Should the Bible be used as a moral compass?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.
So for example, if my moral system defined intelligence as the valuable trait in humans, by logical extension any being with intelligence is also valuable.
However, consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like.
So back to that example it may be consistent however if intelligence is the trait than by logical extension, mentally challenged people also aren't valuable.
To summarize, a good moral system is consistent and doesn't lead to absurdity both of which the Bible lacks which will be elaborated on by me later.
Rules:
- Keep it civil
- This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality
- We're going to be examining the Bibles morality, the Bible does have a place in a modern society in the form of studying for academic purposes. Similar to Hitlers books and killers manifestos.
Pretty simple debate topic, if I left any rules or definitions you feel I should have clarified I urge you to tell me so that I may clarify.
Con offers three key rules of morality from the bible, which within the context they are objectively horrible. Pro tried to counter with an appeal to the cosmological argument (I suspect he meant to use Divine Command Theory), but failed to suggest any reason why it's relevant to this debate, or that we should use the bible, or any way con's offered counter evidence against those morals should be rejected or reinterpreted.
So con's argument stands wholly uncontested, and pro never makes one (a vague assertion is not an argument).
Arguments
~~~~~~~~~
Con proves God to be destructive via relishing in destroying Israel if need be among other lines quoted from the Bible. Pro's rebuttal was LITERALLY that because something can't come from itself that therefore there is a need for the Bible to be used as a moral compass. If you think it makes no sense, that's because it doesn't.
In Round 2, Con annihilates Pro's Kalam-esque case for the Christian God by both sandwiching Pro in between needing to prove other Gods than the Bible's God false while simultaneously needing to prove the God of the Bible correct and necessary to existence. Pro was left checkmated at this point and nothing resembling actual debate continues from there on.
============
Sources
~~~~~~
Only Con used sources and it was to back up terrible Bible verses existing which is superior to what Pro did which was use 0 sources.
============
Spelling and Grammar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The entirety of Pro's R1 was incoherent to the extent that so many times where a comma was actually needed, it wasn't used but sometimes when it was used it was arguably correct, rarely...
Let me give you some examples:
Soft-error #1: "Before the universe, there was nothing."
This is the most grammatically correct part of Pro's entire R1 and it still is written off-kilter. Before the universe... There was nothing... either add in the word 'began' or 'came into existence' before the comma or don't use a comma at all then. This was an acceptable sentence but if you compound it with the other errors it builds up why it was confusing.
Hard-self-made-error #2: " Nothing, and only nothing can "
This beginning of the sentence could be written simply as "Only nothing can" but since it was written like that, the error was to not put another comma after the second 'nothing'. This is not a soft-error at all, it severely confused even Pro himself such that in Round 2 he conceded he hadn't conveyed what he even meant.
Hard-inevitable-error #3: "Nothing, and only nothing can come from nothing, as logic says."
So, if you continue from error #2, we now have the sentence actually reading that "Nothing as logic says and only nothing can come from nothing." This is literally what the sentence reads if you correctly extrapolate the commas.
I am a genius and understood exactly what Pro was arguing but if I wasn't, I know I would struggle. I see things systematically but most humans read English grammatically, following the sentence left-to-right etc. I skim read and piece together puzzles in my head and even then it was confusing what Pro was saying because Pro basically seemed to be building a case that God was logically impossible to have come from nothing, which contradicts his side.
Hard-error #4: "in this nothing, there is"
If Pro had literally just removed that comma, so much more about the sentence before and after would make sense to most people. Because of that comma, the 'there' is severely confusing and the entire case began to become fuddled.#
===========
Conduct
~~~~~~~
Tied, Pro was lazy but Con wasn't harshly offended or mistreated.
I think it is nearly impossible to win this debate as Pro. Even Christians would be warry of presenting the bible as a moral compass. Pro committed intellectual seppuku making no connection to using the bible as a moral compass other than it was formed. Of course the world was formed and all sorts of books were formed as Pro states but I wouldn't be able to write this if I didn't read them, and understand that we don't use them as a moral compass because they exist so I found that unconvincing. Con's arguments that "sexism is repulsive" from a potential interpretation of a passage about women being quiet in church goes unabated. Any fool can pick up the bible and justify all sorts of things to themselves, and that's an adequate example for these purposes.
Do outlines a series of points of why the morality of the Bible should not be followed as a moral compass. These were all ignored by pro and must be accepted on their face..
Pros counter argument was irrelebant to the resolution - in that even if I accepted everything he said as true it did not show the resolution was correct. As a result, con clearly wins arguments.
"Women Should Shut Up in Church: 1st Corinthians 14:34 NASB"
Been there. Done that.
"The Wealthy Will Be Condemned by God: James 5:1-5 NASB"
Solomon, anyone?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Snoopy // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See vote
Reason for Mod Action> Arguments are sufficient as per the voting guidelines.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments, 1 point to pro cod conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con did not explicitly say they are conceding, but it was implied by their final round being "Okay," agreeing to how they were soundly defeated (not that they ever challenged why stoning girls to death and such is a bad thing).
Con, I suggest making your quotes bold or italic to make them stand out better from the surrounding text.
Reason for Mod Action> This vote would have been sufficient for a concession, but upon review, as the debater did not clearly and unambiguously concede the debate, I don’t think it can clearly be treated as such for the purposes of moderation.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: Bite my shiny metal ass. Pinkfreud started this first, so returning the favor.
Proof:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1113
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049
Reason for Mod Action> Revenge votes are absolutely unacceptable and completely disallowed.
*******************************************************************
Deleted my vote since its gonna get deleted by mods anyways no matter what. It never fails. Anyways, here in the comments, I will vote for Con. Pro put no effort into making arguments and ignored Pro's entire case in Round 1.
Hi Al0ne, welcome to the site; before you can vote you must have completed 2 debates, or 100 forum posts, and have read the code of conduct (I have provided a link below).
To try and make sure votes are fair and impartial, we have list of requirements you need to use to construct a reason for you voting decision, simply saying one side is better is not enough as of means anyone would be able to vote against s position or person they didn’t like. It’s important that debates are not simply popularity contests - either for the position or the person. This goes make it harder and more arduous to vote, but does try and make it so the better debater wins. Because of this, I’m afraid I’m going to have to remove your vote.
That said, welcome to the site!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Al0ne // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points for sources and arguments.
>Reason for Decision: Con definently won this.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
The vote is insufficient, the voter should review the voting requirements section of the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
How do I vote?
Ask bsh1, Virtuoso or Ramshutu how to vote.
Simply put those names I just mentioned into the "Recievers" and ask them "How do I vote?"
If you want to put 3 at a time do this "bsh1, Virutoso, Ramshutu"
Good luck folks. I'm going to get my popcorn, lol!
Oops, looks like I missed out. I'm curious to see how the Pro side presents their arguments (since this would have been my position had I accepted quick enough.)
Okay thanks.
No, Pinkfreud would make the first argument. Just hurry up and accept the debate before someone else does
If I accept the Pro side of the debate, would I get the first argument?
Assuming you're asking again, I am taking the con position.
You're not rude, I'm just curious what your position is on the debate and whether I want to accept your challenge.
Not to be rude or anything but on the debate itself I took the Con position.
Excuse me, friend, are you taking the Pro stance that, Yes, the Bible should be used as a moral compass? I'm a bit confused based on what you said in the Description; it sounds like you are taking the Con position. Maybe I misunderstood?
ok than
You have misinterpreted your own definitions. Hopefully you improve your reading compregension skills and ability to write in a coherent fashion before responding to my arguments otherwise this will be an easy win for me but a frustrating debate for voters to read through.
Yeah ok then I mean if you don't want to accept the dictionary definitions of the terms and don't want to listen to reason that's on you.
Also, I am pretty sure you're trolling at this point ( and judging from your win-loss ratio and past debates this is most likely the case ). You do understand that socialization can also mean socialistic policies right? Even if you were correct you're just playing word games at this point.
You're pathetic attempts to insult me have only outlined that you truly have no argument or counter-argument and are instead trying to win by use of personal insults ( which aren't even valid since I proved your poorly constructed hypothesis wrong ).
What the hell did I think I was going to get when somebody thinks the definition of socialisation is to implement socialistic policies instead of meaning to "talk to people".
I broke down the definitions to you in an understandable way and you are still confused by them. This is just getting silly
You actually misinterpreted your own definitions lol and I even accepted the one fron the random user on stack exchange. I've debated dozens of timea on objective morality. I know what it is. You are confused and doubling down instead of trying to understand. I have read your other debates though and see the comprehension thing and incoherence is a common problem with you. It is not an insult. Just the truth.
I mean they're not to my whims I want to debate and have an open mind whether or not the bible is moral or not.
Alright so now you're not only ignoring the definitions I sited which I explained in a pretty simple and easy to understand way, but now you're resorting to baseless personal insults.
Alright, now. Keep it civil.
You are honestly having a hard time understanding the definitions you, yourself googled and provided. I think it is due to reading comprehension problems and a low IQ. I tried my best to dumb down the definitions to a level you would understand but I could not dumb them down enough. You can go to the philosophy portion of the forums and ask about it there, but I get a feeling your comprehension ability will prevent you from understanding what people are telling you there as well.
No, I wasn't implying that morality is objective with that question. No, I'm not playing word games.
Putting aside the flawed idea that the bible should interpreted to your subjective whims, Christianity is not about getting outcomes we like.
So it seems you're just playing word games, are you implying that morality is objective?
Ok, so you are completely going to ignore the countless definitions of it I've cited to you and instead make up your own definitions which have little to do with objective and subjective morality.
The situations and semantics of the statements have nothing to do with this.
Objective morality means the morality is inarguable and it's a fact.
So under an objective morality system if murder happened to be wrong and I stated,
" Murder is right"
Well under that system since it's objective morality that statement is incorrect.
Under a subjective morality system, that statement would be arguable hence why I am clarifying that this debate will assume God's morality is subjective as inarguable and not a fact.
I am having a hard time understanding why you believe this is so troubling when these are established definitions and am having a hard time why you're making up your own definitions for these words.
I mean the definition I cited literally states that objective morality is implying the morality is a fact.
"Ok well just because it's subjective doesn't mean we cannot examine the morality to see whether or not it should be taken as a moral compass."
-PinkFreud
Wouldn't a compass ordinarily have an objective reference?
Qhat's said right now is that you are being ignorant. The bible can be completely fake and the norality could be provably wrong and it would still be objective morality espoused in the bible. This is not that difficult to understand except for the fact you think describing a system of ethics as being objective morality means you are claiming it holds some sort of truth. How this is written if your opponent even stated "tThe bible claims murder is wrong" he would be violating the rules of the debate because that is an example of objective morality, whetger it is true or not.
Well you can feel free to have comprehension issues on the subject but you are incorrect. Subjective or objective reality can be objectively correct or objecfively wrong (in theory) but it does not mean subjectively right or wrong.
An objective moral statement would be something like the following.
"Lying is wrong in all situations"
Where subjective morality would be something along the lines of the following statement.
"Lying is sometimes right and sometimes wrong depending on the situation"
Subjective ethics would be something along the lines of utilitarianism which accounts for the effects of your immediate actions while objective morality may resemble Kantian ethics.
Objective doesn't imply that the framework is correct though somebody pushing the framework will obviously believe it to be correct.
Ok well just because it's subjective doesn't mean we cannot examine the morality to see whether or not it should be taken as a moral compass.
Ok I don't think you actually understand the definition.
The definition heavily implies that Subjective morality is SUBJECTIVE as in an opinion that matters purely of what a person believes in.
The definition heavily implies that objective morality is OBJECTIVE as in an opinion that matters of fact.
I am choosing to tackle it in terms of subjective morality since objective morality would imply Bibles morality as a fact.
This is a very simple concept to understand, subjective means opinion based while objective means a fact. There's a reason why they call them objective and subjective morality.
And yes actually because if God exists then that means the Bible is objective morality since the Bible are the teachings of God.
If God truly did exist this would prove the Bible correct which would mean the Bible is objective morality.
"Many including myself don't believe it's objective since in our opinions God doesn't exist. "
Then there would be no reason to entertain "God's Version", and your compass points towards the Black Pearl.
Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with the ethical framework presented in the bible LOL. It is objective morality whether it is true pr not. Is this trolling or are you legitimately that dense?
The point is that the morals in the bible claim to be an objective set of morals (not situational) but you are asking your opponent to argue in favor of subjective (situational ethics in the bible when none exist.
That is tge definition of what a person believing in objective morality professes it is not a statement on whether objective morality is true nor how we get to what is objectively correct.
If you didn't understand the answer you found on stack exchange perhaps you should have found one you could understand. Now I am not even sure if you are trolling or just really confused about what it means for somebody to believe that morality is objective.
The Bible and religion call it " objective ".
Many including myself don't believe it's objective since in our opinions God doesn't exist.
You claim to want to talk about the bible. If morality is objective, then you can't assume its subjective...seems intellectually dishonest.
" The facts are “objective” in the sense that their truth does not depend on who judges them, or whether anybody judges them at all. "
Keyword, DOES NOT DEPEND.
Meaning that objective morality makes it a FACT.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.1352&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Another definition states this,
" A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be TRUE independently of the person who is stating them."
Both definitions stating that objective morality is based on facts.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/what-is-objective-morality
No, lol. Whether it is objective or subjective morality being applied has nothing to do with whether God's morality is objectively right.
Subjective morality means morality that is shaped by whatever is correct in the moment. Objective means it is a more rigud standard of ethics. It has nothing to do with whether the morals are objectively right or not.
Very baseless accusation to make,
if we assumed God's version of morality is objective, then my opponent could just state that because God's morality is objectively right, it should be taken as a moral compass since it's correct.
So this enables us to be on even ground.
Why would the debate assume God's view is subjective. That is not only dumb and unfair to your opponent it is untrue. The morality handed down in the bible is pretty objective. Do not murder. Do not steal, do not fuck your neighbor's wife etc. No ody is going to debate this dumb shit. You must be hoping somebody glosses over your conditions so you can get an easy win
lol
Bibles make excellent compasses!
Materials
Sewing needle about 22 inches long
Small bar magnet or refrigerator magnet
One leather-bound gold-gilt fully-illustrated King James bible.
A shallow bowl
Pliers
WARNING: Needles are sharp! Use caution.
*To magnetize the needle: Rub a magnet along the needle a few times in one direction only
*Securely grip the needle with the pliers and with the bible on a flat surface, push the needle through one end of the bible and out the other so that the needle is sticking out of both ends of the bible evenly. (Be careful)
*Fill the bowl half-way with water and place the bible on the surface of the water
Place the whole “compass” on a flat surface and watch the bible as it sinks to the bottom of the shallow bowl. The needle should point towards the nearest magnetic pole depending on how closely God has been paying attention.
Now go test out your new compass and see if you can orient yourself on a map!
Oh ok that makes sense.
Pretty much.
bad god vs. good god. bad god who turns Lot's wife into a salty statue vs. sermon on the mount good god.
Sorry, I don't comprehend this statement, can you explain?