Which side makes a better case?
avatar
37 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    what about the 'golden rule of morality'.. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.. that's got nothing to do with God, right? it's a natural sense of fairness

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz That's actually a command from the Bible, "love your neighbor as yourself." So, yeah, your Golden rule is from God not from a natural instinct of fairness within humans.

    • 2 years ago

      @christianpraymond but Atheists also have that natural feeling, without believing in God. are you saying that Atheists don't get that feeling?

    • 2 years ago

      Atheists have a natural sense of conscience and guilt when they do mistakes, when they have expectation from others.. and that comes from a non-God source, so how can you say there's no moral value for actions in the world of an Atheist ?

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz feelings are subjective. One person's 'natural' feeling of something might be different from another's 'natural' feeling. Atheists might get a feeling, but the fact is "love your neighbor as yourself" is written in Scripture which what I was referring to.

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz yes, humans were created with a conscience, a soul. The Bible says that the Law of God has been written on the hearts or consciences of men. Any feeling of guilt or morality comes from that source of morality, God's word.

    • 2 years ago

      @christianpraymond i am not denying that it's written in the Scripture.. but just because it is, doesn't mean it's only applicable for the Scripture.

      Even if a natural positive, desirable feeling is different from one person to another, if these 2 persons identify it as 'positive', then it makes it better, good.
      We cannot say something 'doesn't matter' if it triggers a natural feeling ,even if it varies from one person to another ..

    • 2 years ago

      @christianpraymond so where does the feeling of guilt for an Atheist come from? it's real, we know it's real, Atheists feel real guilt and you can't deny that, because they can feel it, collectively.. so where does this feeling of guilt come from for an Atheist?

    • 2 years ago

      @christianpraymond It's absurd to say that if you're not a Christian, nothing matters to you. Things do still matter to you, in the same way my dog prefers not to be kicked. It matters to the dog, regardless of that dogs idea of "objective" morality. The dog still has feelings, and you can call them subjective, but they still exist. Humans are the same, even if there is no God, we have things we prefer. We can then extend out from ourselves to others, who have the same preferences, and eventually we can create systems of laws that give these preferences to ourselves.

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz I already answered that. An atheist's feeling of guilt comes from the same place a non-atheist's feeling of guilt comes from: the conscience which God designed. The fact that they are atheists doesn't change the fact that God created them. :relaxed:

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz I'd say, Feel free to go back in time and encourage my abortion. :P It highlights one of the challenges of the personhood of a fetus. If it can't represent itself in society due to its condition, then it becomes very hard to apply reciprocity or most any other moral principle which are conceived for a social cooperative situation.

      I think the best secular approach is to ask if you have a wanted child and someone proposes to kill it, are they hurting the child or you as a prospective parent, or both? I think a woman who wants a pregnancy will tend to think of the child as a person more than simply a potential for being a parent. Then again, women who have had many miscarriages may not feel that way. They may look at it as not really a child until it has some security of birth.

    • 2 years ago

      @cpraymond What would you say about a psychopath who has no feelings of guilt. Are they an intentional omission by God or an error? Or do you deny that is possible because it doesn't fit scripture?

    • 2 years ago

      \\It's absurd to say that if you're not a Christian, nothing matters to you\\

      That isn't the argument, actually. Stuff might matter in your opinion, but your opinion doesn't matter. Our emotions and values don't actually create reality. The stuff you think matters doesn't actually matter in reality.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried indeed

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz The interesting thing about what you describe is, “do onto others as they would have do onto you” is often referred to as the law of reciprocity. It’s found in many moral codes all across the globe.

    • 2 years ago

      @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance precisely.. it's far from being a religious moral code.. unless we are going with the argument that the sense of fairness of reciprocity comes from God even for Atheists, as @cpraymond was saying which i don't buy

  • 2 years ago

    @rhology Just wanted to compliment the clarity of your speaking and argumentation. Very nice.

  • 2 years ago

    This is a little disappointing because Con wants to first establish the truth of worldviews before he will discuss cases for morality. I disagree that it is the most important line of reasoning. I want to hear about the topic, not philosophical worldviews.

    That turns any and all debates into a "is Christianity real" debate. That's rather boring, at least to me. I like the debate arguments to reflect the topic.

    Ahhh were getting somewhere at 15:20 --- nope I guess not. We are back to challenges to moral standards, nothing yet as to why Con has his position. I know Pro is defending his position, but boy do I want him to have a go at questioning Con's side. We don't yet even know what he thinks is the central issue of Abortion. He hasn't stated it yet, I can guess, but I'd like to know.

    I invite @rhology to watch this debate as it's much more in keeping with the debate he's trying to have or seems to be trying to have.
    https://www.qallout.com/debate/3275-morality-is-always-subjective
    and its sequel
    https://www.qallout.com/debate/3293-morality-is-subjective-part-2-metaphysical-boogaloo

    Well, I'm satisfied that @debateme13 has moved to defending/attacking on the worldview, it may not be the topic but at least we have conflict to listen to. For that, you get a win on the topic since Con basically doesn't engage in it. :D

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I actually get what he's saying though, because if there is no God and that means there's no morality, then the central question of abortion is the central question of anything else, "so what".

      Of course, there still would be morality, it's just a system of morality derived from the self and from society rather than claiming objective morality from your deity, hence his position is wrong.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 It's a very flawed argument he makes. The main reason is this...

      His critique of other worldviews is based on his own worldview. So he's taking standards from a theist worldview (aka that all morality is objective and no other morality has meaning) and then using it as a critique to say that your worldview can't make a moral judgment.

      But in your worldview morality simply isn't objective, it pretty well can't be. Instead, it is based on subjective judgments or on a search for some kind of objective but making due with the best reasoning available in the meantime.

      Basically, he's demanding you justify your moral authority under his universe where God is Sovereign. Or at least that's my take on what he's doing here.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried True haha. There's a part near the end where I'm like "why should I accept your worldview of what my worldview should be?" lol there's a clear alternative to having to accept his version of his worldview on my worldview.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried \\That turns any and all debates into a "is Christianity real" debate. That's rather boring\\

      Not if you love Jesus. :-)

    • 2 years ago

      \\His critique of other worldviews is based on his own worldview\\

      Wrong. Very, very wrong.
      I tried, in fact, to be very clear in my turns to talk that I was taking on @debateme13 's presuppositions. Obviously his worldview is wrong, on my worldview. That goes without saying. I was showing that given HIS presuppositions, his value judgments are groundless.

    • 2 years ago

      \\he's demanding you justify your moral authority under his universe where God is Sovereign\\

      No, I was demanding he justify it given his own presuppositions.
      And once he had been reduced to absurdity numerous times, I invited him to repent and and follow Jesus, the true King of the universe.

    • 2 years ago

      @rhology Well first of all, telling me to repent and turn to Jesus isn't gonna work when you didn't even prove the first thing about Jesus in this debate. I actually have 48 pages of evidence, mostly bible verses, detailing the reasons I left Christianity in the first place. The amount of contradictions is just too much for anyone who genuinely cares about the truth. And even if Christianity was the truth, you didn't show anything about that here.

      Secondly, your idea of what an atheist worldview requires is really really weak. Like, you're so utterly certain atheists must believe your warped view, that you completely fail to recognize that atheists don't need objective morality to create useful morality. As I repeatedly tried to explain to you, all people have preferences. They start from within us as individuals, and stem out to society as a whole. When individuals join society, they agree to abide by society's standards, which are a system of morals. This is why rationality is so important to atheists or agnostics, because it is the code from which morality will be determined, debated, and enforced. The moral system an atheist creates will not be 100% accurate, since that will be up for debate, but they still can and do create moral codes, many of which stem from natural law. You weren't able to respond to the fact that animals have natural inclinations to remain alive, as do humans. This is why society creates moral codes to protect itself and each individual person.

      Atheists don't have OBJECTIVE morality, nor do they claim to. But atheists do recognize morality, out of what is best for society. It isn't even a controversial claim to say that atheists create moral systems to protect what is best for society. What is controversial is the question "what is best for society?" because that is subjective, but what is not in question is that atheists can and do ask that question. Then an atheist society answers that question to the best ability of humanity, through debate, politics, philosophy, and the like, enabling them to come to rational conclusions on what should be considered moral. Atheists don't have the same morals as you, but they sure as hell do have morals.

      Third, you don't actually have objective morality either. You're so certain that you have access to objective morality, but you don't. No matter what you do, you are still finite, as are any of the people who will try to enforce your system of supposedly "objective" morality, even though that "objective" system has led to 30,000+ different interpretations of God's word, numerous different moral claims and ideas, and a multitude of different government options. This idea that because you have a moral lawgiver you have objective morality is ludicrous. The only one who knows objective morality (assuming it exists) is the moral lawgiver himself. Anyone trying to implement that objective morality will be necessarily limited by their finite nature.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 \\telling me to repent and turn to Jesus isn't gonna work\\

      You don't know the future. For all you know, you'll be born again two seconds from now.
      All due respect, and I enjoyed our debate, but you make confident assertions of stuff for which you have zero backing, and you do it a lot.


      \\ when you didn't even prove the first thing about Jesus in this debate\\

      Why would I? That wasn't the topic of the debate. And it's on you if you haven't examined the evidence. For example, the hundreds and hundreds of debates free on YouTube in which atheists get routinely blown into smithereens by the Christian debater. It's well over 90% victory rate in favor of the Christians, even the dumb ones and classical apologists. I have ingested many hundreds of those debates. Can only think of a handful in which the atheist didn't lose convincingly.


      \\I actually have 48 pages of evidence, mostly bible verses, detailing the reasons I left Christianity in the first place\\

      I'd be interested in seeing those; my guess is that a good deal of those verses simply express things you find distasteful rather than being real rational reasons not to submit to Jesus' kingship.
      And you didn't leave Christianity. You were never part of it.


      \\The amount of contradictions is just too much for anyone\\

      My personal rule is to entertain a skeptic's 5 favorite contradictions to see if he has any merit to his claim. I'd like to see your own favorite 5. If any of them stick, you'd be the first I've seen of many. If none of them stick, I'll feel perfectly safe ignoring your claim as empty.



      \\ for anyone who genuinely cares about the truth\\

      For those keeping score at home, there is no reason to value the pursuit of or adherence to true beliefs if Jesus is not Lord. If you disagree, I'd like you to explain why in a non-question-begging way, b/c all you did in the debate was beg the question over and over.


      \\ you're so utterly certain atheists must believe your warped view\\

      You misunderstand. I'm taking atheistic systems to their logical conclusions. If you want to be consistent, you'll agree with me or show where I'm wrong (but I'm not wrong). Not that it matters. If Jesus isn't Lord, nothing matters.


      \\that you completely fail to recognize that atheists don't need objective morality to create useful morality\\

      You have no teleos, no goal; you don't know what is useful. All you have is what SEEMS useful TO YOU. But your thoughts and wishes don't create reality. You may think X is useful; that doesn't make it actually useful in reality. It just means you chose to place your blind faith in its utility, without evidence beyond other blind faith assumptions.


      \\all people have preferences\\

      Why think I was unaware of that? What you need to explain is WHY THAT MATTERS. Which is why I repeatedly asked you to prove it matters, and you didn't. All you did was repeat yourself.


      \\When individuals join society, they agree to abide by society's standards\\

      1) Um, no they don't. I never signed any sort of compact when I was born.
      2) So what?


      \\This is why rationality is so important to atheists or agnostics, because it is the code from which morality will be determined, debated, and enforced\\

      None of that is relevant. I want to know WHY you pick the values you pick.
      Actually, I know why - you're made in the image of God. But if atheism is true, there is no reason to prefer one value over another. Raping children and loving children bears the same moral value - zero. So why love them? Why not rape them? You haven't answered that. You just went to the old (lame) standby "Are you saying you'd rape and murder if you were an atheist?" Come now; think it thru. You're smart enough. Answer the question directly.


      \\The moral system an atheist creates will not be 100% accurate\\

      The atheist has no means to determine whether his morality is even 0.00000000001% accurate.


      \\they still can and do create moral codes\\

      So?


      \\many of which stem from natural law\\

      You use "natural law" as shorthand to try to smokescreen the fact that you're leaping over the IS/OUGHT gap without an argument. It doesn't work.


      \\ You weren't able to respond to the fact that animals have natural inclinations to remain alive, as do humans\\

      Look, all due respect, but I didn't try because
      1) you were avoiding my questions
      2) you were steamrolling me and monopolising the time in the final half of the debate.
      Honestly, the way you steamrolled me and the amount of time you spent unnecessarily elaborating on things you'd already said and repeating yourself has convinced me that any future QO debates I do, at least with you, maybe with anyone, will be in the timed-segment format.

      Besides, that fact is irrelevant. So what if animals and humans have inclinations? Get me to your OUGHT from that IS. I've asked like 10 times now. It's pretty clear you can't.


      \\ But atheists do recognize morality, out of what is best for society\\

      "what is best for soci

    • 2 years ago

      \\ But atheists do recognize morality, out of what is best for society\\

      "what is best for society" begs the question.


      \\but what is not in question is that atheists can and do ask that question.\\

      So what?


      \\enabling them to come to rational conclusions on what should be considered moral\\

      How do you know their conclusions are rational? Based on what?


      \\they sure as hell do have morals.\\

      So what?


      \\you don't actually have objective morality either.\\

      God doesn't change, and neither does His Law. Yes, I do.


      \\No matter what you do, you are still finite,\\

      That would be an excellent point if my morality were based in any way on me.


      \\even though that "objective" system has led to 30,000+ different interpretations of God's word\\

      Category error.


      \\The only one who knows objective morality (assuming it exists) is the moral lawgiver himself\\

      This is a good argument against Deism, but not against biblical Christianity.

    • 2 years ago

      @rhology I’ll respond more in depth later, but for the moment I just wanted to apologize for “steamrolling”. I watched the debate back and you’re right, over the last 15 minutes, I do take about 2/3rds of the time.

      I mean, part of me also doesn’t mind that because your argument was nothing more than “so what” and I kept trying to answer that from numerous different perspectives while you just called them all the same thing, which made it an impossible debate in the first place. But at the same time, I’ve been on the other side of someone hogging the mic and it is frustrating, so I do apologize for that, it wasn’t intentional.

    • 2 years ago

      @rhology You are not in his world view. In his world view, morality is not defined by a universal standard, it is based on personal and social standards. Those the the highest available human authority so they decide moral issues. When you say "so what", you are judging that based on your universal standards. In a secular worldview, such a standard is just fantasy.

      What you are doing is smuggling one worldviews defiition of morality into the other and using it as a measuring stick. It's like taking a real life buldozer into a doll house and saying. "see, this doesn't fit here"

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 class :clap_tone2:

    • 2 years ago

      @rhology you too, class. Sensitive debate very well handled by both of you

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 Apology accepted, thank you.
      FTR, my argument AT THAT TIME of the debate was "so what" because you kept making unsubstantiated moral value judgments and begging the question. "So what?" is a legitimate answer to the things you were saying. Sometimes less is more.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried \\You are not in his world view\\

      Believe me, I know. Very few are.


      \\In his world view, morality is not defined by a universal standard\\

      Which is why my critiques carry the power they do. I was reducing his view to absurdity. Raping children has the same moral value as educating them - zero.


      \\Those the the highest available human authority so they decide moral issues\\

      1) Actually, that's Jesus.
      2) But on his worldview, he (and you) have yet to prove that "authority" is a thing. That needs to be proven and not assumed.


      \\When you say "so what", you are judging that based on your universal standards\\

      Not at all. If I were judging that based on my standards (ie, the Bible), I'd cite chapter and verse of the Bible. Saying "so what" is a reductio on HIS presuppositions. I'm actually being a lot more consistent with his presuppositions than he is.


      \\In a secular worldview, such a standard is just fantasy.\\

      ALL standards are fantasy.


      \\What you are doing is smuggling one worldviews defiition of morality into the other and using it as a measuring stick\\

      No no no, that is what HE is doing when he acts like raping children is better than educating them. He is borrowing from my worldview.

    • 2 years ago

      @rhology So to respond more in depth.

      The thing you're not getting is that you assume there is either objective morality, or there is nothing. You think you're taking atheists beliefs to their logical end, but what Yaz and Sigfried and I are all telling you is that you've missed an obvious logical step, which makes this entire perspective incredibly weak.

      There can be morality, even if it isn't 100% "objective" morality. This is the crucial thing you're missing. A subjective morality is still a system of morality. The goals and methods are up for debate, but they still are a system of morality.

      You say that one would have no specifically ordained telos or goal, that it would be based on personal thoughts and wishes. YES! Exactly! But that's why it isn't "objective" morality. It is based in reason, and on the evidence of the world around us, which has observable characteristics.

      We recognize that all creatures by nature, desire to be alive, desire to have food, desire lots of things. It's simply foolish to act like these desires are a "so what" when clearly, even at the most animalistic levels, these things are naturally preferred, and there are clear measures that humans can undertake to better afford these things to ourselves. There are clear systems of morality that can be created and adhered to which further the natural goals of the species.

      And then when you say you somehow think that doesn't matter, it's like your personal bias toward a bad argument is preventing you from seeing that which is obvious. At the most fundamental level, it matters, because it is the natural goal of humanity, and really of any species, to survive and thrive.

      When I explained society I was talking about how society's are initially formed. Today the default tends to be living in society, but at least initially they were created as means of protection and benefit for the individual.

      "None of that is relevant. I want to know WHY you pick the values you pick."
      This was answered over and over and over again. The reason is because we have a natural desire to preserve our species, just like any other creature. We have natural desires to eat and be comfortable and not be killed. You say I'm repeating myself, but that's because you're ignoring the answer. Beavers create dams because it betters their existence, and they aren't even rational. Dolphins have systems of emotions and cultural norms. Humans are more rationally advanced than any other animal, so of course we will come to systems of morality that will improve the living standards and quality of life for our fellow man.

      If atheism is true, the reason to prefer one value over another is because of the logical effects and measurable results. When you say there isn't even .000000001% certainty, this is just clearly wrong. If a set of morals lead to the species continuation, that is necessarily better than a set of morals that lead to the species collapse.

      I use natural law to refer to the blatantly obvious fact that all species have an instinctual desire to exist.

      Your usage of the is/ought problem is completely wrong. The reason the is/ought problem works, at least under it's proper application, is because it shows that objective morality cannot be claimed by atheists, which is why I never did that. But atheists absolutely can point to measurably preferable (and yes, subjective) results, from which to base systems of morality. Just because it's subjective, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unless you can prove that a system of morality created by atheists doesn't even exist, you have no argument.

      Then you say that "God doesn't change" which is totally irrelevant. You completely miss the crucial problem with your own worldview. You are assuming your finite mind has correctly interpreted the scriptures, when 30,000 different variants of Christians have all said exactly the same, and all of them have reached different conclusions. It makes no difference if you have an absolute moral lawgiver, your interpretation of that moral law will be necessarily finite, because you (or any human who tries to implement the moral law) are necessarily finite.

      You cannot have objective morality, because you cannot ever be God. Even if everything went right for you, and 100% of your interpretation is magically inspired, then you still wouldn't even have access to absolute morality, because not even the tiniest percentage of absolute morality is contained within the bible. It doesn't have the answers to everything, since infinity can't fit in the pages of a book. The only being who would actually be able to access absolute morality is an infinite one. All you can claim to access (and not with 100% authenticity either) is a sliver of that absolute morality.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 \\The thing you're not getting is that you assume there is either objective morality, or there is nothing. \\

      I specifically denied that and clarified my meaning in the debate and in this combox.


      \\A subjective morality is still a system of morality.\\

      I specifically affirmed that and clarified my meaning in the debate and in this combox.


      \\You say that one would have no specifically ordained telos or goal, that it would be based on personal thoughts and wishes. YES! Exactly! But that's why it isn't "objective" morality.\\

      Which means that "you can't kill it if it's human life in the mother's womb" only matters if the individual person cares about killing life or not.
      But you kept indicating that it is bad to kill baby humans, which means you deny the premise with your other arguments that you affirm here. IOW, you're being a hypocrite.


      \\We recognize that all creatures by nature, desire to be alive, desire to have food, desire lots of things\\

      So what?


      \\ It's simply foolish to act like these desires are a "so what" when clearly, even at the most animalistic levels, these things are naturally preferred\\

      So what if it's foolish?
      Is there some objective moral compunction that we have to not be foolish? Some objective moral value by which we can know that being non-foolish is better than being foolish?
      SHOULD we care about adhering to true beliefs?


      \\ further the natural goals of the species. \\

      I haven't seen the studies that empirically proved that "goals" exist. Please cite them. Of what are "goals" composed? What is their mass? Their chemical composition? Do "goals" grow somewhere? Are they produced within stars? Did asteroids seed our planet with them?


      \\ it matters, because it is the natural goal of humanity, and really of any species, to survive and thrive. \\

      That's YOUR goal. Nothing says anyone else has to agree with it.
      Further, a pregnant mother may (and lots do; spend some time at an abortion mill sometime) say that her survival depends on aborting the child. Doesn't sound like you'd have a reply.


      \\means of protection and benefit for the individual.\\

      Assumes the goodness of protection.
      Begs the question by using weasel words as a synonym for "good" like "benefit".


      \\Beavers create dams because it betters their existence\\

      More weasel words.


      \\improve the living standards and quality of life for our fellow man\\

      Still more.


      \\If atheism is true, the reason to prefer one value over another is because of the logical effects and measurable results.\\

      Unless one has different personal goals, and you'd have no way to contradict. You can only try to force the person to change.


      \\If a set of morals lead to the species continuation, that is necessarily better than a set of morals that lead to the species collapse. \\

      So not-collapse is objectively better than collapse.
      You just contradicted your whole argument.


      \\I use natural law to refer to the blatantly obvious fact that all species have an instinctual desire to exist. \\

      OK, yes, I had the feeling we had semantic misunderstandings there. "Natural law" in Christian theology is a different thing. THankfully, it didn't sidetrack the debate much, as we got back into mutual understanding soon.


      \\But atheists absolutely can point to measurably preferable\\

      PReferable BY THEM. But no way to impress that preference on anyone else.


      \\Unless you can prove that a system of morality created by atheists doesn't even exist, you have no argument.\\

      Nonsense. It doesn't seem that you yet grasp my arguments.


      \\Then you say that "God doesn't change" which is totally irrelevant. \\

      It has everything to do with the internal coherence of my position.


      \\You are assuming your finite mind has correctly interpreted the scriptures, when 30,000 different variants\\

      Sorry, but I'm not assuming that. I have spent years in deep and heavy convo with knowledgeable adherents of many many different faiths. It isn't an assumption. It is a conclusion. I know where their mistakes are.


      More later.

  • 2 years ago

    The con must be trolling.