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.
We follow our own moral's because we can think for ourselves. Thewayitis is no more than a bigoted, and ignorant troll. Apparently your christian morality is fairly flawed or doesn't work too well because if you look at history, belief in your god, and gods in general is one of the leading causes of death. People killing each other left and right because god told them it would be a good idea. I don't trust any words coming from a book that tells me to stone my neighbor if he dares to pick up sticks on Sunday. And because i can guess you don't do the same as good old moral moses did when he stoned that heretic who picked up sticks, therefore you don't even follow christian morals, so apparently you have your own set of moral rules but condemn others for thinking on their own because their morals don't have a root in one of many archaic texts. Learn to think you hypocritical bigot.
Although I agree with the spirit in which your argument was written, I have hit the 'dispute' button.
"we can think for ourselves"
An excellent quality in all--atheists and theists alike. Thinking for yourself allows you to question what you're taught and find truth, even if it's hidden in falsehood.
"People killing each other left and right because god told them it would be a good idea."
This is half-true. Most of those times, people killed people because they wanted to, and justified it by saying it was their god(s)' will. Others, they misinterpreted God's will, and killed anyway (e.g. Hitler).
"I don't trust any words coming from a book that tells me to stone my neighbor if he dares to pick up sticks on Sunday."
"Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work, but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to the LORD your God."
Just a minor technicality, the seventh day is the Sabbath, not the first. Look at the Jews. They've been keeping track of this forever, so they probably have the right day.
-----
But other than those, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Free thought is an amazing thing. Sadly, so many people lack that capacity.
Here's a quote from Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
They follow whatever they want, just like every person. NO Christian follows the morals of God word-for-word. THey do what they want, or think they can.
"No one can take the Bible word for word, it is full of metaphors."
Thus necessitating interpretation, thus creating the potential for misinterpretation, and simultaneously failing to provide strict instruction for the methodology used for interpretation. No wonder there are so many variants, but what objective method do these different sects have for positively identifying their veracity? How can one claim universal truth through vague riddles?
"Are you too stupid to comprehend this?"
If each Christian we meet has their own personal interpretation, we have no choice but to compare it to the words from which they draw their beliefs. Especially since such a large segment of that population does claim to take the Bible word-for-word.
"f each Christian we meet has their own personal interpretation, we have no choice but to compare it to the words from which they draw their beliefs. Especially since such a large segment of that population does claim to take the Bible word-for-word."
Each person doesn't do their own interpretation. Ever here of different religions? There are people that believe, but don't belong to an organized religion. For the most part people adhere to an organized religion that they believe best represents their own interpretation of the Bible.
Who takes the Bible word for word? If this ways true you would have been stoned years ago.
First, way to totally avoid my first point. How do you respond to the dilemma of inherent margin of error?
"Each person doesn't do their own interpretation. Ever here of different religions?"
That hardly supports your claim. Indeed, it just makes my point that much more valid.
"There are people that believe, but don't belong to an organized religion."
I know. And, by-and-large, I have more respect for them than those who gather in glassy-eyed flocks with people who view them as little more than dollar signs. BUT that just means that they are essentially making their own "Interpret the Bible So It Says What You Want It To" manual, and how can I possibly take that as universal truth? Same response to your next sentence (which, by the way, appears to contradict your first sentence.)
"Who takes the Bible word for word?"
Let me re-post my statement, bolded for emphasis:
"Especially since such a large segment of that population does claim to take the Bible word-for-word."
Believe you me, I rather enjoy pointing out to Bible literalists that they are missing a few dozen points.
"If this ways true you would have been stoned years ago."
Actually, I was pretty damned stoned last weekend, but it was no Christian that did it to me...
Not when I posted that. And not now. And, And AND...you didn't respond to anything I said. Face it, you can't even logically work around the points of a "drug" user.
Now you believe that the use of drugs doesn't alter one's mental capacities. Have a couple of beers and get behind the wheel. Better yet, smoke something and drive.
"Now you believe that the use of drugs doesn't alter one's mental capacities."
I never claimed that. But I DO claim that I have more brain cells to waste than you do.
"Have a couple of beers and get behind the wheel. Better yet, smoke something and drive."
In both cases: Never have, never will. After a loss I experienced at age 15, I know better.
By the by, you STILL haven't answered ANY of my points. If you respond, I will respond accordingly. If you keep trying to ignore my points, I will insult your mental capabilities. Your choice! :)
To fulfill my promised obligation: You are an f*ing idiot, sir!
"What points?"
Me:
"Thus necessitating interpretation, thus creating the potential for misinterpretation, and simultaneously failing to provide strict instruction for the methodology used for interpretation."
"...what objective method do these different sects have for positively identifying their veracity? How can one claim universal truth through vague riddles?"
"How do you respond to the dilemma of inherent margin of error?" (repetitive, I know...but you brought it on yourself.)
"that just means that they are essentially making their own "Interpret the Bible So It Says What You Want It To" manual, and how can I possibly take that as universal truth?"
"(which, by the way, appears to contradict your first sentence.)"
"Face it, you can't even logically work around the points of a "drug" user."
Not to mention the other debates where you appear to have given up. But for now, respond to the above.
I'm agnostic and I've never claimed to be more moral than anyone and I also am not one of the people passing out all the down votes. I'm conservative and most of my friends are Christian... That's fine by me. Not all Agnostics and Atheists are as radical as some on this site.
What beliefs somebody has doesn't matter. What does matter is when one's belief is as self-righteous as some of the atheist here, the difference between them and the religious extremist is none. Al qaida with a different name. An extremist is an extremist.
It is too easy to follow God. Everytime you do something wrong could be god's will, you go to church, pray a bit and it is done! When you can't do this you have to be responsible of your acts and make your own path.
It's not easy at all to believe in yourself and trust in yourself. But I believe in humans, because we can be bad but also very good, nothing to do with god.
In order to address this question properly and as objectively as possible, I think we have to first look at the nature and definition of what morality actually is. I think most would agree (or at least my interpretation of the formal definition) that it is a person's viewpoint about what is right or wrong. I do believe that each person does not point their own "moral compass" in the same direction in every situation, meaning that I think the position each individual has is dependent upon each topic. This is true even within groups who tend to share the same beliefs (there are always disagreements within those groups).
Based on this fact, there is an extremely low probability that an absolute morality exists (ie...one given to each individual by a god/s) because if there were, there wouldn't be so many disagreements on seemingly basic moral issues. The only way humans can get "morals" (really the only ways known so far) is from their evolution, and experience/influence during early development.
From an evolutionary standpoint (yes, evolution is real...it is supported by a HUGE amount of evidence), so called acts of altruism expressed today could actually be evolved behaviors that would benefit our relationship with others in a community. For example, giving another person some of your food would allow your relationship with that person to remain positive, and you would be seen as a productive/valued member of the group by them...maybe you would even get food the next time.
We also get "morals" from our influences/experiences. Our parents, peers, and experiences can help to teach us rules or "morals" that will help us survive in society. The notions of right and wrong are drilled into our heads at an early age when we are most susceptible and influenced by new ideas. We also (the rational ones) try to think about each topic and decide our position based on what we feel is the appropriate side....that is from reasoning/ logic.
Long story short...morals come from our evolutionary past and our influences...hopefully those influences dont come from a "magic" book written thousands of years ago...
Atheism as a belief does not support the notion of morals. It does allow for ethics, the interpretation of morals. However, while both individuals who are religious and irreligious can act with morality, their actions can ultimately be analyzed according to a fundamental moral standard, and as such they cannot claim to follow their own moral code.
There are moral beliefs that are accepted (almost) universally, even if they are not implemented according to the parameters of such a doctrine.
Ethics refers to the interpretation of morals to specific events and settings. That is what individuals could tailor to themselves, but the title of this debate suggests morality, not ethics.
The interpretation can be altered, not the original "text."
Various belief systems may offer their own translation of morality, such as how morals to be applied, but at that point it becomes a matter of ethics, not morals, and such it is irrelevant to this discussion.
I see no reason why there can not be more than one "text".
hm, A moral defines what is right or wrong, ethnics determines how a moral applies to a situation. Some will say different things justifies killing for example, it is then up to ethnics to determine if those different things were in place during the situation. Take for instance: abortion, there are numerous moral systems in place.
I see no reason why there can not be more than one "text".
There are single beliefs pertaining to whether something is wrong, but multiple interpretations regarding each belief.
Take for instance: abortion, there are numerous moral systems in place.
Not really. One side says that it is right, while the other disagrees. That debate occurs within the same moral arena, but it is viewed from different lenses.
Belief A = Denying women the ability to have abortions;
A pro-choice person would state Belief A as immoral.
A pro-life person would state Belief A as moral.
Both of them are interpreting the belief, but both have a different belief about if it is wrong.
What do you mean by moral arena? Do you mean they use the same moral beliefs to determine if it is right or wrong?
The arguments for and against abortion appear to use different standards, the for usually uses women rights, well the against usually uses something about religion and life being precious to god.
Belief A = Denying women the ability to have abortions;
A pro-choice person would state Belief A as immoral.
A pro-life person would state Belief A as moral.
In a manner of speaking.
Both of them are interpreting the belief, but both have a different belief about if it is wrong.
What do you mean by moral arena? Do you mean they use the same moral beliefs to determine if it is right or wrong?
A more accurate statement in that debate would be "Women have a moral right to have an abortion" or the converse. Both are reflections of one, another, each supporting its respective view. Ethics would be the determination of whether an abortion is correct in each circumstance in which it may be applied, or the determination of which methods are proper during a procedure.
If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored? In the long run, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway? Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong? Where do those standards come from? Sure, our societies might make these things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences for things that are not socially acceptable, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun; from slavery, to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy. Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth.
"If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most?"
Nothing changes. The religious exist whether or not God does. The atheist, not believing in God, still critiques religions and religious people. As far as whose opinion matters most, well that's rather subjective. We each form our own judgments on that.
"Whose voice will be heard?"
Probably the one that shouts the loudest.
"Whose tastes or preferences will be honored?"
Same as now. As long as your tastes or preferences don't cause harm to society or other people, why not allow them?
"In the long run, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway?"
Mostly true. Too bad we can't ask the founders of religions those questions.
"Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong?"
Anyone who has experienced these things. Most atheists don't care for these things either. They destabilize society.
"Sure, our societies might make these things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences for things that are not socially acceptable, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun; from slavery, to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy."
It sometimes takes awhile, but we usually get pretty good at weeding out the more destructive behaviors.
Also, life is change. Some things that were once viable no longer are.
"Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth."
Whereas religion accepts precepts as truth without thorough investigation. If they are wrong, they will always be wrong.
As a coincidence, yes. However, atheists will not profess to follow the universal moral standards that are accepted by society. Rather, they interpret them. As such, they do not follow their own morals, but rather interpretations of those.
These morals consist of a standards that have been recognized by individuals throughout history, with the obvious exceptions of various psychopaths. These people would recognize that killing someone without provocation or justification is immoral (it would most likely elicit guilt). These are instilled into people from birth, not developed as a belief system by children and adolescents as they ponder the surrounding world. In addition, modern neuroscience is revealing that there is a connection between brain activity and and morality, in a manner that opposes the claim that people are completely responsible for their own moral beliefs.
