CreateDebate


Debate Info

39
31
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:70
Arguments:56
Total Votes:73
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (27)
 
 Disagree (26)

Debate Creator

Atrag(5666) pic



Morality based on the supernatural is dangerous

Morality is partly innate and partly something that we develop through experience. Most people could not kill another human being because to do so would feel painful and wrong. To me this is what defines humanity - the feeling within ourselves that we don't want to do wrong to other people. It seems to me that Christian do not have this humanity. Whether something is right or wrong isn't a result of the complex human feelings we have but rather what a book tell you. A Christian does things not because they actually feel its wrong due to their experience but rather because some supernatural being says its wrong. It is very common for a Christian to say that morality does not exist outside the word of God and I personally find this sort of people terrifying.

Agree

Side Score: 39
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 31
3 points

I agree, most people that kiss Gods ass and suck his nuts are due to fear of what might happen, they are self centered pricks, so in other words they only really care about covering there own ass, they are only moral because of the fear of punishment to themselves, not because they feel for other people or life in general or true love for existence.

Side: Agree
Nebeling(1117) Clarified
1 point

So let's assume that fear is the motivation behind religious morality. Why then, is a morality based on fear more dangerous than one that is not?

Side: Agree
2 points

Morality based on anything but yourself alone is dangerous. Soldiers, as much as I respect them, have a different sense of morality than me, a morality that I would call dangerous, and I believe it is due mostly in part to the fact they they fight for something bigger than themselves, their country, rather than just for their life or their family's life.

Specifically of a super natural force backing your morality, you mentally have a supernatural force on your side, making you feel not only right, but more powerful than your opposition that lacks the supernatural backing you have, and as most people agree, absolute power corrupts. Making that omnipotent force behind you, a dangerous weapon.

Side: Agree
Nebeling(1117) Clarified
1 point

Making that omnipotent force behind you, a dangerous weapon.

I only think this follows if execution of religious morality is error prone, and I think that's a reasonable claim. But from within the framework of an absolute morality such as the Christian one, perfect execution of the morale code is absolutely good. Therefore, from the perspective of the religious person, he is the cause of evil which means that he would like to have more omnipotent force behind. From his perspective, his actions are dangerous only because he hasn't got enough supernatural force backing him up. How would you convince him, that he needs less supernatural power to back him up, when he believes the exact opposite?

Side: Agree

I'll give an example as to how it is dangerous:

My god told me to rape and then kill over forty children.

A person like lolzors would say that is not evil because god told him to do it, and god is 100% moral.

Side: Agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
2 points

The problem, though, is that God does not do anything that is immoral, nor does He sanction immoral things. If He were to sanction it, then it would be, by definition, ontologically, good.

Side: Disagree
2 points

Thank you for proving my point, you psycho.

Side: Agree
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
2 points

Isn't that a tautology?

Side: Agree
1 point

Circular reasoning is a rather puzzling fallacy. .

Side: Agree
wejdnwjkndjk(5) Disputed
1 point

A person like lolzors would say that is not evil because god told him to do it, and god is 100% moral.

It's not evil if God approves

Side: Disagree
wejdnwjkndjk(5) Disputed
1 point

It wouldn't be evil if God told you to do that but he would never do that.

Side: Disagree

Morality in general is dangerous. Most morale systems (if not all) are totally baseless and usually promote barbaric, primitive, idiotic or incorrect view points as the "right" thing to do.

Side: Agree
1 point

Iss it okay to rape someone or murder them? .

Side: Disagree
2 points

What makes anything inherently right or wrong? Most if not all morals are baseless thoughts and concepts that are just generally accepted.

Side: Agree
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Those Are Terms That People Don't Agree On. That's Where Morals Come In. How Do You Determine Which Sex Acts Are Rape? How Do You Determine Which Killing Is Murder?

Side: Agree

I argue that a moral system should be required to at least make an attempt at providing answers to questions like "why is this action right or wrong?" rather than just making bald assertions.

"Why is it wrong to kill another person in most situations?"

Because it is a permanent action. There are no do-overs here. If someday you change your mind and regret it, you won't be able to make it up.

Because it will cause pain and suffering to anybody who cared for that person.

Because we know we want to live out our natural lives, and know the pain our loved ones would suffer if we were murdered.

Because the person you are killing is probably a contributing member of society whose work, skills and presence may be of a benefit to the whole, including yourself.

When we search to the Bible to find out why homosexuality is "immoral", we find mainly that God doesn't like it, that it is an "abomination' or "unnatural".

Questions-

What constitutes an abomination? Are all abominations to be hated? Why should we hate them?

Why is something unnatural deemed detestable? Does not the presence of homosexual acts found throughout the animal kingdom suggest it is natural? Should we also seek to abolish such unnatural conventions as cell phones, cars and power plants?

The closest thing logic could give you to an answer why homosexuality would be bad is that it likely reduces the population slightly, but is that an inherently bad thing in a world where many do not have access to the resources available and available wild land is dwindling?

Then there is the other root of morality, the not-specifically-logical one: empathy. We know its wrong to kill or steal or lie partially because we wouldn't people do to those things to us and because we may suffer vicariously if someone does those things to others.

About the closest possible way our empathy could play a factor is if we or someone we felt for fell in love with a homosexual. Unrequited love hurts. But then, there is no guarantee that if the person was straight that they would love you...

Basically, the best answers we get from Christians (or Muslims or other religious groups) for hating gays is that God, an untestable and probably unknowable entity, hates them and has yet to provide an answer for this that works either logically or emphatically. And yeah...that can be dangerous.

Side: Agree
2 points

Morality is either subjective and changeable, or objective and absolute.

If it is the former, then we cannot say something is wrong; we can only say that X is our preference or against our preference. It would, therefore, be equivalent to preferring ice cream over chocolate chip cookies, or blue over green. There would be neither good nor evil. There would be no justification in saying that something is wrong. Murder, genocide, and rape are all simply preferences, which are subject to change: rape is acceptable to many people, including sociopaths. We cannot do anything, nor say anything, to someone who does something like rape or murder someone. We have no justification in telling a rapist that what he has done is wrong; for morality would simply be my preference, like liking candy over pastries. This is far more dangerous, and the most pernicious belief to uphold, since there is nothing to hold anyone back: we would be neither justified in telling people that flying planes into buildings is wrong, nor justified in trying to stop them.

If it is the latter, then morality is based in God. God is the only thing with which an objective and absolute morality can be had. Therefore, if you don't want the supernatural, then you do not want the objective, which makes subjective morality all that there is; and that is far more dangerous. Moreover, the Bible states, in Romans 2, that the law has been written upon the hearts of man. This is why we have consciences; this is why the world hates genocide, and rape, and murder, and theft, because morality has been written upon their hearts, making us understand that these things are all objectively and absolutely wrong.

So, you're pick: subjective chaos or objective conscience.

Side: Disagree
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

Morality is a value that exists, at least to an extent, objectively. Things are immoral by their nature not because society or God says they are. This can also be applied to other values. For example, we can attribute the value of 'sad' to suffering. Is suffering merely 'sad' because subjectively we agree it is? Would it cease to be a 'sad' event if people stopped being sad when they experienced it? Does a sad act need to be experienced in order for it to be a sad act? We use the word sad to describe the quality that is innate in the act of suffering.

I do agree that 'law has been written upon the hearts of man'. It has been written their by nature and how our morality evolves as we find out more about the world about us and how others around us feel.

Side: Agree
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Things are moral and immoral by their nature. I agree with that. However, an issue arises when we examine the base of the ontology. Sadness, ontologically speaking, has a basis for being ontologically sad, in that it is the result of suffering, or is suffering, from your definition of sadness. Morality, ontologically speaking, has no basis for being ontologically moral, except in God. You were able to triangulate the base of sadness, in it being suffering. However, the only way to triangulate morality is to go to God.

You might say that morality is what causes suffering. However, that is a red herring, since that is what is produced from morality, while we are trying to examine what is morality, and what the base of it is.

You might also bring up the Euthyphro Dilemma. It seems to me that you might think that I think that something is moral from what God says is moral. However, the issue is that it isn't what God says is moral; something is moral when it matches God's character. So, to be moral, it to be God-like, or to bear the image of God. This is the base of morality.

Side: Disagree
kaveri(319) Disputed
1 point

Morality based on religion is full of nonsense purity, virginity, obsession of everyone's sex life, clothing..., requirement of worshiping imagine creatures and oppressing that delusion on your siblings... it is backward and dysfunctional,

morality based on law is a result of reasoning.

Side: Agree
1 point

Then again, maybe it's simply our differing moralities that are dangerous. If we all believe in the same God, we have no reason to harm someone else, even if we are capable of it. If we all all believe in self preservation we also have no reason to harm one another unless the situation should arise.

This argument is not in favor of a supernatural morality, nor is it acting as opposition to self based morality, it is simply a denial of the statement that supernatural morality will be always be dangerous.

Side: Disagree
1 point

"Christian do not have this humanity?"

Should I take you seriously when you say this. I don't think I'm taking this statement out of context. It seems you are saying that Christians are a separate group from the rest of humanity because they lack compassion.

I agree that dogma can be dangerous but it can also be beneficial. For example children are told not to misbehave by their parents not because they lack humanity but because they haven't yet learned to practice ethical behavior. Some adults need a bit of guidance from a moral code or legal system too...but it doesn't mean they lack humanity.

Definition of Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

I think morality based strictly on science or what feels natural to someone is dangerous. Philosophical, theological and even metaphysical arguments have positively shaped our culture and perceptions.

Side: Disagree

That;s the thing about painting with a broad brush, it leaves no room for logic. The name of my Twitter profile is TheSkepticalTheist for a reason. i feel that you can be logical and skeptical and be a theist, just like you can be full of fallacies as an atheist. Im not accusing you personally, Im just saying, you know?

Side: Disagree
1 point

The only place morality can come from is God. If you deny God, you deny morality.

Side: Disagree
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

Well I guess that could have been some lose hypothesis thst sort of made sense.. However there are atheists people, atheists schools and even atheists countries. We know that this people behave in a moral way. I think you need to reevaluate.

Side: Agree