The Instigator
Lex-Luthor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheist moral judgment on religion have no basis whatsoever.

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
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
03days03hours32minutes48seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 118808
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Lex-Luthor

Pro

Atheist should be able to make moral judgments on any religon, No matter how bad, Simply because they have no basis for their morality other than their opinion.
Opinions are subjective and as such one atheist can say the Christian God is wrong for doing 'A, B and C' and another athiest can say the Christian God is in the right but neither would be objectively correct.
As such any atheist who tries to claim religion is immoral is wrong had no way of knowing what he says is objectively the truth other than his own opinions and subjective moral standings
Thoht

Con

Happy to think with you today.

Your argument is that no subjective morality can make judgements on Christian Morality because you claim it is objective. Because multiple differing moral systems are created when no objective morality is known to exist, People with certain subjective moralities would judge specific actions of the Christian God as moral, And other moralities would judge the same actions as immoral. Because all of these moralities would be subjective, You claim they are invalid. You make another claim saying that atheists claim that they are correct, Not only stating an opinion. My arguments will be against these claims.

My counter-claims are as follows:

1. Christian Morality is not objective, And as such all moral systems are subjective. Even if the Christian God undeniably exists, It does not logically follow that its morality would be objective.

2. Because objective morality either does not exist or is not currently known, All moralities are equally valid, But some are superior to others. The superiority of a moral system can be judged once metrics are agreed upon by all parties.

3. Atheists that are consistent do not state that their opinion or judgement on the Christian God is objectively true. They state that their opinion is based on their reasoned moral system. You can ask what their moral system is and they can analyze it through that system. The argument is then on which moral system is superior, Which can again be determined after metrics are agreed upon.

4. When Christians and Atheists agree upon a set of metrics by which to judge moral systems, The analysis always shows the Christian God and Christian morality to be objectively inferior.

If you'd like to supply me a list of metrics by which to judge moralities by, I will prove that Christian morality is subjective in R2, And then I will supply my list and reasoning behind the metrics I choose to analyze moralities by, And will then show how the Christian morality fails these tests in comparison to my, And perhaps other secular moral systems.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 1
Lex-Luthor

Pro

Thank you for sharing your perspective.

I argue against the atheist moral judgment against religion not from a Christian moral superiority standpoint but from one that comes from my own views of the atheist ideology.

1. Many times I find that atheist make claims of a better more just society if religion where to be removed from society as a whole. These statements seem to suggest that the religious moral philosophies are what are keeping society in a worse place than it could be if religion were not to exist. I find such statements to be objectively made seeing as the claims are 'religion object bad for society, No religion objectivity good for society'.

2. Seeing as atheist live in a constantly morally subjective world view, I see that what truly would be determined as good or bad is what the group agrees to be good or bad, I think you suggested something of similar fashion in your argument, As such atheist cannot claim Many, If any, Acts in the religion as bad, Including killing gay people, Seeing as a select group has deemed it moral.

3. So my argument in really comes down to atheist not being philosophically not being consistent. Atheist don't want religions forcing their morality on them because they believe in a subjective world view, But then again claim the wrongness in the beliefs of the religious. I believe the constant thing for an atheist to do would be to not make any judgments at all on the morality of religion, And even morality of the non religious, As they should accept each person action as the result of their individual subjective moral leanings.

thank you for your time.
Thoht

Con

Addressing your claims:

There is no "atheist ideology" any more than there is one single "christian" perspective on things. That would be similar to me claiming that there is a "theist ideology" when there are in fact thousands of forms of theism. The pure definition of atheist - which is one who believes no god exists - carries no extra baggage by default.

1. Society would objectively be better off without a large number of religious doctrines and superstitions that have crept up over the years. No religious principle has led to breakthroughs in any field of study that we gain benefit from, And has actively held those fields back in many ways.

Let's take evolution for example. The vast majority of evolution deniers are religious. [1] At this point in time, Saying evolution by natural selection does not happen is like saying gravity is not a concept that exists. This is religion actively holding people back. It is at least intellectually consistent for religious people to say it exists, And that god started it. Creationism is no longer a belief that one can hold with any degree of logical consistency. I can give hundreds of examples to this effect. Religious people preach against contraceptives in STD-ridden countries. This actively spreads STDs of many varieties. These aren't matters of opinion. These are objectively true outside of moral systems. To deny it would be to say that STDs are beneficial, Or that facts should not be supported by evidence.

2. Many atheists - not all - would, With some discussion, Agree that morals are subjective. That we, As a society, Have crafted our morals over time. Consistent people will say that killing gays - to use your example - is "bad" but what we mean by that is that it has a negative effect on society as a whole which then circles around to actively make our lives worse. When we actively hunt gay people we are sometimes killing people who are straight who were framed (How do you prove they are gay? How did you prove this before video and pictures were a thing? ), We are killing people who will otherwise go around to invent useful things for society [2], You are inhibiting the freedoms of individuals from experiencing what they would like which has no clear negative effect on the rest of us. These are all logical and factual statements. You have to use your words to argue your position and justify why it is better for society if we actively hunt and kill gays. I submit that you will be unable to do so adequately. Religious people would state "My god says don't put your penis in that hole. " If you accept logic and reasoning then people can and should be able to change your mind on things. So we, As a society, Grow over time. For any moral question, I should have an argument for my opinion on it. My argument should be changeable if a more logical one comes by me. I, As a consistent person who accepts logic, Should be able to talk to a cannibal, A rapist, Or a psychopath, And be able to argue any of my moral positions.

In summary, When someone says "bad" they shouldn't mean it is objectively morally bad. They are saying all the negative effects they can think of outweigh all the positive effects they can think of. This is secular human morality.

3. There is no problem with the consistency here. Religious doctrine is not argument driven. You point to a multi-thousand year old book the authors of whom you aren't sure of, The stories in which you all disagree on the validity or interpretation of, Which wasn't actually written by your god, Whose passages actively contradict each other, Whose writers were mostly illiterate, Which has been translated many times, Whose included books have been selected and edited by groups of priests in the past.

Any intellectual should be able to present a logical well-thought argument on the positive and negative effects of any moral fork, But to counter their claims you point to that book, The legitimacy of which you cannot prove between that and thousands of other books, And when your own religion is fractured into hundreds of denominations and multiple literal religions based on disagreements inside the religion.

So yes, We all hold subjective views. We all agree to argue those views and put them up against each other. We have heated debates. We will say things are "bad" with each other's views and with views of people outside of our society. The question of if negatives outweigh positives is not always clear or fully answered. Our answers to moral questions can change over time. We should not say people are objectively "wrong" to hold certain positions. We ask for the argument for those positions. We can agree to disagree on things, But respect each other's opinions and value the debate when we have learned things or have new things to study.

It is then understandably irritating when someone comes in and throws an old book in your face, Says a god he can't prove exists said otherwise, And hears no arguments.

-
Expanding on my points

1. Christian Morality is not objective.

I'm going to discard several valid objections. They are as follows: 1. You can't prove god exists. 2. Even if you could you would still need to prove that your god was that god. 3. There are thousands of competing religions and there's no reason to think yours is more valid.

I don't need any of those to logically prove my point.

I'm going to grant you that God exists, And that God is the Christian God. Aren't I generous? Christian morality still would not be objective. Many arguments work for this. I will give several.

1a. The Christian God gives us only the Bible.

The problem with this is that besides the aforementioned faults in the Bible, Christian Morality has all been left up to human interpretation. Christians agree on very little with a large majority. There are passages in the Bible in favor of slavery. One could argue the Bible is in favor of slavery. [3] Were the Bible so against it, It would be a Commandment or there would be clear condemnations. What you get in the Bible are rules for slaves. If we can command that infidelity or murder is wrong, How can we not command enslavement is not? Do you believe slavery is morally justified because it is permitted in the Bible? Incest and Rape are similar.

When there is debate in the religious community about what morality should be, No one can be sure of what objective morality is. Therefore, The morality in the Bible is subjective even if God did exist and even if his morality was objective. There is no argument against this. Most pastors would say "humans can be wrong, But God cannot be. " Humans are the ones doing the interpreting and God is not clarifying things for us.

1b. The Christian God either does not make morality, Or anything he does is moral.

This is also called the Euthyphro Dilemma, Or paradox, In philosophy.

One has to accept one of two horns.

a. Morality exists without God, In which case it is able to be discovered without god, And there is at least one thing God did not make.

or

b. Whatever God does is morally good because God does it. This means the sentence can also be "God did something. " It doesn't matter what god does, It is always morally good.

If A is correct, God is not "god", And objective morality (if it exists) was not made by him. He is either not 100% good or he is controlled by what is good.

If B is correct then when god kills children, Babies, Et cetera and commands humans to kill babies, Children, And rape women it is morally correct to do so. But then god says murder is wrong.

In conclusion, In the current state of our reality Christian Morality is just as subjective as anyone else's. Intellectuals are open for debate and arguments. Are you?

-
Sources in comments if I can get them to work. URLs not being allowed is counterproductive to providing sources.
Debate Round No. 2
Lex-Luthor

Pro

For my final argument:

I apologize if "Atheist ideology" was not the proper term. What I was trying to get at is that all atheist at the very least believe that there is no god, And for me I think that that belief can only lead one path ideologically.

1. In your first second round statement you made the claim that it would OBJECTIVELY better for society if there were less religious doctrines; you also proceeded to give examples of how some religious belief can be detrimental to the advancement of science. Now whether or believe religion to be a hindrance or not to science is a whole other debate but I will argue against objectivity part of your statement:

You seem to make the claim that, Objectively speaking, The advancement of science is BETTER for society. Now I personally agree with this sentiment but subjectively speaking, Not everyone cares whether science advances or not, And why should they. What wouldn't matter objectively speaking if science or medicine advanced, What's the big end game.
scientist constantly make the point that at some time or another there will be some extinction event, Whether it be by asteroid, The sun burning out or even the eventual death of the universe as a whole.
science clearly makes the point that no matter how advance we get there will be an end and so why should any person, Especially atheist, Objectively care about the advancement of any science.

2. In your second statement you try to move away from the term "bad" and say "negative" instead but I find no difference in exchanging either word for the other. You say that killing gays might have a negative effect in the long run because they might add to society, But an argument could be made that people who don't want to "mate" properly and produce offspring are in fact bad for society, There's no way of knowing whether either argument is correct. You give the example of the gay individual, If not killed, Inventing something useful for society but I think that that's the same argument as the one in statement one so I think You can refer to that.
As for those who are mistaken to be gay and killed. Subjectively speaking theirs speaking there's still nothing wrong with that, Seeing as criminals are killing innocent people everyday using their one subjective moral values to justify themselves.

3. The way I would argue against your third point is this:
If we talk about consistency, Atheist should admit that their basis for morality is purely subjective, And that it is still subjective even if a large group agrees to something being morally right or wrong, They should admit this constantly no matter what. With that said I believe that if atheists were consistent they should look at any religious book, No matter how old or contradictory, As simply a collection of subjective moral views all spelled out for the world to see.
I believe that, If atheist were truly consistent, Their reaction to someone one who let's say calls himself a Christian would be "he's illogical" but would be more of "his subjective belief is that fornication this or homosexuality that" and seeing as atheist hold the subjective world view they couldn't objectively say that the bible advocating slavery, Which I don't agree that the bible advocates slavery but let's just say it does for now, Is wrong or unjust.

So in short: To atheist religion should be view as nothing more collections of subjective modalities and as such atheist can't have objective moral judgments made against them.

I have looked at your expanded on points and will put this down as my main argument:
When looking at objectivity we say something is objectively true if no matter the where or when in the universe the answer would still be the same, 1+1 is always 2 ECT.

As such, Without being bais, I think the moral objectivity of Christianity could actually be argued seeing as any if not all INTELLECTUAL Christians will tell you that the Christian God is a being OUTSIDE the universe and as such cannot not be subject to it's "in universe objective rules".
simply put God is outside the universe where 1+1 =2 so to him the answer objectively can be anything other than two if he wants it to be, But seeing that's how he made this universe, So everything in universe is will always have 1+1=2 objectively every time.

Again I thank you for your time and i wish you success in your future encounters
Thoht

Con

Being an atheist SHOULD eventually lead to one specific ideology. There IS probably a correct answer to most questions in life. However, It does not have an ideology in and of itself. To believe so is to not understand what the term 'ideology' means. There isnt one specific set of theist ideologies, But multiple religious ideologies. If this were terribly pertinent, I would give it more time.

1. Science is one of the many ways religion has held us back. This is objectively true. There is no metric you can point to saying it has been improved by religion. You can say religious people have assisted scientific progress. This is in spite of their religion not because of it. Most scientists will say they leave their religion at the door when they go into their labs. They pretty much have to.

Now, Who cares if science improves? All the christian converts in Africa being told not to wear condoms would probably like an AIDS cure at some point. Asteroids can be warded off with the right tech. Plagues can be cured. Who knows, The sun may be reignited or the heat death of the universe may be avoided with progress. We have thousands of years for those two scenarios. Look at the progress in the last 100 years and try to imagine what science will do to improve our lives. What if the tech to cure a plague comes a day late because religions have held us back even 1 day of scientific progress? I would claim that number to be far higher, Though it's impossible for me to currently put a real number to it.

2. Bad, Negative, And evil are all roughly equivalent in my morality. It is not a move away. Negative and positive are to better show the calculus of morality in my mind. Raping a girl would be a negative. If I could somehow know that she runs for office and puts policies in place that stops thousands of rapes that would be a positive. Raping the girl is then a net positive. A hypothetical any intellectual should be able to engage with.

People that don't want to mate being bad for society? Just let them die in a few decades. They aren't reproducing if you kill them either are they? It's easy to know which answer is most likely correct. Criminals largely understand that morally speaking they are doing wrong when they kill an innocent. Please point me to the morality that accepts the widespread killing of innocents as morally good. Besides Christians with the Amalekites and the firstborn sons of Egypt, And the flood of Noah. You define gays as having committed some sort of crime, But for that to be true you would have to be able to point to some specific negatives that come from their having sex with the same gender. You can't. Failure to reproduce is not a sin in the Bible nor is it "bad" in most moralities. Most economically advanced countries have birthrates falling to at or just below replacement level, So one could argue we will eventually get to the point where people will need to be encouraged to have children. We aren't there yet. There are plenty of immigrants we can use to reach replacement. The solution is better vetting and making our countries look better for immigrants. Who would say forcing people to bear children is a moral positive?

3. There are arguments for objective morality without god. It's not yet fully thought out even in my mind so for now I'll say most atheists have a subjective morality. It largely just depends on what people's definition of morality is.

Even if atheist morality is subjective, We can still claim the bible objectively supports slavery. There are plenty of passages in the Bible and inductive and abductive arguments that will point to this, And no real arguments I've heard against it (including your lack of an argument). My morality doesn't factor into the equation. I don't use my morality as the basis for those arguments. I use the Bible and the text therein. Being an Atheist doesn't change objective facts into subjective just because my morality may be. This is a red herring, Entirely baseless illogical argument that has no validity.

My conclusions:

My opponent has failed to respond to my claims that the Bible, Or any religious text, Is subjective because all religious texts are open to interpretation by humans. He cannot claim to have objective morality for his entire religion or any other if anyone inside that religion disagrees. His religion could be entirely true and this fact would remain. There is no reason to believe that objective morality is immediately true even if God was proven to exist and his opinion were clear. Who is to say that an evil omnipotent being could not exist? As such, There is no current objective morality that exists. My opponent is saying no religious person or atheistic individual should be able to judge each other's statements. He is saying that there is no basis for these statements.

My argument would state that since Objective Morality is currently unknown, All people can judge each other's systems. We should all be able to discuss and judge each other's systems. Only this way, With logical and intellectual debate, Can we move closer to the truth. Perhaps one day we will find Objective Morality.

There is no reason to accept that any random religious individual HAS objective morality with the current state of us being unable to prove a god, Thousands of religions, Et cetera. There is no reason to quell intellectual argument-driven debate simply because a religious individual claims, With no basis, His God is outside the universe, Outside of the realm of logic, And thus unable to be logically critiqued. We haven't seen any situations where Logic and Consistency have proven false after sufficient study. His god cannot be said to be objectively true, Or objectively outside of the realm of logic and reason. People who believe in things to which logic does not apply who try to use logic to prove that logic doesn't work on their favored entities probably don't belong in logical debate. As such, Religious judgement on atheist moral judgement has no basis whatsoever.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 4 days ago
omar2345
@Thoht

I find the Atheist objective morality a bit too much wishful thinking. Either it will be like religion where it does not matter what you think, It only matters if you believe this is moral and this is immoral because God says so or it will someone's opinion/live experiences made into fact.

Can you clarify what mean by objective morality?
Posted by Thoht 5 days ago
Thoht
Trying to agree on definitions is certainly the hard part, Because when you try to define something contrary to your opponent's definition more often than not they try to say you're redefining words, When there really is no clear definition for some words.

We're on the fringes of thought when it comes to morality, But I certainly agree with you. We have to have the discussions if we are going to eventually find the objective grounds for morality. I may try to have a debate with someone on Atheist Objective Morality, Which I haven't argued for in this one.
Posted by omar2345 5 days ago
omar2345
@Thoht

We have to agree on the foundations to even have a conversation. Like language, Definitions and how we find truth. If we do not agree then we are speaking past each other (not assuming we should do this just making it clear why it is bad to strip the foundation).

I would argue everything is subjective because we cannot perceive anything outside our perception but then where do you go from there? That is why I do not claim everything is subjective except for feelings or opinions because how do we have a debate if we cannot learn from one another?
Posted by Thoht 1 week ago
Thoht
It can be argued that everything is subjective because there's no way to prove anything is real. It really just depends on how far down the rabbit hole you go.
Posted by missmedic 1 week ago
missmedic
Logic and reason are not subjective
Posted by Thoht 1 week ago
Thoht
This is ridiculous that I can't post urls for sources. I'll just have to give yall an idea of where they came from.

1. Pew research darwin day 2017
2. Innovative design list of famous lgbt inventors
3. Wikipedia bible and slavery. Provides good sources at the end for reading and quotes bible.
4. Wikipedia or youtube euthyphro dilemma
Posted by Lex-Luthor 1 week ago
Lex-Luthor
missmedic

my point is atheist can't say anything is bad or good because of their subjectivity. Whether the bible is moral or not is another discussion, But as of for atheist they can't say it is one way or another and as such shouldn't condemn the book for being immoral, That would go against their subjective stance as they would be making objective statements on their condemnations of the book.
Posted by missmedic 1 week ago
missmedic
The book the Christian claim to be a moral guide is in fact based on authoritarianism not morality, It is a rule book of over 1000 godly commandments. We don't base morality on revelation from authority, That would render us merely obedient. Morality came first, Otherwise how does a Christian choose which commands to follow and which commands to ignore. How does a Christian deal with the punishment god has imposed for breaking his commandments, With many requiring the death penalty? Morality is innate in most all humans, Always has always will be. We don't need gods to be good or moral.
Posted by Thoht 1 week ago
Thoht
Morality tells us what is immoral. Immorality is whatever is against your morals. Nowhere do I say morality is the same thing as immorality.
Posted by vi_spex 1 week ago
vi_spex
Morality is not immorality thoht
No votes have been placed for this debate.