CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
2
Yeah pretty much. Thats not the message.
Debate Score:20
Arguments:22
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yeah pretty much. (15)
 
 Thats not the message. (2)

Debate Creator

Warjin(1577) pic



The Moral Evolution of the Bible, In A Nut Shell.

Yeah pretty much.

Side Score: 18
VS.

Thats not the message.

Side Score: 2
2 points

Christianity like any other religion has a morality based on two things, 1.) religious text (I.E. The Bible which is full of inconsistencies, and apparently to vague to figure out) 2.) what god approves of or disapproves of. With the former whatever morality you can dissect from the bible originated thousands of years ago, when mankind was socially less developed, so no surprise there; with the latter there is no legit way to conclude what god approves of and disapproves of so it kind of becomes free game as far as morality goes. When you compare this to secular morality, personally I find secular morality a lot more beneficial towards humanity then any religious morality. As one who doesn't think that there is anything objective to morality, I do think that morality is a product of our evolution and considering we are all the same species there is some common ground within mankind. When observing morality for those whom hold a secular morality, morality becomes more about the well being of mankind, (which would be expected if morality is a product of our evolution) or that of sentient life in general. Morality I think is typically an emotional thing, and is usually driven by emotion, primarily compassion and empathy, as well as selfishness. Secular morality becomes about what we can do for each other, which I find a lot more ideal and appealing. Religious morality distracts us from that and becomes about what a supreme being that we have no knowledge about approves of, religious people often base their morality off of religious texts that define a deity morally for them, the text originating from a time where we were significantly more primitive socially and had less pursuit over a morality based on well being and more on dogma, that is where religious morality often leads for people. Over the years religious texts have been reinterpreted to fit with modern day secular morality which is the road I feel we would adapt to if religion never played it's part within society.

Side: Yeah pretty much.
1 point

Wow this is probably one of the most intelligent views on the subject I have ever read, I agree with every word, I cant see how anyone could disagree with what you have written here unless they are completely delusional.

Well put, up-vote from me.

Side: Yeah pretty much.

Well thanks man, you flatter me. As one whom doesn't think morality is objective in the long run, I think their is subjectivity can contain reason, and be reasonable. One whom doesn't think morality is objective at all, I struggled with coming to that conclusion, because it made me uncomfortable to think morality can't be objectively argued but then I realized something, if one chose to just be indifferent to the well being of others then through their own subjectivity they are reasonably justified to hold that position, that just says a lot more about them than it does about me. I could care less about what is "right and wrong" objectively, as what is more important is the well being of others. I think whether or not one's morality is based on the well being of others is more important then whether or not it is objective, and in the end, we are evolved to go down the path for morality to be based on compassion and empathy rather than dogma, that is our natural path, and I am not ashamed to say that the whole basis of my morality is wanting to consider what is best for sentient life. That consideration is the only reason morality matters to me, if we discovered an "objective morality" that disagreed somehow that said that the well being of others had nothing to do with morality, or lets say we discovered an objective morality that said that we should go do the opposite of what is best for the well being of others, then I would simply chose to not be "moral" anymore. In other words, if what is best for the well being of others is wrong, then I don't want to be right. Anyways thanks for the upvote and the compliment, means a lot :)

Side: Yeah pretty much.
1 point

I found this picture researching hate crimes, and as fucked up as that picture is, I cant dispute it, sad but true : (

Side: Yeah pretty much.

This seems to be the true opinion held by many Christians. Some support same sex marriage, bu most don't. Their only argument is that it is "unbiblical".

Side: Yeah pretty much.
1 point

I agree, from what I understand only about 40% of Americans are Bible literalist, so at least we are making progress, the future looks bright thats to the Internet, we had somewhat of a reason boom over the last 10 years or so, at this rate we just might make it as a species so long as people keep embracing critical thinking.

Side: Yeah pretty much.

This seems to be the true opinion held by many Christians. Some support same sex marriage, bu most don't. Their only argument is that it is "unbiblical".

Just pointing out that I don't disagree with something you said because we both know it may never happen again :)

Side: Yeah pretty much.

Errrrmmm....thats is a harsh generalization. And I don't typically support stereotyping like that.

But on the other hand, Christianity has a long history of being pissed off at others. So much for Jesus' messages of peace...

Side: Yeah pretty much.
No arguments found. Add one!