Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
AKmath2
Pro (for)
The Contender
MrMaestro
Con (against)

Athiests Cannot Truly Be Moral

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
AKmath2 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 801 times Debate No: 121008
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

AKmath2

Pro

A genius dialogue I once overheard,
"Can athiests be moral people? "
"Sure, Athiests can be moral peopl; but you can also build a house with no foundation. You better hope the ground never shakes. "

Without any foundation or final say in what's wrong or right, Athiests cannot truly know what they beleive is wrong or right.
MrMaestro

Con

Now I've argued both sides of the Atheism debate, However this particular argument never sat well with me. In the spirit of the debate, I'm gonna try and steer away from attacking specific scriptures or beleifs, And instead focus on making an argument with pure reason.

Let's start by assuming your right. The next logical question is, are all religions equally moral?

If yes,
then how can we explain that different religions encourage different kinds of morals? This would mean morality is inconsistant.
If no, then you really meant to say "all religions which are not my religion do not provide a solid basis for morality". This is a problematic statement by itself.

I'll let my opponent decide.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
im actually not sure what or who yall are arguing against, I was talking to someone else.

as to the exegeting of the bible and understanding the nature of God you will have to ask me directly.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Hmmmm, Can an inept pseudo-christian named AKmath2 be moral within the USA society, If he actually followed his primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible like his Yahweh god so prescribes in the passage below?

The brutal serial killer Yahweh god of the Christian faith tells the pseudo-christian to do the following: "If your own full brother, Or your son or daughter, Or your beloved wife, Or you intimate friend, Entices you secretly to serve other gods, Whom you and your fathers have not known, Gods of any other nations, Near at hand or far away, From one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, Nor look with pity upon him, To spare or shield him, BUT KILL HIM. Your hand shall be the first raised to SLAY HIM; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall STONE HIM TO DEATH, Because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, Your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, That place of slavery. And all Israel, Hearing of this, Shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

Now, To save time, And further embarrassment to the inept pseudo-christian, DO NOT, And I repeat, DO NOT state the same old ruse that you don't have to follow the Old Testament anymore, Okay? If you do, This shows your continued biblical ignorance of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Whereas, Jesus specifically states that every pseudo-christian is to follow the Old Testament at all times, Period.

" It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, Than with a brawling woman in a wide house. " (Proverbs 21:9)
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
"The greatest failings of the Christian moral philosophy is that it is dogmatic, Immutable and certain. "
Dogmatic? Considering that it's impossible to tell what is right and what is wrong according to the Bible, It's obvious that contradicting things cannot be dogmatic as well.
Immutable? Maybe the text of the Bible didn't change much over time. But this also means it didn't improve. And again, The contradiction issue, Where God forbids killing, But also commands killing. The contradiction is a logical fallacy, As it is impossible to tell which side of the story is true, If they are mutually exclusive. Make of that what you want.
Certain? Well, Maybe you are certain that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one, While different interpretations of the same book are the wrong ones.
But once you eliminate all the contradictions in the Bible, There is very little moral law that is left that is not contradicting.

"Faith-based morals are what they are " they can"t be corrected through thought and experience. "
I prefer proof-based morals where we set the standard of values that are most important(like suffering and happiness) and we make other morals according to that standard.

"Christians prove the innate morality of humans when they use it to filter the rules in their rule book"
"Because there is no way you can follow all the rules in the rule book (AKA the bible) and call yourself moral. "
Oh, So you do not follow all the rules in the Bible? I am surprised. How do you know which ones to follow and which ones to not? Let me guess, Those who make you look bad, You refuse to follow? Understandable.

"The law was put in place to lead us to christ. "
Actually, The more I read the Bible and it's laws, The less I believe in Christ or your God.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
The greatest failings of the Christian moral philosophy is that it is dogmatic, Immutable and certain. Faith-based morals are what they are " they can"t be corrected through thought and experience.
Christians prove the innate morality of humans when they use it to filter the rules in their rule book, Because there is no way you can follow all the rules in the rule book (AKA the bible) and call yourself moral. You will find that the more you know the less you believe, And a perfect god would know that too.

God was aware of that, The law was put in place to lead us to christ. You misunderstand being a jew from being a christian. A jew follows old testament law, A christian believes on Jesus to justify and keep them regardless of law.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
I have to correct myself again.
When I say that morals are non-theoretical, I don't mean they are not ideas or thoughts. I simply mean they are not written in text or created in images outside our brains.
The image of a mountain that fails to present mountain correctly, Or is drawn incorrectly, Is not a correct representation of that mountain.
Text that is filled with lies about some place is not a a text that is a correct representation of that place.
But with morals, Things are different, As morals are not representation of anything. So to call them correct or not, Doesn't really lead us anywhere.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
Also, By irrefutable proof for morals, I don't mean proof for their existence. It's obvious that morals exist in our heads. My best way to make sense of this is to define irrefutable proof for morals as proof that they are the actual morals which we will have as long as we live and that we will be happiest with. I can't define it as correct morals, Because the opposite word "incorrect" can only be used to describe theory or representations of reality. Morals are something non-theoretical and real in our head. They are not representation of any reality, To be called correct or incorrect in representing reality. And calling them correct would be as calling reality real, As the only way they would be correct is if they are real, And we know the are real in our heads.
So questions like "How do you know your morals are true/right/correct", Are best answered with no answer. I know my morals are true now, As they exist in my head. They might change later, Disappear, Other morals may replace them and be true instead of them. There is no honest answer to the question "how do you know it's true", Unless the answer is "I don't know". The truth is, You can hardly know that anything is true.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
It may be true that atheists cannot truly be moral, If by "truly moral", We assume those morals who never change or have irrefutable proof for them.
But again, This doesn't affect just atheists. It also affects religious people, As they don't have irrefutable proof for their morals as well, And their morals change too from childhood to adulthood as they better and better understand the Bible, Or think about God.

If you would put something like "People can't truly be moral", I would support you.
But putting the word "Atheist" is a pure attack on atheism in an attempt to make atheists feel bad about themselves and putting them down.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
What non sense. .
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
Look at all crimes committed by the religious, And if you look secular nations have much lower levels of crime
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Typo "Atheism is Not the proposition" is what I meant to say.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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