CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do Atheists/agnostics have superior moral compasses?
Self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics make up about 7% of the U.S. population, but only 0.1% of the federal prison population. Christians, however, make up around 70% of the U.S population and nearly 65% of the prison population. But I've still heard from many Christians that you can't be a decent person without God; thoughts?
While I don't think it is necessary to have God in your life to be a good person, I also don't think anyone has a superior moral compass. I've known some Christians who used religion to do bad things, and some Christians who do great things and thank God for their ability to do so. Same goes for atheists. I think it depends on the person, not the belief or lack of.
No one said anything about terrorism. I was talking about Sharia law.
So, provided we group all Muslims into one very large building and ask them to vote "yes or no" on Sharia law, the overwhelming majority would vote yes.
Oh sorry for misunderstanding. For Muslims to vote yes is already expected since they follow Quran and what it says, those Muslims who say no probably doubt their book but still want to believe.
As an Atheist, I would never claim to have a "superior moral compass". I WOULD say mine is superior to SOME self-designated "Christians". No problem, even for a sinner like ME. ;-) As Gandhi said: "I like your Christ, it's your Christians I don't like, your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Exactly the way I feel (ABOUT MANY) "Christians", certainly NOT the majority! Many don't even deserve to live in this country if they can't accept the Constitution and separation of church and state!
My morals say "Don't hurt anyone", and "Let people believe what they believe". "Follow society's rules (not the rules of a particular religion) and, "Treat others with respect" (as long as they respect you!). Basically the "golden rule" ... which I admit to have strayed from, now and then. We all make mistakes (except Now-a-Saint). ;-)
I said nothing about an eye for an eye and I have nothing against turning the other cheek. There are circumstances where each is acceptable, even necessary. I don't need a "god" to tell me that. In certain circumstances I would kill a killer because there IS no god to stop me, because he/she was so heinous OR about to kill again. Common sense, and the protection of others would be the "moral compass". Not "superior", just moral to MY estimation.
Do you think you can kill without feeling guilty? No. No matter what there's something wrong with killing even with a inmate. Alright a god won't stop you but how about you're conscience? Yes you're not affected but the executioner are. Eye on eye, Kill for kill is just the same. Turning the other cheek is when you will not kill a killer for the sake of mercy and kindness.
but if you believe it's alright to be cruel and violent. I don't think you have superior morals. Btw, This debate is not just a comparation to religions.
I didn't ignore your post. I'll agree I don't have superior morals, never claimed that I did. I DO have my own opinions, like everyone else. Mine are based on MY interpretation of common sense AND compassion, which I will put up against many "religious" people I have met or communicated with ... like those who think white skin gives THEM "superior morality".
BTW, I don't usually "compare religions", especially the ones who think THEY have "superior moral compasses" because THAT has led to more "cruelty and violence" than anything else in this world! Common sense is MY moral compass, not a book or scroll.
You can ignore my post whenever tho. Not all times religion results to violence. You admit that you don"t have superior morals, then that means sometimes you got immorality.
Generally, people's 'moral fiber' is independent of political and/or religious beliefs. One has to evaluate each individual separately from group identity
Generally, people's 'moral fiber' is independent of political and/or religious beliefs.
This is very untrue. Looking at religious history or current events even briefly will show that religion plays a huge role in most peoples' ability to determine right from wrong. Murder is generally accepted as wrong around the world; but what of the Crusades? Slaughters upon slaughters for no reason other than the church saying "God wants us to. If you do, you go to heaven!" The same with current events; 9/11, suicide bombers and arsonists; people are willing to give their lives and sacrifice innocents in the name of their God and with the belief that they will be secured a blissful afterlife in doing so.
The ideas and beliefs that tie into religion affect the integrity of an individuals' morality quite seriously. When given the prospect that you'll live in eternal bliss after you die, murdering a few people almost seems worth it(to many, many people).
Looking at religious history or current events even briefly will show that religion plays a huge role in most peoples' ability to determine right from wrong.
Religion is but one amongst many ideological maps to view the truth/false value of the world from; you are putting far too much emphasis on this. Also, one could simply point out that, like chimpanzees, humans are territorial & 'protect' their territories/tribes by force, often in over-reaching and irrational manners. Hence, so much for the religious argument.
As for 'moral fiber', it is indeed (largely) independent of peoples political & religious views, as this reaches the 'core' of the person's 'moral backbone' (or lack thereof), while political & religious ideologies are more toward the surface level.
Consider, in a 'Twilight Zone' scenario, if you woke up tomorrow as the Elephant Man, Quasimodo, a Leper, ect., then you would be treated indistinguishably from such people/characters. The number of people who would have any real empathy and/or respect for you would be hyper-rare, approximately between 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000. The rest would 'instinctively' behave like sociopathic chimpanzees, with perhaps a few percent in the 'grey' area (moral ambivalence). What you would find is that where people fall on that spectrum is independent of their professed political and/or religious views--even if they way they behave contradicts those stated views. As, again, true 'moral fiber' is in reference to the 'core' of a person, not the more surface level manifestations in the form of any particular ideologies.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, your only counter-argument is "wrong" and "because I said so". You try and use vocabulary that's on a higher level than your thinking capacity, i.e. with the terms "hyper-rare" with a 0.1-1%. You quoted "instinctively" for no reason other than to make your sentence look sophisticated, and didn't even do so correctly with the term "grey area" (both words should have been quoted). Your entire argument is here-say and complete speculation. You can't use a hypothetical "Twilight Zone scenario" and try and acquire actual scientific data from it. Unless you can accurately dispute any of my actual arguments rather than reflecting my entire debate with "Wrong" and then giving some fairy-tale scenario that happens to seem like it would play out in your favor, do everyone else a favor and stop attempting to debate on here.
As for 'moral fiber', it is indeed (largely) independent of peoples political & religious views, as this reaches the 'core' of the person's 'moral backbone' (or lack thereof), while political & religious ideologies are more toward the surface level.
You simply saying something is true means absolutely nothing.
Religion is but one amongst many ideological maps to view the truth/false value of the world from; you are putting far too much emphasis on this. Also, one could simply point out that, like chimpanzees, humans are territorial & 'protect' their territories/tribes by force, often in over-reaching and irrational manners. Hence, so much for the religious argument.
You gave no examples of "ideological maps" that have shown more influence over humanity to make a claim that I'm putting too much "emphasis" on it. Also, we aren't chimpanzees. Saying an entity that doesn't influence other species doesn't influence humanity because of traits those other species have is just idiotic. Do some real research and form an actual argument rather than just spewing out whatever ignorant dribble pops into your mind.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, your only counter-argument is "wrong" and "because I said so"
Actually, I provided about 1/2 page long argument. Stating 'wrong' in the beginning is simply to 'plant a flag' in regards to the position I was adopting.
You try and use vocabulary that's on a higher level than your thinking capacity, i.e. with the terms "hyper-rare"
In your view, 'hyper-rare' is a highly advanced technical term? Then, it is clear why you were unable to follow the argument, as well as why you are under the (false) impression that your 'argument' was 'scientific'. Also, this explains your inability to make proper use (or any use) of paragraphs.
Also, we aren't chimpanzees
We are closely related to chimpanzees, are apes ourselves, and share many overlapping characteristics; tribalism & territorial behavior/displays amongst them.
What a clown you are. I hope you have the pleasure of meeting the member Nomenclature, as you two are 'made for each other'. I would encourage you to pair off, form your own debate community and slug away at each other until the two drunks have had enough--while leaving the 'smoking free'/'sober' section alone in peace.
Again, you give no substance to your argument and do nothing but assert that you're right and I'm wrong. Very pitiful that instead of actually debating, you use passive aggression and ignorance and still manage to seem like you know what you're talking about. You've given me no actual points to any sort of argument you have.
We are closely related to chimpanzees, are apes ourselves
This right here clearly shows how little you understand about this topic. Homo sapiens are not apes, we are a species of primate under the family Hominidae, and humans being the only member of the Homo genus; the great apes are under the Pongo and Gorilla families. It really doesn't take long to research this, and you make yourself seem so ignorant it's appalling.
There is no hope in talking to you, as you are delusional in the extreme. You have failed to master high school level grammatical structuring and are approaching this conversation as though you are of high academic & intellectual superiority.
I would encourage you to join Quora, Stack Exchange, & PhysicsForums, as posting there like there like this should give you a sufficiently strong smack in the face to bring out the matrix and back into reality. Though, some people are particularly dense, and even such a failed project may not be enough to 'wake them up'; which certainly seems possible (or even likely) in your case.
Christians, however, make up around 70% of the U.S population and nearly 65% of the prison population.
I'd assume most Christians in prison are Christians that became Christian in prison, because a lot of prisoners, I assume, want god to forgive them for their sins or something of the sort. As for the small Atheist/Agnostic prison population, maybe some prisoners just gave up hope, or they didn't believe in god at all.
Yeah even prisoners ask for hope but how could they have it if people wish their death, don't give them chances and speak hatred. That's why sometimes they're unmotivated to change. They knew they did something wrong but there's no one to forgive them unlike Christians..Seriously bro, you understand the inmate but you still agree on killing them
how could they have it if people wish their death, don't give them chances and speak hatred
Some prisoners don't deserve hope. People like Nikolas Cruz, Bill Cosby, and James Holmes did terrible things and shouldn't be given a single ounce of hope.
They knew they did something wrong but there's no one to forgive them
Because in most circumstances, at least in my eyes, they don't deserve salvation or forgiveness. They knew what they did was illegal.
you understand the inmate but you still agree on killing them
Yes, for those who deserve it. I've stated before that I don't believe that if you stole something, you should be put to death by firing squad.
Some prisoners don't deserve hope. People like Nikolas Cruz, Bill Cosby, and James Holmes did terrible things and shouldn't be given a single ounce of hope.
Why not, don't government do terrible things also?
Because in most circumstances, at least in my eyes, they don't deserve salvation or forgiveness. They knew what they did was illegal.
What about the legal killing the government is doing?
Yes, for those who deserve it. I've stated before that I don't believe that if you stole something, you should be put to death by firing squad.
Of course you base on 'treat others as they treat you', if people don't kill anyone they should not be killed but You believe that people should kill a killer, your contradicting yourself and I don't see superior morals here as eye on eye failed morality, reacting to evil by doing evil.
Sure. But our government protects us. Killers don't.
Killers are still a citizen that the government should serve too. They should treat killers as if they're just a people with mental disorder as pyschopaths are considered as.
Examples, please?
They are killing with the government consent.
No. More of an 'eye for an eye' philosophy on my part.
No difference, if someone take your eye, you will take their aswell. If someone insult you, you will treat them the same.
You've got it twisted. Because people did or have done something deserving of death, they should be put to death.
We should have thought first. If we started the killings, we are a killer and we violate the rights of others to live you see, It's not about what they inmate has done but what the government has done and can't you see? Killing is violent, violence should be avoided but you are accepting it instead
Or a rapist.
I'm referring to your contradiction. If you kill a killer, you should kill yourself because you became a killer.
No, I'm not. Putting someone to death for a rape or a murder is not deserving of death.
Maybe someone deserves death but I'll tell you, No one has the right to kill.
Please try again, my best linguists couldn't decipher that
Haha sorry if my logic is too smart for you to understand... no seriously, repaying evil by doing evil results no good
The death sentence isn't evil, as I've said before.
The detterence and justice is right but what's evil is killing.
It’s about the handing off of ones responsibility to someone or something else, it’s not my fault, god made me this way, it’s not me doing some horrible action, it’s god who is guiding me, so it must be justified.
When people grow up, they have to generate moral codes for themselves based on societal norms, and culture. When someone follows the moral codes of gods making, they are negating 3000 years of progress. It shows in the statistics.
It is possible that this is just correlation and not causation. It could be that the type of people who become atheists/agnostics are also the type of people not to break the law. This (on its own) doesn't mean that believing in God causes immoral behavior or anything like that.
In my experience it depends on the person, not their religious beliefs.
I'm quite sure that both the controller of the goblin/gremlin alts (factmachine/sv3rige/winklepicker/intangible) and the controller of the hellno alts (nomenclature/quantumhead/Cartman/outlaw/slapshot) are both hardline atheists.
Guitarguy/fromwithin/brontoraptor/nowasaint/saintnow is Christian.
In the end you can judge their morals.
This is a wrongfully banned user, prodigy/prodigee/goodlistener/instig8or signing out.
The dance of alts you regular members have is pretty childish, frankly. Also, anecdotal evidence is the weakest form thereof; Just because you know an atheist or two that you detest doesn't change the overall trend. Saying we should judge Christian vs Atheist morality based off of 4 people is one of the least scientific ways to do it.
If you are looking at people, you aren't really paying attention to what scripture says. There is nothing in scripture that says that people are good. In fact, scripture makes it pretty clear that people are not good. There is One that is good, and that is God.
The faith is not about being a "good" person. The faith is about recognizing your own faults, getting some humility from that realization, and showing others charity as you have been shown charity. The faith is about keeping it real, recognizing that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.
Is discernment a gift of the spirit? Certainly. Those who love the truth will be more in line with the truth when they make moral decisions. Those who bow down to idols will allow their idols to corrupt the truth that they do cling on to.
Atheism has no command to stone unruly children, kill homosexuals, or teach children they'll spend eternity in pain and agony if they do certain very specific things, including working on Sunday.
The connection between criminality and morality seems tenuous to me, particularly given the questionable ethical legitimacy of the criminal justice system itself.
Nor is there any such thing as a "superior" moral compass. There's a plethora of moralities, and none of them are objectively better than any of the others.
"Criminal" still exists as a concept. But it's just a designation applied to individuals who are caught by other people with more social capital doing things those people don't like them doing.
The difference between atheists/agnostics and religious people is the source of their moral compass. Atheists/agnostics likely get it from the laws and their consciences. Christians get it from the Bible. They are all effective moral compasses.
However, being a Christian myself, I would have to say that Christians have a stronger moral compass because the Bible is the best moral compass. Atheists/agnostics can have a moral compass, but it would need to be based off of something other than the Bible. It's like the difference between an interview with a soldier from a war and a documentary about that war.
"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" -Steven Weinberg
Religion twists people's morality, and provides a reason for doing unreasonable things. If you're going to base your moral code on a 2000-year old book, then your morals won't be compatible with society.
No, we don't inherently have a better moral compass. However, unlike many- not all- theists, we don't pretend to be on the moral high ground based on belief in a specific imaginary friend.
I like your honesty but if you don't have a better moral compasses you have to base on something because we need better morals so If it's not a book then it can be Allan Watts or the laws of the gov
If I base my morals on anything- which, I should note, it is disputable whether we are "moral" creatures at all- it is based upon basic human empathy, which itself is based upon the human race's instinct for survival based upon cooperation, same as any other human, religious or not. However, very little motivates a need for human cooperation than by creating an enemy, or someone to ostracize- ergo, why Atheist and Christians are often misconceived as bitter enemies of some sort. People need that enemy to justify that they're the good guy, and I am by no means just talking about either Christians or Atheists.
