them) but it is not my responsibility to read up on every 'philosophy' ( I use that word in it's loosest possible sense as it means 'love of wisdom') that my opponent pulls out of his sleeve because not only does he not have any core beliefs of his own BUT he can not even be bothered to
pretend to have some!
Quite honestly I'm getting more debate in the comments section.
TheSkeptic

Con

"But whether there EVEN CAN BE morality without God."
----> Yes there can. As I've said, moral facts (metaphysical pluralism) can exist independent of human thought or a deity. How do we try to find what ethical proposition is true? Well then that is for the normative ethical theories. Let me break this down for you:

Meta-ethics seek to find the nature of ethical propositions, of moral facts. If morality doesn't even exist in the first place (not the discourse I am referring to), then there is no point in finding what actions are moral or not. If there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong", then there is no point in discerning between what is right (helping old ladies) or wrong (murdering babies). Since I have argued for metaphysical pluralism, and you have NOT even attempted to refute this philosophy, then it stands that moral facts CAN and DO exist.

That being said, I have shown that without God morality CAN exist.

"Can you simply address the question of how we are to judge one moral viewpoint (say Nazism) against another (democracy) ? How is one thing 'better' than another?"
----> This is a job for normative theories, such as Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, etc. Judging what actions are moral has nothing to do with meta-ethics or the question. While consequentialists and deontologists may disagree on what actions are moral or immoral, they all agree on one fact: that moral facts DO EXIST. This brings us back to meta-ethics, and thus metaphysical pluralism.

=====Conclusion=====

My opponent hasn't moved an inch in this debate. He asks of me to prove how moral facts can exist outside of God's existence. I proposed metaphysical pluralism, a "meta-view". He hasn't even touched upon this argument and thus it still stands. Morality can exist without God because moral facts exist independently.
Debate Round No. 3
68 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
No not was.. Jesus IS.
People may react slightly differently around you if you are acting differently BUT there is no guarantee that they would then continue to act differently with others. And a good job too.
Why not say evolution theory (or any other theory) is wrong because it contradicts the Bible? The very nature of Truth is that IT DOES NOT CHANGE.
How many times has evolution theory (or ALL the other ologies and isms) changed? Things are not improving, there getting worse. simple.
Let's get one thing extremely clear.. I am VIRULANTLY ANTI HUMAN.
Why? Because Adam sold us out. Whilst we continue to try to 'save' ourselves we are utterly doomed. The cross of Christ defeated the enemy once and for all.. BUT if Satan can keep you away from Christ and keep you focused on your silly little theories.. he's GOT YOU BEAT.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
mrsmooth27
If you understood the said theories you could say that they are lies, but otherwise you have nothing on which to base that. You can't label my beliefs as lies any more than I can (nor can I invalidate yours until I have read the bible; I'm working on it).

On chaos theory- this one's pretty much irrefutable if you think about it; I thought of it two years ago without prior research, but instead of air and atoms I figured it out with human behavior. If I acted differently today, everyone who saw me would act differently. Pretty soon, everyone's behavior would have been affected indirectly by mine.

Darwinian evolution...well, it's big, so what do you think is wrong with it? (As in, the studies reflect methodological bias, biodiversity is unlikely to have increased, etc.. Don't just say "it's wrong because it contradicts the bible." If that's all on which you found your objection, ... ... ... well that's just unreasonable.)

As far as grokking the human mind goes, that's not even a statement. One could just as accurately say "2+2 is a lie."

Just noticing where this is heading; let's try not to get slanderous. I doubt that getting angry and starting to talk about how Atheists are demon spawns and how Jesus was a fascist (I meant neither) will get anyone anywhere.

(Actually, Jesus was a socialist. Go my political party! :)(How does one add a punctuation smiley to the end of a parenthetical phrase?))
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
smoothone.. I simply meant that 'Darwinian theory, khaos theory etc' is all lies..

cheesey.. Your wrong about God. Your wrong about the ONLY thing you cannot afford to be wrong about.
As I will soon be showing you, you have not the slightest conception of what love really is, nor justice, nor life or death.
Have you found freedom? No.. every post becomes more vile and loathsome as you vent your hatred for God (that IS the spirit of man..)
In short, you have become a slave of the enemy.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
mrsmooth27
If I am reeling of "claptrap" and lies, I am quite unaware of the fact. I believe everything I have said to be true, and that is why I said them. I would love for you to tell me exactly what I have lied about.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 8 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Dat there is no need to impune you with fascist motives, because your belief system requires them. If you are claiming that it is just for God to torture mankind, or to destroy mankind or to subjegate all those who don't subsribe to his notion of justice, then you have fascist tendencies. That isn't an unfounded accusation, its simply the facts my friend.

Truth is, your belief causes you to accept great suffering as just, thats just what it does, because for you to question the behavior of a suffering requiring savior would put you in danger of the suffering. So instead of risking being exposed to your God's notion of justice, you warp the message to be one of love and escapism. 'You too can escape God's Justice, but snuggling up with him, and accepting his horrific justice as merciful and loving. Ignore the fact that your Grandpa is burning and weaping and gnashing his teeth, pretend that he diserved it and you get to escape Gods requirement of suffering."

No thanks, not without evidence beyond your gut feeling and the words of nomads and hermits.

Still waiting for your acceptance of my debate....
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Again, an outright lie.. 'actually I'd be genuinely..'
People often start off lying with an 'actually'..
Also watch out for 'to be honest..' and let's not forget 'to tell the truth'..

And smoothy: you can reel off all the humanist claptrap you want..
I aint impressed coz IT'S ALL LIES.

The currency of the Kingdom of Heaven IS TRUTH. His name is Jesus Christ. Amen!
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
>NO, my point is that you do NOT believe those things, BUT are using lies (the currency of this world) to negate my posts because you have NOTHING ELSE.

Actually, I would be genuinely surprised if you didn't have such a site. Nevertheless, you are committing the Internet equivalent of showing up to a meeting smelling of alcohol and fail.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
mrsmooth27
If anyone with the exception of DAT wants DAT to continue using caps improperly, please let me know.

And even if I'm an evil rogue who is trying to sabotage the internet by eliminating caps from the world, my point still stands; you are using caps as italics. Yes, I do know that there are no italics here, but caps lock is not a good alternative. When I would write in italics and cant, I use **, as in "One does not *have* to...").

I would like to point out that I am not trying to instigate a conflict, but to educate you a bit about online etiquette, partly because your lack thereof annoys me and partly because I actually care that you can communicate effectively. I, and, I think, the rest of debate.org users, would greatly appreciate if you would take my advice.

As far as lies go, truth is not shown beyond reasonable doubt, and unless you have studied quantum physics and chaos theory and grokked the human mind and Darwinian evolution you can't argue with me. As for lies being currency, I find that inaccurate. Lies are more of a tool of the elite with which to manipulate the world to one's liking.

"Every other word" is a hyperbole, as I'm sure you noticed. Providing an example of what every other word would look like does nothing but point out that obvious fact. Hyperboles are appropriate.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
NO, my point is that you do NOT believe those things, BUT are using lies (the currency of this world) to negate my posts because you have NOTHING ELSE.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
I am NOT ASSUMING that YOU are a FASCIST, just some RANDOM whacko who RUNS a CONSPIRACY site TELLING US ALL about the NWO and the ILLUMINATI/CIA
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Moofalo 8 years ago
Moofalo
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yuanti 8 years ago
Yuanti
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:32 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
DATCMOTOTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07