Instigator / Pro
Points: 27

Morals Cannot Exist Without God.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
9,984
Contender / Con
Points: 42
Description
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
Published:
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
Published:
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
Published:
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?

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

 
Published:
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
Forfeited
Published:
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
Forfeited
Published:
All glory to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Added:
--> @Club
I know the FSM is a weird one, given that he relies so much less on comedy...
In all seriousness, when my faith in God peaks (I alternate between atheism and Catholicism) is when I look to the FSM the most. If we forget that we don't have the answers and thinking we do is silly, we're doing it wrong.
Contender
#24
Added:
FSM lol
#23
Added:
--> @AKmath
I got challenged to a weird informal continuation of this (I've already dropped out, but you might enjoy the counters to my case): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
Contender
#22
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAthiest // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited rounds.
You cannot PROVE that murder is wrong, because morals are subjective and you can’t prove an opinion.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were it not the case as arguments and S&G are insufficiently explained.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
************************************************************************
#21
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Also thanks for voting multiple times.
Contender
#20
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
Thanks for voting... multiple times apparently.
Not a complaint, but for future votes I suggest naming one source (the video introduction to the FSM, or the overview of consequentialism for example) to appease your fan-club.
Contender
#19
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.

*******************************************************************
#18
Added:
Good luck to both debators.
#17
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
"explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
"
whats l-sep thing?
also if the sources he made fully contested the points that PRO made just because he has no proof vs the some proof he had that is validated, I would give points. He took time to find countless articles in the debate only to be 1/2 FF
#16
Added:
Ofc it was RM that gets my vote removed :). ill republish
#15
Added:
--> @bsh1
The RFD was already posted below
**PROs responses are rushed and have some/little evidence countered by Ragnar's thorough points that elaborately counter the argument, that go uncontested to the end of the round, there causing me to vote in favor of Rangar**
**Sources go PRO, due to in the argument itself, evidence supports the side and gives validation and proof vs PROs**
There was a poitn about conduct, but forgot to copy it. The conduct was definitely sufficient (somewhere along the lines of "pro ff'd 2 rounds") something like that.
#14
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Okay. I haven't read it, but I will once you post the RFD.
#13
Added:
--> @bsh1
Hence why I removed the vote. I still stand by my view that the argument point is borderline enough to let it stand.
#12
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
This is not an FF, so all points needed to be justified.
#11
Added:
--> @bsh1
I reexamined it myself and felt it should be removed. Bsh you can correct me if I'm wrong. I posted the RFD din the posts below
#10
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro forfeited most of the rounds. Conduct to con.
Pro doesn’t really offer an argument. Con offers the key point that evolution can be responsible for morality. While short, this is the starting point of the argument, and beyond this pro didn’t offer an argument: so cons points stand unrefuted - thus arguments must go to con too.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
ARGS:
CON for arguments. Half concession in the last rounds causes his case to go uncontested and his points to be extended when the time came, where I take full validation of the points and lean
CON for Conduct: Forfeit is bad conduct
CON for Sources: In the arguments used, which I will take a count for, multiple meaningful sources were used to counter PROs point. If both argumetn were extended by the odds of the debate, CON would still take sources. Since effort is put in and he took the time to put in sources, I will give sources
Are you happy?
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I would like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT:
Con forfeited the majority of the rounds that's poor conduct!
All other points tied, both had relatively good spelling and conduct.
Arguments wise, Pro didn't attempt to make a logical argument at all and instead made lots of generalized statements, a prime example of this was when they said,
" Your opening statement doesn't make much sense. "
And,
" 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. "
In the end, I was left confused about what the justification was.
And a statement that had no citation which was,
" Your argument for FSM become invalid because the US doesn't recognize Pastafarians as a religion. "
Because of this, I must award conduct and arguments to Con since he actually made a logical argument.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro ff half the rounds
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con forfeited half the rounds
Neither side arguments convinced me.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds