Humans Can be Good Without God

Onto the debate. My opponent is seriously mistaken. Since he is the one claiming something outside of the accepted scientific and historical analyses, he is the one with the onus of proof. His attempt at sticking me with the onus clearly shows he is ignorant of his own beliefs and those around him. He opens up with a personal attack, an insult both to me and the audience who is reading this. The topic here is NOT about atheism or belief; it is about whether humans can be good with a God of the mainstream faiths. Since my opponent does not know enough about the topic at hand, unequivocally conveyed by his previous posts, he attacks me and my beliefs personally. My opponent's dialogue is peppered with my nonbelief – again corroborating my above point. My opponent has very few formal citations, leading us to believe he is drawing within himself for so-called "facts". A prime example of this is when he states unfounded claims such as "Recent Muslim sources are saying over 25 percent of Stockholm is Islamic. If you look closely at your report it is not that they do not believe in God my friend". There are no citations, no evidence for these claims. Sweden is by majority, a secular country because it holistically does not believe in a mainstream religious belief. Anybody who doubts the veracity of my Sweden claim can check the link I stated above. Again, only 23% of Swedes believe in a mainstream God, making it, via majority, secular. Again, I have cited, unlike my opponent, my sources above. They are open for all to see. My opponent has not formally cited any "archaeological evidence" in his previous posts. FORMAL CITATIONS are what is to be expected in this type of forum and debate. If my opponent is incapable of providing these citations, which he unequivocally has not, then it will unambiguous who is the winner of this debate. Also, up to this point, my opponent has not addressed the topic at hand: whether humans can be moral without a God. Albert Eistein was a pantheist – by definition [1] and by my above quotes. It is not my problem if my opponent is too intellectually lazy to differentiate the two. The quote my opponent utilizes is again, disingenuous. The quote points to no type of higher, personal God. It simply states that Einstein believed in the god of the natural order. This definition of Einstein's "god" has been severely misconstrued, and apparently, confused and abused. My opponent again quotes the Bible – to which he has provided no support for the historical accuracy. Just because the Bible is used in numerous places does not signify its veracity. I could as easily have stated that slavery is justified due to the large number of people accepting the pro-slavery The Planter's Northen Bride by Caroline Lee Heintz. [2] Yet again, my adversary states absolutely NO scientific evidence for the connection between the dogs and their affinity for bones. Again, the audience will decide which side is more plausible – the contentions advocated by numerous scientific studies or the arguments supported by zero evidence. Finally, my opponent make a claim remotely resembling the topic at hand with his fragile "God is right and wrong. " If God is "right and wrong" then he is at times wrong – making him an unreliable source for objective and absolute morality. My opponent has contradicted his platform. The link which my opponent provides for the evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah is facetious. There are pictures of dubious minerals, rocks, and landscapes. Not a single citation, piece of documentation, or scientific report following up these images. To the extent which my opponent has provide sources up to now however, it is not so unpredictable. If Sodom and Gomorrah were such "wicked" cities, then why would such a benevolent God kill them so ruthlessly? Why should the omnipotent God not give those humans the tools to repair their own morals? The claim that this God would extirpate his creation to set an example of morality is as ludicrous as the fact that there are no immoral cities today destroyed by "eternal fire". [3] My opponent does not elaborate on the fact that the flood killed all of the civilization, excluding Noah. This fact seems to be disgustingly condoned by my adversary, however. Cleansing everybody with those who do not meet your standards is not a moral principle or attitude. By miserably attempting to connect this cleansing with morality, my opponent fails to see this inherent contradiction in his argument. His next points have been addressed above. "Neurotics again is not anything reliable". My opponent is now placing words into my mouth. I never stated this – I simply stated for him to research more about neuroethics and its field. I have provided the appropriate sources above, albeit it seems like he refused to take the time to investigate my claims more thoroughly. Without addressing my point about innate biological morality, these points still stand. My opponent has refused to address these contentions of reciprocal altruism, kin selection, and sexual selection. The next points which my opponent makes have been addressed time and time again above. In conclusion, my opponent fails miserably in arguing for his side. He seems to circumvent around the issue of morality at hand, instead delving into impertinent claims supported by absolutely no evidence. My previous points about biogloical morality still stand, as my adversay simply utilizes ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the actual biological findings. In conclusion, I win because I have actively pushed and evidently supported findings with facts and papers. My opponent has done the exact opposite. [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://docsouth.unc.edu... [3] . http://www.biblegateway.com...;