The Instigator
CCandyK
Con (against)
The Contender
DrAnomaly
Pro (for)

Do atheists have morals and are there any consistent in holding their beliefs?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
CCandyK has forfeited round #3.
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: 3/22/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 658 times Debate No: 111215
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

CCandyK

Con

I'm a bit of a skeptic myself, but I'd really like to know, do atheists have morals and are there any consistent in holding their beliefs?

From what I understand, the definition of morality itself is the standards of behavior; principles of right and wrong. Are there any consistent atheist at all in this world, when even Richard Dawkins says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, yet condemns the abuse and harassment of homosexuals, religious indoctrinations, human sacrifice?
DrAnomaly

Pro

First, you've not really clarified the question very well, but I hope I understand. To address your first argument, "Richard Dawkins says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, yet condemns the abuse and harassment of homosexuals, religious indoctrinations, human sacrifice?" - This is an appeal to authority. Also, I'd like to see you where you got your information from, sounds like a strawman to me...

(https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...)
(https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...)

Finally we get to the question itself. Of course they're are atheistic/secular moral systems that do not use divine command. Ever of heard of the non-aggression principle? Here watch this, I'm too lazy to write to much yet
Debate Round No. 1
CCandyK

Con

Sorry! I wasn't quite sure as to how I should've put it into words, but by morals, I mean objective morals/meaning.

See at the moment, I'm taking a philosophy and apologetics class reading the book entitled "On Guard" by William Lane Craig
who presents the argument "If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends that life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent --- for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance. "

I suppose we all can agree that we have our own common subjective goals such as marriage and wealth, but no one can say that the objective meaning of life is (for example) wealth because they too are human. It really makes things harder for me to avoid the concept and idea of an omnipotent God/being.
DrAnomaly

Pro

Sorry for posting my argument so late, I forgot to check debate.org

So, the argument you presented in a syllogistic form is...

P1. If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless
P2. Man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless
C . Therefor, for consistency and meaning to exist God must exist

I'd like to challenge the first premise. Lets go to Euthyphro's dilemma for a moment, but lets change it, instead of morality, we have meaning (which go hand in hand, but never mind that). Does life have meaning because God wills it to have meaning, or does it have meaning and God is passing on the meaning?

If the first is true, then meaning is contingent upon God's subjective opinion, thus being arbitrary and NOT objective. If the second is true, then your first premise falls upon it's own accord, as God is only passing on what is objective meaningful/moral.

Also, would you care to define objective?
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
Nicholaspanda
@CCandyK, this is likely a two-part response in addressing both questions.

1. Theoretically, no; atheists have no moral obligations for anybody to fulfill. However, I disagree with Craig's logic that all beliefs (and worldviews) have objective moral values. That is just illogical.

2. In most cases, yes. This question could be asked to a Christian, Buddhist, or in this case an atheist.
Posted by nodogma 3 years ago
nodogma
In my experience, atheist are far more thoughtful and moral than most religiously minded people--in the sense of trying to "understand" why people do what they do and why we should do this or that.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Though I don"t believe in any gods, there are many things I do believe. As a secular humanist, I believe that ethical values are derived from human needs and interests and are tested and refined by experience. Our deeds are more important than our creeds and dogmas should never override compassion for others. Personal responsibility is a good conservative principle. We should not give credit to a deity for our accomplishments or blame satanic forces when we behave badly. We should take personal responsibility for our actions. I try to live my life to its fullest " it"s the only life I have, and I hope to make a positive difference because it"s the right thing to do, not because of future rewards or punishment.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Only atheist can have moral ?.... There is a difference between 1. I shall not kill because I read it in a book. and 2. I shall not kill because I think it is wrong of multible reasons.
"consistent"...Why not ?...Anyway most pedos are probably religious and preach something else.
This debate has 0 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.