The Instigator
jrardin12
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
felixmendelssohn
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 117726
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

jrardin12

Pro

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
image.
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.
felixmendelssohn

Con

I'll start off by saying that morality is the most trivial problem in the evolutionary worldview.
Atgument #1
2 reasons why evolution provides the best explanation for morality.

1. The evolution theory's assumption is intuitive and only involve testifiable axioms.
2. All moral phenomenon can be explained via evolution.

Defense of 1st claim.
The only assumption of evolution is "over time, A population will be increasingly dominated with characteristics that increases its survival rate. " Not only this assumption is intuitive, It is well-tested through biological populations. From this trivial assumption, One can answer all sort of questions about why morality evolve to be the way it is today. On the contrary, Religion's claim are not at all testifiable. To confirm evolution, One only need a bio lab. To confirm religion is a much harder because religion never makes any verifiable predictions. For example how may I verify that "god exists" or "morality is absolute". As you see, Theist never provide criteria to verify if those things are true. An unverifiable statement is always garbage. For insteancee, I can claim that there is an undetectable ghost flying over your head right now. Is that claim verifiable? No. By definition the ghost is undetectable. as you see, As long as a claim is unverfiable, Pp will not give it a serious thought.

Defense of 2nd claim
Pro's initial post seemed to rest on the idea that without biblical command, There would be no reason not to kill. 2 response.
a. There are 5000 religions on this planet and Christianity is not the only religion that abhors murder.
b. Evolution can explain why murder is wrong. Take 2 societies A and B. Society A promotes murder while society B prohibits it. Since society A thinks of murder as the righteous act, Many members in A would commit it. The world is always full of inevitable conflicts and therefore society A population would rapidly drop since everyday conflict has an easy resolution. Kill stimulates more kills. Soon, People would start murder for revenge of loved one. This cycle of hatred would increasingly dominate until society A goes extinct. As you can see, Killing is a characteristic that drop a society population to 0. By the first assumption of evolution, The number of societies that allow murder would decrease to low number. A murder-tolerating society is analogous to a auto-immune body. and evidently, the individual who has auto-immune is extremely rare because auto-immune drops survival rate and by the axiom of evolution, Such trait would not dominate.

Argument #2 :
Pro seems to fixate on the fact that morality wouldn't be absolute because human's personal moral ideals are too different from each other. If this is true then religion wouldn't be a reliable source of morality either because there are about 5000 religions on the world and each with its own moral ideal. Its like 5000 people, Each with his own moral standard, How can we decide morality in that case?

Responses to Pro
1. "Morality is just relative. "=== True in the sense that people have different idea of right and wrong. But the fact that everyone has a different moral ideal doesn't mean that everyone's moral ideal should be treated equally.

2. "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. "== Be sure to distinguish between "moral ideal" and "morality". Moral ideal is a person idea of what morality should be like. Morality is a consensus between humans of how we should behave. As you can see, Psychopaths have their own moral ideal where murder is perfectly acceptable. Did that fact alter our moral consensus in anyway? No. Not even one tiny bit.

3. "But how could we argue that it is wrong for others to murder
if morality is nothing but a personal standard? " === We don't allow murder because if we did, We wouldn't even exist to ask the question. A murder-tolerant society is like a self-referential contradiction. HOw can something that wants to annihilate itself exist?
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Pro

If morality was relative then no one would be able to tell others that they are wrong. 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.

If morality was based on consensus then 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.
felixmendelssohn

Con

You seem to run out of idea here since you simply repeated what you said earlier.

"If there is no absolute moral code, Then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, Not stealing, Not even rape or murder"== I explained to you how murder is absolutely wrong but it seems you couldn't response. After all what does "wrong" mean? If you could give me a defintion of "wrong", An actual definition that matches our current consensus of morality.



"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. " == The german people were deceived by propaganda so its not fair to say that the majority support the genocide of Jews. Also, Hitler is an example of moral evolution. As pointed out in my previous response, A genocide-tolerating, War-waging society is not going to last because those traits do eveything but increasing survival rates.

Also, My extra thoughts about why the laws of Logic are the way they are.
The law of non-contradiction, Either A or not A, Is a crucial law to survival. By the axiom of evolution, Whatever increases the population survival rate is going to dominate. Why is the law of non-contradiction crucial to survival? Well, Let's say "It is simultaneously true that there's a hungry lion behind you and there isn't a hungry lion behind you". What do you do? Should you run or should you not? You see, Contradictory reasoning leaves a person uncertain and therefore cannot solve life-or-death problem at hand. Contradiction is the end of a logical reasoning. Consider the statement "This sentence is false". What can you conclude? Nothing because if its true then its false and vice versa. You see, Contradictory statements does not allow us to explore deeper consequences. In most cases, The inability to reason is going to harm a person and by evolutionary principle, Such trait will naturally, Gradually die off.

Therefore, Evolution is the better explanation of morality and logic because unlike god, Whose existence is virtually untestable. Evolution principle can be tested in laboratory and can be observed in all sort of biological population.

Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Pro

Let me go back to cultural relativism and morality.
1. First of all, By what standard do you appeal to, In order to say that morality is defined by what communities want it to be? And what makes the largest community the highest authority? These are ad hoc assertions with no justifications of any kind.
2. How are you going to prove that the communities have the right to decide what is morally right or wrong without appealing to the decisions of these communities themselves? But if you do this, How are you not arguing in a circle and assuming what you are supposed to prove? Your third premise is that "communities outside of that decide whether they are right or wrong", But your conclusion is essentially the same: that "right and wrong is a hierarchy and not an absolute". You put forth your conclusion as one of your premises and therefore engage in circular reasoning.
3. The idea that morality is decided by the sum of all communities is itself an objective moral claim: namely, Something is morally good (objectively) if this is what the sum of all communities deem to be good. If there is nothing higher than the sum of all communities to appeal to, Then the totality of all cultures becomes the objective moral standard. But if this is true, Relative morality is again refuted. Thus, If your cultural relativism is true, It is false. The only consistent moral relativism, By contrast, Is actually a denial of any such thing as morality. In that case, No person or community would be a higher moral authority than any other, And nothing would be truly wrong.
4. This system does not allow for moral progress on the highest level of the hierarchy, Because any change in moral direction by the sum of all communities would always be defined as good. If the collective says torturing babies for fun is good, Then it is. And if they change their minds, Then it isn"t.
5. According to this system, Any individual moral reformer who goes against the sum of all communities is evil by definition. So if the whole world, By-and-large, Accepted chattel slavery, As it once did, Then abolitionists were acting immorally when they opposed that practice.
felixmendelssohn

Con

1. "First of all, By what standard do you appeal to, In order to say that morality is defined by what communities want it to be? And what makes the largest community the highest authority? These are ad hoc assertions with no justifications of any kind. " == can you read? Did you read my evolutionary explanation for morality? Can a community decide that killing is RIGHT? YESS. But that community wouldn't exist for long like I explained in my first post.

2. "How are you going to prove that the communities have the right to decide what is morally right or wrong without appealing to the decisions of these communities themselves? But if you do this, How are you not arguing in a circle and assuming what you are supposed to prove? Your third premise is that "communities outside of that decide whether they are right or wrong", But your conclusion is essentially the same: that "right and wrong is a hierarchy and not an absolute". You put forth your conclusion as one of your premises and therefore engage in circular reasoning. " ======== i said IF a community were to decide that murder is right, Then that community cannot exist.


3. "The idea that morality is decided by the sum of all communities is itself an objective moral claim: namely, Something is morally good (objectively) if this is what the sum of all communities deem to be good. If there is nothing higher than the sum of all communities to appeal to, Then the totality of all cultures becomes the objective moral standard. But if this is true, Relative morality is again refuted. Thus, If your cultural relativism is true, It is false. The only consistent moral relativism, By contrast, Is actually a denial of any such thing as morality. In that case, No person or community would be a higher moral authority than any other, And nothing would be truly wrong. "======== you used many word to say very little. Morality is subjective to each communities. some communities make their morality suitable for survival and therefore persist longer through time. Morality does not need to be OBJECTIVE to work. also when did I say that morality is decided by the sum of communities? What does that even mean? What i suggested was that there are MANY societies in the past with DIFFERENT morality and the one with the MORALITY that INCREASES survuval rate like do not kill, Do not steal, Survive and persist thru time like our society.

4. "If the collective says torturing babies for fun is good, Then it is. And if they change their minds, Then it isn"t. " ====== THIS IS A TERRIBLE POINT. It shows your inability to comprehend other's argument. look, If a society decides torturing babies for fun is WONDERFUL. Then they will do it. And what would happen? Well, A society killing of its next generation on a massive scale is not going to be able to persist thru time and such society would necessarily come to an end. Its like a body where the immune system decide to kill off any new cells generated.

5. "According to this system, Any individual moral reformer who goes against the sum of all communities is evil by definition. So if the whole world, By-and-large, Accepted chattel slavery, As it once did, Then abolitionists were acting immorally when they opposed that practice. " == BS, This is not what i said. Can you comprehend?
Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Pro

Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Little Rocket Man. Nazi Germany was killing their Jews before WWII started and were surviving just fine. In fact they were creating a only white race just like they had been taught in evolution. Even today with abortion, Those who say it is wrong must be immoral. Those who are against homosexual marriage must be immoral as well. On both these issues the majority have not had a say in the matter.
felixmendelssohn

Con

"In fact they were creating a only white race just like they had been taught in evolution" == LOL? When did evolution teach one to create 1 white race? You just dont understand evolution

"Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Little Rocket Man. Nazi Germany was killing their Jews before WWII started and were surviving just fine"==== oh, Then where are they now? I dont say such society would dissapear the instant it was created. What i said was that OVERTIME, Such society cannot exist.

"Those who say it is wrong must be immoral. Those who are against homosexual marriage must be immoral as well. On both these issues the majority have not had a say in the matter. "=== the majority have not had a say in the matter? What do you mean?

it seems you have run out of reason here. simply, You see, Evolution can explain EVERYTHING that you claim must rely on god. since evolution explanatory scope is the same as that of christianity, And evolution is testable, It is the best theory to explain morality, Logic, Uniformity of nature. . . . . .
Debate Round No. 4
jrardin12

Pro

"When did evolution teach one to create one white race? "

Darwin said, "At some future period, Not very distant as measured by centuries, The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes. . . Will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, For it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, As we may hope, Even than the Caucasian, And some ape as low as a baboon, Instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla. " Also to note is that the last part of "On the Origin of Species" says, "And the Preservation of the Favored Races. " Some people who used Darwinian evolution to push their murderous agenda include: Theodore Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

You ask were did all those society's go. Well, Nazi Germany is no more and neither is the USSR. However, Both of those nations do not exist because they murdered a large part of their populations. Nazi Germany was killing Jews before WWII began. If they hadn't invaded Poland who is to say that they would not be in existence today? The USSR had plenty of people in it before it broke up. The US did not fight against them because they were killing their people in Gulags, But because they were a nuclear threat. Therefore USSR did not fall because of their mass murder of people. Even today countries such as Iran, China, Vietnam and North Korean murder people. Also there have been many society's in the past that have had a point in their history where they murdered people and their civilizations lasted for centuries. Take these examples: Greece killed babies they didn't see as fit to live, Rome killed thousands of Christians, The Vatican and the Reformed countries of Germany and Switzerland killed thousands of Anabaptist's, Yet their societies survived. What about France? The atheist Reign of Terror killed many of their population yet they survived. What about America and the killing of slaves, Indians and Filipinos. The US society is still in existence. You have to show me a society that was only destroyed because they murdered a certain group in their society.

According to a new Gallop poll 62% of Americans say that abortion is immoral and before the US Supreme Court annulled the Constitutions of many States the majority of States had laws against homosexual marriages.

You say that the German people were led to exterminate the Jews because of propaganda, But that is a weak excuse for the German people knew exactly what they were doing.

Society often changes its opinion. One clear example is in regard to "gay marriage. " What was considered morally wrong by most of society is now legal, Applauded, And celebrated by some groups. In this view, Homosexual behavior went from being morally wrong to being morally acceptable. You say that society would not allow murder because it would not benefit their society. However, Our society did decide that a certain murder was ok. In Roe v. Wade we legalized the killing of unborn children and are at the point where some are advocating for partial birth abortion. Does murder suddenly become morally acceptable too? What about adultery, Stealing (socialism does this), Lying or any other manner of morally reprehensible actions? Would you accept a society that decides that decides that the society can kill all atheists and humanists (after all there would be an advantage for survival for Christians)? If society is the moral compass, Then the compass never points north but rather jumps all over the place and changes with every generation.
Also, If society determines morality, How can one society tell another society what is right or wrong? Most people would agree that the abhorrent actions of the Nazi death camps were morally wrong. But why? Nazi Germany decided as a society that these actions were morally acceptable. What right does our society have to judge their society if morality is simply a societal preference?
Or what about certain Muslim groups? Few would agree that blowing up innocent civilians, Slaughtering hundreds of people from other religious groups, Kidnapping and enslaving women, Or using children as suicide bombers is morally acceptable. Yet if morality is simply societal preference, What right does our society have to tell their society that their actions are wrong and must be stopped?
The consistent atheist or humanist can say nothing if that is the ethic a society has decided is right. In this view, The atheist, Based on his arbitrary opinion, Might not agree with their ethic, But they have no rationale to say anything or try to put a stop to it. If morality is simply decided by societal preference, It fails to make any sense and becomes arbitrary, Subject to change by time and culture.

Not only are we moving to murder in our society through abortion, But also with eugenics. In The Netherlands there is an epidemic of the state euthanizing older people without their consent.

Here are some questions for you:

If we are simply chemical accidents, As evolutionists contend, Why should we feel compelled to behave in a particular fashion?
If laws of morality are just what bring the most happiness to the most people, Then why would it be wrong to kill just one innocent person if it happened to make everyone else a lot happier?
If laws of morality are just the adopted social custom, Then why was what Hitler did wrong?
How did blind chemistry create morality?

Closing Statement

The Christian worldview not only accounts for morality, It also accounts for why evolutionists behave the way they do. Even those who have no basis for morality within their own professed worldview nonetheless hold to a moral code; this is because in their heart of hearts they really do know the God of creation despite their profession to the contrary. Scripture tells us that everyone knows the biblical God, But that they suppress the truth about God (Rom. 1:18"21). Why would anyone do this?
We have inherited a sin nature (a tendency to rebel against God) from Adam (Rom. 5:12), Who rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3). John 3:19 indicates that people would rather remain in spiritual darkness than have their evil deeds exposed. Just as Adam tried to hide from God"s presence (Gen. 3:8), So his descendants do the same. But the solution to sin is not suppression, It is confession and repentance (1 John 1:9; Luke 5:32). Christ is faithful to forgive anyone who calls on His name (Rom. 10:13).
Nearly everyone believes that people ought to behave in a certain way " a moral code. Yet in order for morality to be meaningful, Biblical creation must be true. Since God created human beings, He determines what is to be considered right and wrong, And we are responsible to Him for our actions. We must therefore conclude that evolutionists are being irrational when they talk about right and wrong, For such concepts make no sense in an evolutionary universe.
felixmendelssohn

Con

"Darwin said, "At some future period, Not very distant as measured by centuries, . . . . . . . " === Don't confuse Darwin and Evolution. Scientists, Based on Darwin's idea, Had rigorously define what they mean by evolution. Im not going to defend what Darwin said because not everything he said is considered relevant to evolution. As an analogy, Just because Wagner wrote music, And he was an anti-semite, Doesnt mean that music is anti-semitic

"Therefore USSR did not fall because of their mass murder of people" === OK, That's a too sophisticated example for the evolution of murder-prohibition. Humans already realized that murder is wrong longgggg time ago. Also, You havent explain to me how a society that allow its member to kill can persist thru time.

"You have to show me a society that was only destroyed because they murdered a certain group in their society. " === you see, You have to strawman my argument to be able to even say something about it. Killing a certain group is DIFFERENT than allow killing universally among arbitrary members. I claim that if you allow killing universally among members regardless of races, Sexes, . . . Then such a society cannot persist thru time. All of the example you give like Greece allow killing of a CERTAIN baby does not refute my argument because my claim was different. Also, Those societies did EVENTUALLY collapse. You said they didn't collapse right away which I agree because I never said those societies would collapse the moment they were in place.

" Would you accept a society that decides that decides that the society can kill all atheists and humanists" === Think about what you just said. A society includes atheists so obviously atheists wouldnt suddenly decide to kill themselves. Plus, The majority of scientists (think penicillin, Vaccination, Anatomy. . . ) are atheists so I dont think that killing atheists would "an advantage for survival for Christians".

"Society often changes its opinion. One clear example is in regard to "gay marriage. " What was considered morally wrong by most of society is now legal, Applauded, And celebrated by some groups. "=== explain how gay marriage has to do with survival of society.

" If society is the moral compass, Then the compass never points north but rather jumps all over the place and changes with every generation. " === exactly, Morality evolves.

"Or what about certain Muslim groups? Few would agree that blowing up innocent civilians, Slaughtering hundreds of people from other religious groups, Kidnapping and enslaving women, Or using children as suicide bombers is morally acceptable. Yet if morality is simply societal preference, What right does our society have to tell their society that their actions are wrong and must be stopped? "=== ironic but you do realize the motivation for those things is religion right? This just go to show that the world would be extremely dangerous if you take religion morality instead of using logic to decide which policy is better for all. Also, Like you, They also take their religious beliefs seriously where those actions are justified. How do you know that you're not being just like them when you bash gay marriage.

"Nazi Germany decided as a society that these actions were morally acceptable"=== the society decided? Or the leaders? You see, No society would be stupid enough to collectively agree to wage war so that they can all be split from their family and die.

" What right does our society have to judge their society if morality is simply a societal preference? " === just leave them be. Those with bad morality will dies out.

"If we are simply chemical accidents, As evolutionists contend, Why should we feel compelled to behave in a particular fashion? "==== because if we didn't behave like we do, We would simply not exist.

"If laws of morality are just what bring the most happiness to the most people, Then why would it be wrong to kill just one innocent person if it happened to make everyone else a lot happier? " ==== did I ever define morality like that? What you just mention was utilitarianism not atheism.

"If laws of morality are just the adopted social custom, Then why was what Hitler did wrong? " === well, He murdered. And murder is wrong. Why? Look at my initial post for answers.

"How did blind chemistry create morality? " === then let me ask you, How does the zeros and ones in a computer create the Siri or Cortana that you can talk to?
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
C/P: "felixmendelssohn
"Killing a certain group is DIFFERENT than allow killing universally among arbitrary members. "=== well, You asked why hitlerian society did exist when it allows killing. I said that in my argument regarding certain society, I used the example of a society that allows killing universally. "

What connection exists between Nazi Germany and the bible? Utter rubbish.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Modern nations have citizens rather than as existed in Feudal times - serfs and peasants. Insanity afflicts all nations. The percentage of this vile insanity - known as religion - changes from nation to nation. May the blessed day come when Xtianity as a religion exists on par with the dead Greek religions which worshiped Zeus and the gods.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
"Atheists are the minority by a lot. " == but they seem to be the majority in the science community

"You forget groundbreaking scientists that were or are Christian:" === sure, They were. But look at the statistics now. If you kill all atheists, You'd risk deterring human knowledge a great deal. The lack of such knowledge wouldn't be so beneficial for christians. Also, I wonder what you mean by killing atheists would benefit christians? Do atheists run around all day hunting christians?
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
What do you mean when you say religion?
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
The majority of scientists (think penicillin, Vaccination, Anatomy. . . ) are atheists so I dont think that killing atheists would "an advantage for survival for Christians".

1. Atheists are the minority by a lot.
2. You forget groundbreaking scientists that were or are Christian: Francis Collins, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Lise Meitner, Sir Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Andrew Pinsent, Stanley Jaki and Mike Hulme. Alexander Fleming of Penicillin was a Christian.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
A theory remains only a theory. A theory never qualifies as having the strength of a law. Evolution is a theory. The Creation story taught as history utterly preposterous. The Torah teaches the spirituality of human morality not history. 20th century Europeans were totally immoral beings. The primitive African developed greater morality than the barbaric 20th century Europeans sub humans.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
just because darwin happened to come up with some good theory doesnt mean i have to defend EVERYTHING he said and done. I like some of the good things he said and thats it.
also you said evolution is so plastic that it can be molded into anything. Well, Religion is even worse if you ask me because evolution plays by the rule, While god can do whatever he wants
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
ok, Darwin said those things. Does that mean all evolutionist think the same? No. Its not like whatever comes out of darwin's mouth is fact. Evolution was used to justify bad stuff in the past and so was religion.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
"Killing a certain group is DIFFERENT than allow killing universally among arbitrary members. "=== well, You asked why hitlerian society did exist when it allows killing. I said that in my argument regarding certain society, I used the example of a society that allows killing universally. Since you used a different society with different laws, The conclusion of my argument does not follow.
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
Killing a certain group is DIFFERENT than allow killing universally among arbitrary members.

Murder is murder.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
jrardin12felixmendelssohnTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Backwards horrible vote.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
jrardin12felixmendelssohnTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I agree with Con before and after the debate as he had a better idea as how to defend the morality of what encompasses society in comparison to what Pro tried to demonstrate what "god's prescience" is in which is completely immoral and Pro only assumes god exists in the first place without any proof which also shows Con had more decisive arguments. Con after all mentions "Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right,..." His god must have thought it was "right" to have created Hitler. Con is right it is a contradiction. Pro rarely mentioned god and or christ in his debate so his ideals thus do not tie into "Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation".

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