CreateDebate


Debate Info

107
112
true false
Debate Score:219
Arguments:276
Total Votes:225
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 true (87)
 
 false (86)

Debate Creator

atypican(4874) pic



To take a position concerning what good and evil are, and why, is religious activity

true

Side Score: 107
VS.

false

Side Score: 112
2 points

Excellent question why don't you ask the Muslims that ? Come on Muslim Lover step up !

Side: true
1 point

As a Muslim lover, I am ready to "step up" and ask them this "Excellent question". Unfortunately I am unaware of what question you are referring to.

Side: true
outlaw60(15291) Clarified
1 point

To take a position concerning what good and evil are, and why, is religious activity

What problem do you have when it comes to Muslims ?

Might Manchester come into play here ?

Side: true
8 points

Discussing morality isn't a religious discussion because you don't need religion to have morality.

Side: false
2 points

Uh huh. Irreligious Cartman that goes on cursing fits in debates when he gets owned. Yeah, you look it..

Side: true
Cartman(18192) Disputed
5 points

Uh huh.

You finally got something right.

Irreligious Cartman that goes on cursing fits

I love how you fucking idiots think there can be something wrong with words, but have no problems with making shitty arguments.

debates when he gets owned

You have nip point of reference for this, you have never won an argument.

Yeah, you look it..

This sentence makes no sense in this context.

Side: false
ScarySkeptic(4) Disputed
1 point

That's an ad hominem fallacy. You're attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Side: false
Srom(12197) Disputed
2 points

you don't need religion to have morality.

How do you define good or evil without some trancendent moral standard then?

Side: true
seanB(720) Disputed
2 points

There's no such thing as a trasncendent moral standard. That's the point. You fuckwits make a conscious, subjective decision to believe in a bunch of bullshit written mostly from word-of-mouth myths concerning some other barbaric fuckwits from 4000 years ago in one of the most deprived and violent parts of the planet, on nothing more than faith, without a single shred of evidence.

There's nothing transcendent or objective about any of that.

Side: false
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

No one actually follows a transcendent moral standard, they just say they want to.

To answer your question, there are many criteria that can be used to justify morals. The main one is whatever hurts society is morally bad. Will society thrive if we allow people to kill each other? No. Morally bad. Will the society thrive if people steal from each other? No. Morally bad.

Side: false
ScarySkeptic(4) Disputed
1 point

By your own personal moral compass! You work it out for yourself! If we only act morally because some magic man in the sky is watching us, that's not morality at all! That's a false sense of morality created through fear!

Side: false
atypican(4874) Disputed
0 points

A group who shares and promotes a distinct narrative concerning an ideological foundation of morality. Do we have a single word better than "religion" to describe these kind of groups?

Side: true
xljackson(260) Disputed
2 points

Yes we do, they are called societies....Thanks for dropping in :)

Side: false
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Society

Side: false
2 points

A basic Google of definition of evil brings this up on top:

adjective

1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.

"his evil deeds"

synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; More

noun

1.

profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

"the world is stalked by relentless evil"

synonyms: wickedness, bad, badness, wrongdoing, sin, ill, immorality, vice, iniquity, degeneracy, corruption, depravity, villainy, nefariousness, malevolence...

More of that definition content is independent of religious belief than dependent upon it.

Side: false
Amarel(5000) Clarified
0 points

A basic Google definition of religion brings this up on top:

noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More

a particular system of faith and worship.

plural noun: religions

"the world's great religions"

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

"consumerism is the new religion"

Side: true
Grenache(6103) Clarified
3 points

But that's just it... Religion automatically includes reference to evil - yes - but evil does not automatically include reference to religion.

Side: true
1 point

Yep, well, if you take a god out of the equation, and everyone follows an ideology in religious-like fashion, like Nazism, that's still religion or religion-esque. However you want it.

Side: true
2 points

There is no immediately evident reason to suppose the premise is true, and the existence of numerous non-religious theories on the ontology of good and evil contradicts it.

Side: false
1 point

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality.

Mankind has been capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil since the emergence of the human race.

The laws of most nations, and indeed those of isolated tribes who have never heard of any of our man made Gods, are based on common human decency and administered in a manner compatible with the society to which they apply.

In many ways some of the main religions of the world, such as Islam is altogether evil as we regularly see the results of the teachings of this barbaric religious doctrine and it's practice of female genital mutilation and the stoning to death of adultresses.

Many followers of this eastern religion which refuses to emerge into the modern world, interpret it's scriptures in a way which incites them to slaughter all 'infidels'', non believers.

Side: false
luckin(176) Clarified
0 points

I agree with you when you say that people are able to distinguish between right and wrong. However, you do need an objective moral standard to know why something is right or wrong

Side: true
ScarySkeptic(4) Disputed
2 points

We don't need a universally objective moral standard, just a personal one. One that most people fundamentally have. A moral standard based on empathy and human decency. The idea that without objective morality, we'd all be inherently monstrous is completely wrong.

Side: true

It depends entirely on how you define religion. Most definitions in the dictionary don't match that claim. The definitions that do match are so generic that you can call just about anything a religion.

Side: false
1 point

You can take a position naming good or evil realistically. When atheists name good or evil, they are being religious in thinking they have the right to exist outside of Hell.

Side: false