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

Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,168 times Debate No: 117721
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Absolute Morality
Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview.
This isn"t to say that evolutionists are somehow less moral than
anyone else. Most of them adhere to a code of behavior. Like the biblical
creationist, They do believe in the concepts of right and wrong. The problem is that evolutionists have no logical reason to believe in any sort of moral imperative within their own worldview. In the evolution worldview, Right and wrong can be nothing more
than electro-chemical reactions in the brain " the result of time and
chance. If the concepts of right and wrong are to be meaningful, Evolution
cannot be true. Right and wrong are Christian concepts that go
back to Genesis. By attempting to be moral, Therefore, The evolutionist is being irrational, For he must borrow biblical concepts that are contrary to his worldview.
The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3). All things belong to God (Ps. 24:1), And thus God has the right to make the rules. So an
absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview. But if the Bible
were not true, If human beings were merely the outworking of millions of years of mindless chemical processes, Then why should we hold to a universal code of behavior? Could there really be such concepts as right and wrong if evolution were true?
Now, Some people might say, "That"s true. Morality is just relative.
There"s no such thing as absolute morality, And therefore you should
not try to enforce your personal moral code on other people! " But when
they say "you should not. . . " they are doing just what they are telling
us not to do: enforcing their personal moral code on other people. If
there is no absolute moral code, Then nothing is actually fundamentally
wrong: not lying, Not stealing, Not even rape or murder. And yet people
cannot live consistently by such an amoral standard.
Some might respond, "Well, I do believe in right and wrong, And
I also believe in evolution, So obviously they can go together. " But this
does not follow. People can be irrational; they can profess to believe in
things that are contrary to each other. The question is not about what
people believe to be the case, But rather what actually is the case. Can
the concepts of right and wrong really be meaningful apart from the
biblical God? Is morality justified in an evolutionary worldview?
In response to this, An evolutionist might say, "Of course. People can
create their own moral code apart from God. ey can adopt their own
standards of right and wrong. " However, This kind of thinking is arbitrary
and will lead to absurd consequences. If everyone can create his
or her own morality, Then no one could argue that what other people do
is actually wrong since other people can also invent their own personal
moral code. For example, A person might choose for himself a moral
code in which murder is perfectly acceptable. is might seem upsetting
to us, But how could we argue that it is wrong for others to murder
if morality is nothing but a personal standard? If morality is a subjective
personal choice, Then Hitler cannot be denounced for his actions
since he was acting in accord with his chosen standard. Clearly this is
an unacceptable position.
"Right is what brings the most happiness to the most people. " But
this is also arbitrary. Why should that be the selected standard as opposed
to some other view? Also, Notice that this view borrows from the
Christian position. In the Christian worldview, We should indeed be
concerned about the happiness of others since they are made in God"s
But if other people are simply chemical accidents, Why should
we care about their happiness at all? Concern about others does not
make sense in an evolutionary universe.
decides it to be. But this view has the same defects as the others.
It merely shifts an unjustified opinion from one person to a group of
people. It is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions. Again, We find
that we would not be able to denounce certain actions that we know to
be wrong. After all, Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people
that his actions were right, But that doesn"t really make them right.
Without the biblical God, Right and wrong are reduced to mere personal
preferences. In an evolutionary universe, The statement "murder is
wrong" is nothing more than a personal opinion on the same level as
"blue is my favorite color. " And if others have a different opinion, We
would have no basis for arguing with them. Thus, When evolutionists
talk about morality as if it is a real standard that other people should
follow, They are being inconsistent with their own professed worldview.


Just for background information, I am an evolutionist, Also an atheist (no surprise). I am 24 years old and thirsty for a debate.

If morality is so absolute like you claim it is. Then why do we have different standards of morality? Going back to Hitler, You say that it was his chosen standard that caused him to commit massacre, But did you ever realize that by claiming that it was his moral standard to commit massacre must mean that morality is actually subjective? If morality is absolute, Then you would have to say that Hitler acted not by his moral standard, But by something else. What else is it that made Hitler believe that the massacre was moral? And if he didn't believe it was moral, Then why did he do it?

If anybody asked you if Hitler's actions was wrong, You would clearly say yes (anyone would), But if Hitler was asked the same question, Do you think Hitler would have said no? If you believe that he would say no, Then the debate is over since that would mean you have switched sides (since you would have to agree that Hitler has a different moral standard than us). If you believe he would have said yes, Then this begs the question: If Hitler knew it was wrong to commit such an atrocity, Then why did he do it? And if you can find an explanation that you think would make Hitler feel like it was a justifiable act, Then you can't use Hitler as part of your argument against subjective morality (since his actions were not based on his standard of morality).

But good news for you! (well. . Not really). Our sense of morality is more complicated than just pure instinct. It is also affected by our beliefs as well. In other words, It can be taught. We all accept that murder and massacre is generally wrong and so is rape, But to what extent we justify those things to be acceptable in certain conditions depends on each person and that's what makes morality subjective. For example, Back in the day people were taught that slaves were ok and it is morally ok to abuse them if they wanted to, As long as they could walk on the third day.

So this also begs the question: If Hitler can somehow justify the actions he made (so just pretend that he can justify his actions), Then wouldn't that make it moral?

Well no, I mean yes. . . Oh I mean no. I mean. Nah I'm just playing. If I just said yes or no that would imply objectiveness. Of course, The general consensus is that murder and rape is wrong, But why you might ask. If morality is subjective, Then why do we all follow the same moral standards that have been given to us by birth? Now you claim that we follow the biblical concept of what is right and wrong (murder is wrong, Rape is wrong, Etc. ), But what you fail to mention is that out sense of morality came way before your biblical creation story was ever created. It is the humans that created the bible. Of course you would probably disagree since you believe in creation, But to accept the biblical creation story is to ignore massive amounts of scientific discoveries and knowledge that has been attained from hundreds of years of extensive scientific research by thousands and thousands of scientists worldwide.

The reason why our moral standards are so close is because of evolution. It is evolution that molded our sense of morality. If you look at how we evolved this makes total sense. I know earlier you said "if the concepts of right and wrong are to be meaningful, Evolution cannot be true". This makes no sense to any degree. This is equivalent to saying if love is to be meaningful, Then evolution cannot be true, Or saying if consciousness is to be meaningful, Then evolution cannot be true. What makes something meaningful is also subjective. What's meaningful to me may be meaningless to another. If you meet a girl but she is not your type then she is not that meaningful to you, But to another person that girl may be the love of his life, That girl's life then becomes meaningful (to him). Meaning exists in our heads. You may think that if evolution is true then we are meaningless bodies of meat and bones, But this could not be farther from the truth. Notice that not one time I had to include God into her life. I didn't need to. Meaning can still exist without the existence of a God. We don't need God to feel meaning in our lives.

Going back to Hitler. . . Because why not?

Earlier I said if Hitler could justify his actions, Then would that make it moral?

If you believe that it does from a position of moral absolutes, Then the debate is over. Since there would be a contradiction in our moralities proving morality is subjective and not objective.

But let's say you still believe that it doesn't (which I would expect), Because in your position, Murder is wrong, PERIOD. You can't justify murder because it's just plain wrong and in under no circumstance is it moral to commit such an atrocity.

Well, In under that position, You are still defeated. Let me explain.

If you look in the bible, God commands the Israelites to literally slaughter every single man, Women, Child, And babies of the Midianites and then to rape any virgins that's left for themselves. God justified this horrendous act. To believe that murder is not justifiable in any circumstance is a contradiction to the biblical teachings of the bible.

You are now at a dead end. There is nowhere you can run. You are defeated.

If you haven't already (which I'm sure you haven't), Look up "The Future of Morality" by Darkmatter2525 on youtube. This glorious 15 minute video will point out this exact problem and also to help you better see my position.

You use the bible as a resource for this debate as a reference for what is good morality, But what you don't know is that the bible is actually the purest form of evil. The most horrendous actions that have ever occurred in the history of mankind has been committed by God, Not Satan.

Now let's talk about evolution for a minute. I want to address the part when you said that when evolutionists talk about morality as if it is a real standard that other people should follow, They are being inconsistent with their own professed worldview. Not exactly, When someone saids you should do this or that, In moral standpoint, They are teaching you what is acceptable to today's society. What's considered immoral today may have been moral back then. Take slaves for example, Slaves are not accepted anymore due to the realization that slaves have emotions and feelings just like everyone else. In other words, They were sympathetic to them. Back then, Slaves were barely even seen as people, More like objects. If you traveled back then you would have heard a different story about people in regards to keeping slaves. Abraham Lincoln, Who is known as a very kind man, Supported the use of slaves. As we lived on our brains evolve and that probably helped slaves become free in the long term. Our brains are actually evolving at an ever increasing rate.

I would say that the people who have a higher level of sympathy towards others have better standards of morality.
Debate Round No. 1


Here is what I am trying to say. One example, Consider those evolutionists who are very concerned about children being taught creation. "This is wrong, " they say, "because you"re lying to children! " Now, Obviously this begs the question since the truth or falsity of creation is the concern at issue: we are convinced that creation is true, And evolution is the lie. But the truly absurd thing about such evolutionary arguments is that they are contrary to evolution! That is, In an evolutionary worldview, Why shouldn"t we lie "particularly if it benefits our survival value? Certainly the Christian believes that it"s wrong to lie, But then again, The Christian has a reason for this. God has indicated in His Word that lying is contrary to His nature (Num. 23:19), And that we are not to engage in it (Exod. 20:16). But apart from the biblical worldview, Why should we tell the truth? For that matter, Why should we do anything at all? Words like "should" and "ought" only make sense if there is an absolute standard given by one who has authority over everyone. If human beings are merely chemical accidents, Why should we be so concerned about what they do? We wouldn"t get mad at baking soda for reacting with vinegar; that"s just what chemicals do. So why would an evolutionist be angry at anything one human being does to another, If we are all nothing more than complex chemical reactions? If we are simply evolved animals, Why should we hold to a code of conduct in this "dog-eat-dog" world? After all, What one animal does to another is morally irrelevant. When evolutionists attempt to be moral, They are "borrowing" from the Christian worldview.
One humorous example of this happened at the opening of the Creation Museum. A group opposing the museum (Defcon " "The Campaign to Defend the Constitution") hired a plane to circle above with a trailing banner that read, "Defcon says thou shalt not lie. " Of course, I couldn"t agree more! After all, This is one of the Ten Commandments. In fact, The purpose of the Creation Museum is to present the truth about origins. So the evolutionists had to borrow from the biblical worldview in order to argue against it. In an evolutionary universe, Defcon"s moral objection makes no sense.
You seem to think that it is a group that decides the question of morality. However, This view has the same defects as the others. It merely shifts an unjustified opinion from one person to a group of people. It is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions. Again, We find that we would not be able to denounce certain actions that we know to be wrong. After all, Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right, But that doesn"t really make them right.

One of the problems you are going to find when you examine atheism (or any non-biblical worldview) from a rational
perspective is that there is no foundation for making any moral claims whatsoever. That is, As a non-Christian, You cannot
rationally claim that anything is an atrocity, Or that anyone has ever done anything wrong. You can certainly say that the
biblical God has done things that displease you, But the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are meaningless in an atheistic universe because there can be no objective universal standard " only personal, Subjective opinions.

Numbers 31:7-18: The Midianites were previously involved in leading Israel into sin which caused God to judge the nation, So the death penalty for those involved was just. The virgin girls who were spared would have been mostly little girls who were too young to be married, And too young to be much good as slaves. So this is a case of the girls being mercifully absorbed into the nation of Israel.

Passages taken out of context to support rape:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: To understand the reason behind this law, It is necessary to point out a few details. First, The Hebrew word here is simply the word "to have sexual relations with"; some English translations simply interpret this as "rape. " In the ancient world, Women were so closely guarded by their families that it is possible that in this instance, It is not rape at all, And that the woman was willing. Furthermore, Even in the case of rape, The woman might well demand that the man marry her because she would be unmarriageable. See 2 Samuel 13:1"22 for an instance where a rape victim demanded marriage.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: Like the above, This law uses the word for "to have sexual relations with"; some modern translations assume the meaning "rape" but this is not in the original. This refers specifically to engaged women (in the ancient world engagement was as legally binding as marriage and required a divorce to cancel) who are inside a town. As closely-packed as ancient towns were, She would be helped if she screamed; since she did not scream, There is an assumption that it was not rape, But adultery.

Furthermore, Why is the atheist concerned? Two atheistic evolutionists wrote a book with the horrifying claim that men rape for evolutionary reasons"one of them squirmed in an interview to justify why rape should be considered wrong under his worldview.

God condemns murder in so many places that to accuse Him of murder (that is, The intentional killing of persons which have committed no capital offense) is ludicrous.


Well, As I have said, We have evolved to take care of each other (for survival of the species). We have evolved emotions and feelings such as love, Anger, Sympathy and empathy. So it makes sense that we care about what happens to children since they are our very future. One simple way to look at it is how does this hinder our survival as a species. Murder, In a evolutionary point of view, Is wrong because it hurts our survival. The less of us exists, The less likely we'll survive. Rape is wrong too because, If you know anything about evolution, Evolution is the survival of the fittest, So allowing any male to get down with any female would actually hurt us as a species in the long run. Their needs competition. Lying is wrong because it hurts trust. Trust is something that we value in a person in which we want a meaningful relationship with. In fact, Trust is one of the foundations of love. If we hurt trust, We can't have a full meaningful relationship with that person, That person becomes less meaningful to us. The less meaningful they are to us, The less likely we care about them. You see how this works now? It all goes back to evolution being the key role. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture (I hope).

So in an evolutionary point of view, If we say that murder and rape is wrong, This is why. I don't need to resort to God as an explanation. In fact, It's quite sad that someone would even need a God to tell them what's right or wrong. This would indicate that that person is suffering with some kind of mental disorder. So no, We are not "borrowing" anything from the Christian worldview, Instead, We are using the evolutionary worldview.

What makes chemicals reactions like baking soda and vinegar different from human beings is that we have a consciousness, So we are aware of our surroundings, We have emotions, We have feelings, We are living, Breathing, Biological animals. We need each other, This is why we care so much. In an evolutionary point of view, We should find meaning within each other. By calling us "simply evolved animals" does nothing to make us any less meaningful than what we already are. Remember what I said about meaning (it exists in our heads).

In a fundamental level, Yes, We are mere biological organisms that are controlled by our squishy brains, But meaning can still exist without a God.

If you look at the previous round, One of the things I argued was that your God can't claim absolute morality.

If I asked you why Hitler's actions was wrong, What would you say? Because he killed people? God did the same. Under what law does God say that murder is wrong in under no circumstance? If you say the 6th commandment, Then God broke his own commandment so what does that say about his morality? If you say that murder can be justified in under special circumstances, Then the answer is NO, There IS no law that says that murder is wrong in under no circumstance. So if it's possible to justify murder, Then how can you say Hitler's actions was wrong? If you're bible can't denounce that Hitler's actions was wrong, Then you can't use the bible as a resource for objective morality since there is no objective standard to judge Hitler's actions. You lose.

It's funny you say that to accuse your God of murder is ludicrous. I can name numerous examples where God intentionally killed people who did nothing wrong, Or simply were too innocent.

-When Oxen stumbles on accident and Uzzah reaches out to steady the Ark of the Covenant, God executes him for his "irreverent act".
(2 SAMUEL 6:6-7)
-3, 000 were killed in the Levite camp (Exodus 32:27)
-250 by fire (NUMBERS 16:35)
-14, 000 by plaque (NUMBERS 16:49)
-The Canaanites slaughtered (NUMBERS 21:3)
-24, 000 died by plaque (NUMBERS 16:49)
-All men women and children from Sihon (Deuteronomy 2:33-34)
-The city of Makkedah. No survivors. (JOSHUA 10:28)
-The city of Libnah. No survivors. (JOSHUA 10:30)
-The city of Lachish. No survivors. (JOSHUA 10:32-33)
-The city of Egnon. No survivors. (JOSHUA 10:34-35)
-The king of Hebron, It's villages and citizens. (JOSHUA 10:36-37)
-10, 000 Canaanites and Perizzites (JUDGES 1:4)
-10, 000 Moabites. No survivors. (JUDGES 3:29)
-25, 000 killed, Burns towns. (20:43-48)
-God's angels kills 185, 000 Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35)
-The first born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29)

Take the Israelites for example, When God commanded them to kill the Midianites. What, In anybody's right mind would believe that the very young minds of children are capable of turning Israel into sin? What about the babies? Why did the babies deserve to die? How could they intentionally try to lead Israel into sin if they are not even capable of walking and talking? Surely who don't believe that these babies should die do you? Any rational thinking human being with a heart can decide that the babies were completely innocent at the time. In no way can God justify the killings of innocent babies.
God has killed more innocent babies in the entire human existence than any other person including Satan.

Obviously killing babies is wrong right? NOPE. Apparently it isn't. Apparently killing babies is ok, As long as you have a reason to justify it.


Back to evolution again, Earlier you said that you are convinced that creation is the truth and evolution is the lie, But I also mentioned that to accept the biblical creation story you would have to completely ignore massive amounts of scientific discoveries and knowledge that has been attained from hundreds of years of extensive research by thousands and thousands of scientists worldwide. How do you make of this? Is this something that you are willing to accept just so you can keep believing in the biblical creation story?


You mentioned about two atheistic evolutionists writing a book that men rape for evolutionary reasons? Can you tell me about who they are and what book its called? I would really like to look it up myself.

Also did you watched the video? It was a nice animation video that brilliantly dismantles the principles of objective morality. It's definitely a must watch if you are intellectually curious.
Debate Round No. 2


Your response that we have evolved in the way we take care of each other and emotional evolution is arbitrary. There is no evolutionary evidence for this. Abortion is all about getting rid of our future. Murder, However, In an evolutionary world view could also be a help. Such as euthanizing the old people so that one doesn"t have to take care of them anymore. Hitler used murder to rid himself of people he didn"t like. Survival of the fittest is all about getting rid of the other species so one can survive. Rape was fine with Hitler, Japan, China, USSR and many other nations who invade other countries because it shows dominance. Lying hurts trust, But in the evolutionary worldview one can use it to advance in the workplace or defeat a political opponent or to cheat on his wife or her husband. In a Christian worldview there are no excuses for murder, Lying or rape.

The "atrocity lists" invariably include the death penalty passages from the Mosaic Law. But these are made into capital offenses, So someone who is killed because of disobeying these laws is being executed, Not murdered. You might complain that capital punishment for these reasons is unjust, But the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is unjust.

1 Samuel 6:19-20; 2 Samuel 6:3-7: This involves the deaths of some Israelites who looked in the Ark of the Covenant and the death of Uzzah when he touched the Ark. Numbers 4:1"20 has very specific instructions for moving the Ark, With the explicit warning that anyone who touches the Ark or looks in it will die. Multiple instructions had been disregarded in both passages before anyone died; the people moving the Ark were not even Levites"and only Kohathites were supposed to move the Ark. The Ark was moved on a cart instead of on poles carried by Kohathites. God actually showed incredible mercy in only killing those who actually touched and looked into the Ark. This is an example of God upholding His holiness; He had to draw the line somewhere.

Babies when they die go to heaven. The young Midianite girls were absorbed into the Israelite Nation.

If the you really want to show concern for murder, You could start with all those murdered by atheistic/evolutionary regimes: 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields. Also, The millions of could be children through abortion.

I have a lot of counter scientific evidence for the same evidence, But it would lead to arbitrary answers.

https://creation. Com/rape-and-evolution Interview with two evolutionists about rape.


I can see at this point that you really are not taking into account of a lot of things I said in the previous rounds.

I can also see that you don't really understand evolution as much as you think you are. Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell. No offense I'm not trying to hurt you but this is just too blatantly obvious to me.

Firstly I would like to contest your claim that there is no evidence for how we evolved. Of course there is. There is a wealth of knowledge to be attained. I'm not gonna explain to you how it works exactly but there are books written about it if you are intellectually curious about that mater. It seems to me however you are not inclined to learn about the evidence for evolution since you seem to already made up your mind. This isn't really good if you want good critical thinking skills. To really know if you made a good decision in your beliefs you have to look into both sides.

Abortion can be seen as right or wrong. It's one of those sensitive topics where strong arguments can be made from both sides. Let's not get into that. Although murder CAN be seen as a help, Like I said, It's how we justify it is what makes morality subjective. While you may think that in an evolutionary worldview, It's more beneficial to euthanize the old people, But what you keep forgetting is that more often than not, There are other forces that come into play. Such as empathy for example, Empathy would make it hard to euthanize the old people, And unless it's something that they absolutely HAVE to do, Then chances are they are not gonna do it.

Lying can hurt trust, But like you mentioned already, It could also do a host of good things to that person. Lying can be very beneficial to that person, But just because it can be beneficial, Doesn't always justify the consequences. In an evolutionary point of view, One can understand why one lies, But just because it arise from evolution, Doesn't always justify it. Remember there are other forces that come into play that ALSO arise from evolution. Let's not forget about sympathy. If one cheats on their wife to screw with another female, Sure, I guess you can say it's beneficial for him because more of his seeds gets spread around, But there's also sympathy where if he cheats his wife, The wife would get very upset and who would want to let their wife suffer if they love them so much? Doesn't make sense you see what I mean?

Case in point there are more often than not there are more than 1 or 2 forces at play. And even if someone lies to make to the top of management, Or defeat a political opponent, Or to obtain an extra girl, Doesn't mean that that person thinks that his lies are morally just. Sometimes people act knowing it's wrong, But do it out of greed.

Survival of the fittest is NOT about getting rid of the other species so one can survive, At least not always. It's also important to mention that the Nazis and the Jews are technically the same species: Homo Sapiens. All humans are the same species, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Etc.

When Hitler tried to eliminate all the Jews, Did he follow his own personal standard of morality (subjective morality), Or did he knew it was wrong to kill all the Jews but did it anyway? If he knew it was wrong, Then you can't use Hitler as a resource against subjective morality. For he was acting upon something else rather than what he thought was moral thing to do.

Capital punishment and murder are essentially the same thing, In both cases you kill someone, The only difference between the two is that capital punishment is a euphemism for murder. The term 'capital punishment' gives the sense that it's murder, But it's somehow justified. So basically we're dealing with two types of murders: Justified murder and unjustified murder. If morality was objective, Then murder is wrong no matter what the conditions are, And therefore, Cannot be justified. If morality is subjective, Then murder could be justified. Whether if a murder is justified or not is a matter of a moral standpoint, Which differs slightly from person to person. This is my argument. If morality is so objective, Then why is there so much disagreement between what is moral and what is not?

You justify God's action of killing babies by saying that they go straight to heaven, But if anybody else killed babies for the exact very reason is it still justified? Is it justifiable for me to go out on a baby-killing spree and then claim that it's for the better good because they go straight to heaven? You see, This is where our morality differs. Now you say that it's my burden of proof to prove that it's unjust, But the burden of proof is actually the one who is making the claims. If you notice, It's actually the BOTH of us, WE are making the claims, So it is OUR burden of proof to prove our position.

Now, Luckily for me, I don't think I have to say much to prove the audience reading this that killing innocent babies is unjust. So I'm putting my faith upon the readers of this thread to decide that I am right and you are wrong.

This also puts you into another sticky situation. If murder can be justified, Then this completely destroys the 6th commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill. So if you can't use the 6th commandment as an objective standard, Then what other objective standard do you have? The answer is NONE. The bible does not provide an objective standard that explains when it is acceptable to kill babies and when it is not.

Now we move on to the next subtopic. . . You mentioned about all the murders from atheistic/evolutionary regimes, But I can guaranteed you that none of these commit murder, Or should I say capital punishment? In the name of atheism or evolution. Also, Here is a fun fact: The most safest places in the world tend to be the most secular. So if religion makes someone less violent, Then why are the most secular places of the world the LEAST violent?
Here are my sources:

http://www. Latimes. Com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story. Html
https://www. Psychologytoday. Com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

Also, The babies of the Midianites get killed but the young Midianite girls don't? I don't understand, Are they raising them to become their sex slave or something?
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
Yes, However, I was trying to say that the evolutionist worldview cannot account for absolute morality because it borrows from the biblical creation worldview.
Posted by AleXander_01 3 years ago
Not really, My thirst for a debate has been quenched. Maybe next time. Also did you understand the things I was trying to say? I feel like you didn't really understood where I was coming from.
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
Yeah, I also think I did not explained my purpose real well. I put too much info at the beginning. Want to try again?
Posted by AleXander_01 3 years ago
Anybody reading this PLEASE VOTE
Posted by AleXander_01 3 years ago
Should have used more rounds lol
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
Looking forward to the debate AleXander_01.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.