Instigator / Pro

Morals Cannot Exist Without God.


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 6 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Format of debate:
Opening statement for me
Opening statement for you
Rebuttal for me on your opening statement
Rebuttal for you on my opening statement
Rebuttal for me on your rebuttal
Rebuttal for you on my rebuttal
Closing statement for me
Closing statement for you
(Information is not be crossed between debate rounds and NO NEW INFORMATION in the closing statements).
Would love to debate an athiest/agnostic! :)

Round 1
Morals cannot exist without God.
Why? Well... 
Let's analyze the following example. John Smith murders Jill Ohlson. You as well as everyone else may believe what John Smith did was wrong. But without a Super-Naturla All-Knowing God, then there is no way you can PROVE murder is wrong. There are no tests or studies you can do to determine of murder or any other action is moral or immoral. In other words, their is no way to make a secular argument for definitive morals.
A quote- 
"Sure, athiests can debate ethics; but on what moral grounds?" - Anonymous
This debate is not about mere likelihood, but an absolute. Within that understanding, I shall show two simple ways morals can exist without God (capital G., singular).
I. Long Term Self Interest (AKA Consequentialism)
People being civilized benefits everyone, there are too many things groups can do which individuals cannot. We codify this and teach it to our children. Boiling this down to the simplest terms, people seeking easier reliable access to food, does not require any divine intervention.
This category also includes altruists, who get a sense of joy from helping others, and care not for bribes or threats from religious terrorists.
Of course, evolution may indeed play a role in this. People with consciences (unlike certain religious people who only care about divine command theory, and would otherwise eat their own babies) were better breeding partners, and the genetic component became passed down with greater success than that of people without.
II. The Flying Spaghetti Monster
No discussion of something could have only been done by God, is complete without the inclusion of other gods that are at least equally likely to have done it. To avoid a Gish Gallop, I’ll focus on just one, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM).
Without morals His chosen people (the midgets) would be picked on even more, so FSM might have intervened on their behalf inventing morals even within non-believers (who are still touched by his noodly appendages, as evidenced by them still experiencing gravity). ... This may seem unlikely, but so long as it remains possible it negates the resolution.

Round 2
Your opening statement doesn't make much sense. 
Consequentialism is when humans try to get morality from the consequences of actions. But as I said before you can't prove murder is immoral without a God. how are we to know what the consequence of an action should be if we don't know if the action is good or bad?

Your argument for FSM become invalid because the US doesn't recognize Pastafarians as a religion. 

Note: By the agreed rules to this debate, I must only respond to pro’s opening case this round. I shall however use my original two contentions (to be defended next round).
"John Smith murders Jill Ohlson..."
The intuitive revulsion toward this crime, is contrary to religion. John may well claim that God commanded the death, and yet in our sense of morality, we would punish him regardless of his prophecy. Even if Jill sinned in the eyes of Christians by styling her hair and/or dressing nice (1 Timothy 2:9), John is still punished for murder. This is because in civilized countries justice is based on morality, and morality is not based on religion.
Of course, in Sharia law John might be a hero for murdering a woman. Our natural non-religious sense of morality disagrees with this.
I.                     Long Term Self Interest
Under this premise, allowing John to go around murdering women at random (even if it’s in the name of God), creates a danger to us (a wrongness if you will), so we band together for mutual defense. We have long ago made a system for this, so just alert the police and let them handle it, in turn allowing us to sleep safely in our beds.
II.                   The Flying Spaghetti Monster
This competing religion disagrees with murder (yes, even if they blasphemy against pasta), so our disdain for the crime more likely stems from the FSM than God (whom outright commands the death of anyone who says God in vain).

"There are no tests..."
There are many. I will show one for each of my R1 contentions: 

I.                     Long Term Self Interest
If something done repeatedly would harm the community (in particular regards to our survival), it is immoral. China experienced this when they decided to commit genocide against their women, and their population plummeted.
II.                   The Flying Spaghetti Monster
If the FSM commands something, it is moral to obey and immoral to disobey. Better yet, the FSM actually punishes us for immoral behavior, making it testable (unlike anything under God). That we killed the divine beings (pirates) caused the FSM to punish us with global warming.

Round 3
This round is exclusively defense of my opening case.

I. Long Term Self Interest (AKA Consequentialism)
By this standard we know if actions are good or bad by their outcomes, namely if they benefit or harm ourselves and our community.
It is a different sense of morality than standing on mountaintops shouting at clouds (and not doing anything unless you get an answer), but one with a reliable ability to allow us to better our lives (plus  not starve to death on mountaintops).

II. The Flying Spaghetti Monster
My opponent has effectively conceded the debate by using the separation of church and state to insist that religions cannot define morals.
That said, President George W. Bush takes his morals from the FSM, even changing White House policy to no longer celebrate Christmas, but the preferred Pastafarian “Holiday.” This was a controversial decision which risked impeachment, but he chose to stand by his religious morals and praise the FSM.
Round 4
All glory to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!