Morality Without God

My opponent was unable to post her last round in time. However, she has made her case in the comments section. I accept this as legitimate. For ease of access, I will post what she said here: ===Con's Argument=== I tried to reply to your claims sentence by sentence, but they say the same thing, so I better club up my response over here. "Every one of us believes in something which helps us to live a life on earth." " It's useless for me to think that I am merely a perishable body that is nothing but just the outcome of an accident with big bang etc. I contemplate on the physical part of our existence and enjoy the fragrance of a divine presence of someone who has planned to make this human body so dexterously and beautifully. Some vital and delicate parts of our body are protected by covering with hard bones and skeleton. Is there no logic to believe a planner who is superior to human being? We may call Him as God or with any other name; whatever we may like to call Him."~dipu] The question about whether there is a god or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. The question is about our belief in him. If we believe in him, we have our reasons, and if we don't , it's the lack of reasons. But if we believe in him, we, at every point include him in our decisions, and thus that feeling shapes our actions, and our character, and finally morals. If we don't, we simply don't include him anywhere and it's just us and the society… While shaping our decisions, we don't have to prove his existence to us. So, the actuality does not affect our decisions. So I don't see how whether God exists or not has any relation to the discussion in continuation. It does not affect our decisions. Nor our actions. This is what sums up mostly everything. [She goes on:] Now, what you state, logic and reason, theoretically may seem easy, it may seem that it is the better answer, a better proposal to the world. But really, it is infinitely weaker than it seems. Simply because Man is not that strong. Let us take an example. At a four pointer road, we Need a red light, right? Why? Every vehicle-driver knows the rules, it knows the logic, the reason, it knows it shouldn't cross when another one is crossing, but still we need a red light to regulate the traffic. or there is a traffic jam. It's simple. On an infinitely small proportion, man cannot live without a regulator. How can you expect him to live and follow logic and rules when he believes there is no regulator of the world? This is what is eating the world today. Today we just can't imagine there is a god. We don't believe we are answerable to anyone, and slowly and steadily this competitive ideology is coming into being. This ideology that states- in simple words, ‘the end result matters'. The ‘by hook and by crook' thinking. This is what happens when we don't believe in the things we should. [She quotes me:] "One must merely ask themselves when deciding if something is wrong to do: "If everyone did it, would it be beneficial to me?"" Yes, one should. But will one? That's a question worth asking. You are proposing something that would seem ideal, and can be workable. But the probability is very less. It's almost impossible. It's like we are comparing a bad democracy to a good dictatorship. Can there be a good dictatorship? Yes. But the chances…? Really less. Because with great power comes great responsibility. In a dictatorship, the power is given to a single person. And yet the person actually exercising the power responsibly is infinitely less compared to the people exploiting it. In fact, I can't recall even one at this point of time. But the system you are proposing, you propose to give the power to hundreds, thousands, millions of people and expect them to exercise it responsibly. The chances are almost nil. ===Response=== "The question about whether there is a god or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. The question is about our belief in him. If we believe in him, we have our reasons, and if we don't , it's the lack of reasons. But if we believe in him, we, at every point include him in our decisions, and thus that feeling shapes our actions, and our character, and finally morals. If we don't, we simply don't include him anywhere and it's just us and the society… While shaping our decisions, we don't have to prove his existence to us. So, the actuality does not affect our decisions. So I don't see how whether God exists or not has any relation to the discussion in continuation. It does not affect our decisions. Nor our actions." If you haven't figured it out already, let me be as clear as possible: 1. For a moral system to be just and valid it MUST be based on reason. You agreed to this. 2. IF the belief in God is unreasonable than any moral system based off belief in him is invalid. 3. This debate is on whether the nonbelief in God can result in a just and valid moral system. 4. Thus the reasonability of believing in God is entirely relevant to this debate. Do you get it now? Ok, now I'll go further with that. 1. I have already stated that the definition of reason includes that we realize what it is we do and do not know and except them as such, for what the are. 2. I also stated that the concept of faith is in contradiction to that. Faith being the acceptance of things as true which you do not know. 3. Belief in God requires faith. 4. Thus any moral system based off of belief in God IS invalid. So I have actually already won this debate. "Every vehicle-driver knows the rules, it knows the logic, the reason, it knows it shouldn't cross when another one is crossing, but still we need a red light to regulate the traffic. or there is a traffic jam. It's simple. On an infinitely small proportion, man cannot live without a regulator. How can you expect him to live and follow logic and rules when he believes there is no regulator of the world?" Alas, you make a huge fail in this argument. There, indeed, is a grand regulator. They are called the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Not a God Here is where you fail; The intrinsic laws of reality are not a matter of opinion. They cannot be justifiably denied, only accepted or left unrecognized. Whereas the concept of God is hugely susceptible to opinion. Look at all the religions of the world, all the different views of God, all with contradicting morals, all who yet claim that true morality can only be based off their vision of God. "Yes, one should. But will one? That's a question worth asking." Worth asking--definitely! Relevant to the debate? Absolutely not. We're debating on the just legitimacy of opposing moral system. Whether one choose to follow it or not says nothing about the actual system. The same question be just as easily asked of God-based morality. What if they don't follow God's will? It is irrelevant to the debate. Thus my showcase for a viable moral-system without God remains apparently valid. ===Conclusion=== I have not only clearly shown how a just and viable more system can and does exist without the belief in God or the existence of God, but I have also shown just as clearly how the opposing view, one that there is a God, actually can produce no logically valid and just moral system. I thank my opponent for the pleasant debate. VOTE PRO. One more closing thing: [see video] http://www.youtube.com...