Humans Can be Good Without God

Unfortunately for my opponent, the study which cites to negate my source is nullified by the study which my initial study is based on. [1] I stand by my first post. My opponent is objectively wrong here. My study is more recent and is from a European study poll which is much more substantive and reliable than his study, since it is from the highly reputed European Commission. Only 23% of the people of Sweden believe in a monotheistic God – again, corroborating my thesis that humans can indeed be good without God. I end up back in my initial contention about the relationship between Iraqi refugees and Sweden stated in my opening arguments. My opponent quotes from a book as evidence for a scientific and historical claim, which has not been proven by him or her, thereby rendering the source useless. If my opponent does not explain the validity of his or her source, then there is no reason why anybody should take his quotes seriously. I can as easily quote that "I have a hollow unicorn underneath my house" according to my diary, but since I have not proven the veracity or the solidity of my source, the quote is obsolete. Moreover, my opponent seems a bit confounded. This debate is not about historical figures or holy books for that matter; we are here to debate whether or not morals without the monotheistic god of any of the three mainstream holy books is possible or not. If my opponent refuses to accept this fact, then my contentions should sound much more resounding since I provided all the evidence for the thesis and my opponent has offered none against it. Again, the validity of Jesus as a historical figure is an interesting topic, but not the one at hand. My opponent is avoiding the given topic at hand. Perhaps he is intimidated by the lack of evidence he has on his side. I reiterate: this debate is whether or not humans are able to be moral without a monotheistic god of the three main faiths or not. My opponent seems to blab on and on about the historical accuracy of Jesus. This circumvention has been noted and addressed above. My opponent states "We can conclude that I have given the proof of burden stating my evidence for my God." It seems as though he or she is perplexed about the difference between a historical figure and an omnipotent and omniscient deity. If he or she is confused by such a clear distinction, I beg of the audience to use their imagination to wonder what else he could possibly be confused about. Despite my mis-citation of a link, my opponent still has not responded to my other two sources corroborating monkey morality. Since silence is assertion, his silence is acceptance of my claims, which undermine the totality of what he is arguing for. My opponent cites absolutely nothing in support of his claims. No scientific data, statistics, or studies to support his claim about humans being equivalent to dogs in terms of animalistic behavior. As the avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens would say, "that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". [2] My opponent impetuously and unambiguously states the "The scientific method is flawed." Again, no methodology or citations. Simply a claim without adequate research or backing. Time and time again, my opponent refuses to cite any type of serious scientific study or research. He is swaying away from the topic and challenge at hand time and time again. Without context, my opponent disingenuously mis-quotes notable scientists from the past. Isaac Newton lived in the 17th century, when it "was still seen as an illness or a result of a perverse will, since it was not apparent how such a view could be held rationally" as according to the University of Cambridge's "Investigating Atheism" project. [3] If Newton had been conceived in a later time period, atheism would be much more widely accepted and much more commonplace. After all, he would not have wanted to end up like Galileo Galilei, who lived during the same era, would he? [4] Albert Einstein did in fact not believe in a personal or "all knowing power" as my opponent says. He or she is being dishonest here again; sadly however, this does not seem too uncommon at this point. To clarify my opponent's disingenuous intent to confound the audience, here are some quotes Einstein unequivocally meant to be interpreted as they are. "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)" "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)" [5] Again, my opponent makes no attempt at connecting morality with his or her monotheistic deity. This debate is now becoming a farce, as it seems my opponent will not address the issue at hand. Apparently, the God in the Old Testament does not know from right and wrong, despite what my opponent superficially claims without any type of evidence. He has committed mass genocide on multiple occasions in the Old Testament. [6][7][8][9][10][11] This is simply a minute number of examples from the vast library of other atrocities the Christian God has allowed, or even directly commissioned. Humans don't have a choice but to have free will. Thus, the fact that the mainstream God will "bestow" upon his creation free will is dishonest of him, to say the least. Science actually does and is beginning to understand these types of thoughts. My opponent is obviously ignorant of a nascent field named "neurotics". He or she should definitely delve into this field, as it debunks whatever claims he or she states science cannot explain. [12] My opponent has the burden of proof stating that his or her God is not a malevolent one, as he is making the outstanding claim. Despite me having instigated this debate, he or she, by accepting the challenge, has accepted his or her onus. Despite this however, my opponent has, time and time again, refused to provide any type of evidence or contentions for his or her side that humans cannot be good without God. Now, for points of my own. My first point of contention is that reciprocal altruism is innate in us humans. This concept conveys that morality is based on our evolution as a species. This can be seen In Dr. Trivers' work. [13] My second point of contention is that sexual selection has further encouraged the moral behavior of humans, again independent of a mainstream God. For more elaboration on this topic, I refer to the psychologist Geoffrey Miller. [14] My third and last point of contention is that kin selection is a biological phenomenon which also promotes moralistic behavior without a monotheistic God. [15][16] For my opponent to win this debate, he or she must debase my arguments, construct new ones, actually address the topic, and rebut my contentions. [1] http://ec.europa.eu... [2] http://www.slate.com... [3] http://www.investigatingatheism.info... [4] http://books.google.com.au... [5] http://www.spaceandmotion.com... [6] http://biblia.com... [7] http://biblia.com... [8] http://biblia.com... [9] http://biblia.com... [10] http://biblia.com... [11] http://biblia.com... [12] http://www.neuroethics.upenn.edu... [13] http://www.cdnresearch.net... [14] http://www.unm.edu... [15] http://www.mendeley.com... [16] http://www.jstor.org...