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.
Actually that's not correct. Religions are NOT the source or basis for morals. A true understanding of morals will help you see that morals are not given to us from a god.
Morals are simply institutionalized rules of conduct, that naturally come into existence among people trying to live together in peace.
Examples:
Don't kill, don't steal, don't screw your neighbor's wife, are all ideas that have become morals. This process does not require a belief in a god. For this reason it is perfectly possible to adhere to moral values, without religious belief.
Explaining morality through an evolution is a contradiction. Morality is knowing right from wrong, and choosing. With evolution, you do not have free will to choose, because you are matter. And matter is just that.............matter.
Your atheists buddies are backing you up, but your answer is just as meaningless as theirs. So, lets go. Show what you got
I made no reference to biological evolution, nor the differing states of matter. Our origin is a completely separate subject. Of course there are no moral values in biological evolution. Attempts at straw man distractions will get you nowhere. If you wish to continue, then please address my statement explaining where morals originate. Either accept it ,or refute it with an actual argument.
...................................................................................................................................... repeating it would not make it any better
True. You could NOT make that ridiculous statement any better by repeating it.
As an Atheist, I feel disgusted by the "morals" of "many" Christians simply because they wave a moralistic flag while seemingly thinking they are better than others. I come from a "Christian family" and feel I have better "morals" than "many" of them! I don't use the church as a CYA affiliate!
I suppose you could relate an atheists morality through an evolutionary stand point. Through the idea of the selfish gene (The most efficient way of replicating your genome is through surviving and breading). This may explain altruism. If you're an organism and your primary role is to progress your genome, then kill each other would be a fairly poor strategy. Working closely with each other is far more efficient than working independently, hence traits of teamwork and sociability will be favored over independence. Any quality that favors social discourse will quickly be lost considering is significantly harder to breed if no one likes you ;D
If you are going to base morality on evolution alone then it’s survival of the fittest at all costs.
Also, if you go by evolution alone, then you have the following dilemma :
A 14 year old girl has more potential to bring offspring than a 35 year old woman. This is fact that can't be disputed.
And since the only purpose is the continuation of the species, then tell me, why would it be wrong for a 40 year old man to hit on a 14 year old girl. Yes, I know it sounds disgusting, but the fact is, if the only guiding principle is evolution, then scenarios like that one is what one would expect.
That's a really good argument. I suppose I could point out how in the past, and certainly in some countries sex with an adolescent is perfectly acceptable. However why is it taboo in most other countries? I can only speculate, but I suppose it conflicts with the risk of childbirth. There is an optimal age for child birth with either side having an increase in risk. My hypothesis is that younger children giving birth have a higher risk of complication than an elder mother. Hence a genetic and epigenetic influence will favor older mothers over younger.
I suppose if you can prove there isn't an increased risk of complications with adolescent child birth, then my hypothesis will be wrong and I'll have to give you that argument.
GHunter you need to take the time to read my comments. Several times you have misread and misinterpreted my comments. Survival of the fittest gene implies survival of an individual or group. Adaptability is irrelevant in this context considering I'm talking about the individual level. Adaptability arises from the survival of the individual.
If a=b, and b=c then a=c. Equating means they're essentially the same.
"... any immoral act can also be considered adaptability"
I suppose you're right. Killing is immoral, however if you kill someone who threatens the welfare of your group, the overall act can be considered moral in the name of survival.
Leibniz's Law. For any x and any y, if x is identical with y, then any characteristic or property possessed by x is possessed by y, and any characteristic or property possessed by y is possessed by x.
This implies:
If x has a characteristic that y does not have or y has a characteristic that x does not have, then x is not identical with y.
So this takes us back to the main argument we were having. I shall repost my original argument: I suppose you could relate an atheists morality through an evolutionary stand point. Through the idea of the selfish gene (The most efficient way of replicating your genome is through surviving and breading). This may explain altruism. If you're an organism and your primary role is to progress your genome, then kill each other would be a fairly poor strategy. Working closely with each other is far more efficient than working independently, hence traits of teamwork and sociability will be favored over independence. Any quality that favors social discourse will quickly be lost considering is significantly harder to breed if no one likes you ;D
You don't get it, do you. """ morality through an evolutionary stand point "" is a contradiction. Morality is knowing right from wrong, and choosing. With evolution, you do not have free will to choose.
So stop trying to bring science into any of this. It makes you guys look silly
"With evolution, you do not have free will to choose." You certainly don't get the option to choose which genes mutate, this however does not mean free will can't arise from the process of evolution. We know the majority of the decisions we make today can be traced back to primitive survival reactions. Loss aversion, Halo effect, confirmation bias, etc. Hence our judgement are a consequence of evolution. Considering morality is a consequence of judgement, it can be said morality is a consequence of evolution.
Let the only good in itself be human happiness. Then right would be those actions that are conducive to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and wrong would be the opposite. This is utilitarianism, a strong and mature system of morality without a deity.
Only intelectual comments will be tolerated. If you are asked a question, you answer it. Otherwise, you get banned. If you answer like a weasel, you get banned; If you misconstrue any of my comments, you get banned.
Actually religion has justified killing huge amounts of people. Christians once justified pillaging and killing people because they were pagan. And Muslams believe people should convert or die (not leave but DIE)! If I were an alien I would feel just as safe with Atheists as any religion.
All right, as usual, as expected, atheists begin blurting out bullshit in tag teams. This makes them feel protected. Thats why the best method to deal with an atheists is one on one. So who among you is confident enough to go one on one with me. That way you will be all by yourself, no where to hide, then you will be forced to make actual counter arguments, or look like an imbecile. So, who wants to go first ?
Your methods are pretty predictable. You refuse to take an actual stance because you know people could then criticize it. Instead, you simply way for someone else to take a position, and then declare it invalid.
That seems to indicate that you are partaking in most of the behaviors that you are accusing others of. But if you want to prove me wrong, I will gladly debate you one on one so long as you state the topic being argued and make the first argument, then we could work from there.
"That way you will be all by yourself, no where to hide, then you will be forced to make actual counter arguments, or look like an imbecile. "
"" What's with you feeling the need to make declarations of victory?
It seems to indicate a level of insecurity in your arguments.""
Psychogenetic Fallacy
""" The Psychogenetic Fallacy occurs when an attempt is made to psychoanalyze a person who holds a certain view and this psychoanalysis is used as a reason that the person’s view is not correct. This is a combination of the genetic fallacy and an ad hominem fallacy. It is failure to deal with the issue at hand."""
Guys, Explaining morality through an evolution is a contradiction. Morality is knowing right from wrong, and choosing. With evolution, you do not have free will to choose.
So stop trying to bring science into any of this. It makes you guys look silly
Can you quote that argument? I am looking through this debate and I'm only seeing variations of the claim, as oppose to any argument attempting to prove the validity of the claim.
Oh , if you need to have things spelled out for you, no problem.
Oh evolution, evolution !! You guys keep repeating that like a mindless puppet without realizing its implications. If morality is the result of evolution, then it is the result of blind matter. I know you do not like this implication. You are going to try to weasel yourself out with some half backed Dawkinian Fallacy.
But trust me, there is no possible way in existence in which you can avoid that implication.
Now, Morality implies the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and the freedom to choose. Matter cannot be free to chose because it is just matter.
So postulating the evolution of matter as the source of morality is a contradiction.
Oh evolution, evolution !! You guys keep repeating that like a mindless puppet without realizing its implications. If morality is the result of evolution, then it is the result of blind matter. I know you do not like this implication. You are going to try to weasel yourself out with some half backed Dawkinian Fallacy.
See, that is a claim, not an argument. I am asking why you are so certain that would be the case, not whether or not you believe it to be the case. We evolved as a social species, which would make morality an evolutionary tool for the better functioning of social groups.
But trust me, there is no possible way in existence in which you can avoid that implication.
Do you believe yourself to be omniscient?
Now, Morality implies the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and the freedom to choose. Matter cannot be free to chose because it is just matter.
That isn't exactly true. "Matter" makes up everything, including sentient beings. Sentient beings are able to perceive the world and form complicated responses to stimuli and situations. Calling us "matter" does negate our sentience, and that sentience is what leads us to be able distinguish right from wrong.
So no, it isn't really a contradiction. I can see why you might think that it would be strange for evolution to lead to morality, but that doesn't make it a contradiction.
Me : If morality is the result of evolution, then it is the result of blind matter. I.
Now, Morality implies the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and the freedom to choose. Matter cannot be free to chose because it is just matter.
You : That isn't exactly true. "Matter" makes up everything, including sentient beings. Sentient beings are able to perceive the world and form complicated responses to stimuli and situations. Calling us "matter" does negate our sentience, and that sentience is what leads us to be able distinguish right from wrong.
Now let's break up that weasel wording into its constituent parts and premises.
1) """That isn't exactly true. "Matter" makes up everything, including sentient beings. """
Notice that you conceded my point. Everything is just matter.
2) """Sentient beings are able to perceive the world and form complicated responses to stimuli and situations. """
Irrelevant. ! No one is debating the definition of a sentient being.
3) """" Calling us "matter" does negate our sentience, and that sentience is what leads us to be able distinguish right from wrong """///
Begging the Question. You just conceded we are just matter in your world view.
And then you proceed to attribute Morality to the workings of matter. You did not give any justification.
Yeah, you Begged the Question badly.
4) """So no, it isn't really a contradiction. I can see why you might think that it would be strange for evolution to lead to morality, but that doesn't make it a contradiction."""
Lol, as you just saw, you did nothing to explain it away. So yes , it's a contradiction,
By the way, as you can see, I do not need to be omniscient. The self refuting logic of atheism is so predictable to the point of boredom.
Notice that you conceded my point. Everything is just matter.
I really didn't concede your point, I simply indicated that it does nothing to further your claim.
Irrelevant. ! No one is debating the definition of a sentient being.
Sentience is relevant when discussing morality and the ability to choose. You can't declare sentient beings to simply be matter who can't make decisions because that's not how things actually are.
Begging the Question. You just conceded we are just matter in your world view.
Again, I never said that. I said that we are matter that makes up sentient, thinking beings. Please refrain from straw men.
And then you proceed to attribute Morality to the workings of matter. You did not give any justification.
I already did explain that morality would be an evolutionary adaptation for the purposes of facilitating social interactions amongst social groups. If you'd like I could explain how evolution works so as to demonstrate why morality would be favored.
Lol, as you just saw, you did nothing to explain it away. So yes , it's a contradiction,
I did, and you for some reason didn't bother to quote or address it. Please do.
By the way, as you can see, I do not need to be omniscient. The self refuting logic of atheism is so predictable to the point of boredom.
Except you didn't refute the logic I employed, and I'm not an atheist.
1) I really didn't concede your point, I simply indicated that it does nothing to further your claim.
It's your claim in your world view. Not mine.
2) """Sentience is relevant when discussing morality and the ability to choose. You can't declare sentient beings to simply be matter who can't make decisions because that's not how things actually are.""
Oh, great argument ""because that's not how things actually are.""
But yet you cannot explain how things actually are. Lol
3) "" I already did explain that morality would be an evolutionary adaptation for the purposes of facilitating social interactions amongst social groups. If you'd like I could explain how evolution works so as to demonstrate why morality would be favored."""
Lol, Begging the question yet again. All your doing is giving the workings of blind matter. But thats exactly the contradiction that you face.
By the way, look at this last sentence : "" I could explain how evolution works so as to demonstrate why morality would be favored."""
Notice that an explanation implies a fixed, predictable process . In other words, not free.
4) ""Except you didn't refute the logic I employed, and I'm not an atheist.""///
Lol, what logic. And who cares if your an atheist, you show the same stupidity.
The idea that evolution contradicts morality is neither my world view nor my claim, actually.
Oh, great argument ""because that's not how things actually are.""
So do you not think sentience exists and is why we are able to consciously think? If not, that would be a great debate. If so, then you agree that's how things actually are.
Lol, Begging the question yet again. All your doing is giving the workings of blind matter. But thats exactly the contradiction that you face.
You keep repeating this "blind matter" claim without any actual argument. Please, at least attempt to explain why you think evolutionary morality is "begging the question".
By the way, look at this last sentence : "" I could explain how evolution works so as to demonstrate why morality would be favored."""
Notice that an explanation implies a fixed, predictable process . In other words, not free.
No it doesn't. One can explain non-predictable processes after they have occurred.
Lol, what logic. And who cares if your an atheist, you show the same stupidity.
You, apparently, as you indicated that I was one.
You might as well concede
I will if you provide a sufficient argument. You haven't yet, however.
