Gym Debate Commentary: Does history show that God is not neccesary for morality? (mpb1 vs. ApologiaPhoenix)

[Kelp]

A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:


God is not necessary for objective morality as is proven by history.
ApologiaPhoenix will be defending the negative and mpb1 will be defending the affirmative. This debate will begin as soon as ApologiaPhoenix makes his first post. The debate will last 5 rounds.

This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate. The debate participants may not participate in this thread until their debate is concluded.

[glassonion]

This looks to be a good one....,..pop the corn and give me some diet DP........I wish the issue being discussed included the word "objective"

[Sparko]

according to the OP, Nick is defending the affirmative that
God is not necessary for morality as is proven by history.

that should be interesting. I hope Kelp fixes it.

[Sparko]

according to the OP, Nick is defending the affirmative that
God is not necessary for morality as is proven by history.

that should be interesting. I hope Kelp fixes it.

fixed.

[mpb1]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Mountain Man

Debate participants are not permitted to post in the commentary thread until after the conclusion of the debate.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Manwë Súlimo]

#1, you shouldn't be here, per the rules.

#2:

• Edited by a Moderator •

Begging the question much?

• Edited by a Moderator •

Erm...isn't that what this argument is about?

[Steve007]

[EvoUK]

I've never really spoken to mpb1, however, I agree with the point he's making:

• Edited by a Moderator •

If there is an objective moral standard, we obviously don't hold to it as morality changes across time and societies. This is trivially correct.

This bit, specifically, is what I'm talking about:

"If objective morality existed, it would have to reside within human nature. And if it existed, personal surveys on standards of right and wrong would all come back the same. But they don't."

This doesn't occur. Therefore, if there is an objective morality, either we don't have direct access to it, or there's some other explanation for the differing opinions.

This should be sorted out prior to the debate, as in, what objective morality means, specifically, or the "debate" will be... boring.

[Sparko]

MPB1 argued that taking of virgins in the bible was morally wrong and was rape. By doing so he is applying an objective standard to that society. He is saying what they did was wrong. If there is no objective standard then he has no basis on which to call it wrong, because their morality would have been subjectively right because they believed it to be so.

he can't have his cake and eat it too.

[RumTumTugger]

[mpb1]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Manwë Súlimo]

Once again, you illiterate dolt, you can't post here while the debate is going on.

[Steve007]

mpb1, just to let you know, the participants in the debate are not supposed to post here (it's one of the rules). I'm not picking on you; I'm just letting you know. You're not the first person to break this rule, and someone else in a recent debate made the same mistake. If you really must say something, then you probably should post it in that long thread that you were in before.

[mpb1]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Kelp]

• Edited by a Moderator •

That's not my call to make, I'm not an Apologetics mod and as such cannot edit the posts of others in this thread, I reported each of your out of order posts for other staff members to deal with. Was it a mistake to approve your Sign-Up Sheet post before reporting it? Perhaps. It happens.

Don't just assume you know how our system works, if something is unclear, ask in a private message.

• Edited by a Moderator •

More likely he was talking to EvoUK and Eru or else he was commenting in accordance with the purpose of this thread in general on what he knows of your position as you will soon be expressing it in the debate thread, otherwise he too has made a mistake and it will soon be corrected.

Now please leave this thread. Your posts will shortly be deleted from here.

Everyone else, please don't reply to mpb1 until the debate is over.