The Instigator
hopester1111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
patrick967
Con (against)
Winning
64 Points

An atheist president would NOT be okay.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
patrick967
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,170 times Debate No: 59007
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (11)

 

hopester1111

Pro

First round is acceptance.
patrick967

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
hopester1111

Pro

Reason #1: It is stated in the pledge of allegiance "One nation under god." If we have an atheist president, who's to say that he/she will actually have us as one nation under god? If they already don't believe in god, are they potentially able to give us the freedom we deserve? We could end up being punished because this so called "atheist" believes that since god "took" one of their close family members that we should be "taken" as well. Do we really want to trust someone who already won't believe in "one nation under god"?

Reason #2: The United States is mostly all Christians who believe in god. Where do you think the "One nation under god" came from con side? I'm positive that an atheist wrote that line... aren't you? (Sarcasm) I mean really? I'm not saying that the whole United States is made up of all Christians, but I AM saying that the United States has their religion built up of all religions that believe in some kind of god/leader.

I'm quite anxious to know why you think an atheist can be president and control his/her people.
patrick967

Con

Rebuttals:

"It is stated in the pledge of allegiance "One nation under god." If we have an atheist president, who's to say that he/she will actually have us as one nation under god?"

The Pledge of Allegiance is not the standard that the Founding Fathers set for people who want to become President.
The only reason that the Pledge has "under God" in it is because it was added in 1954 in response to the "godless Commies."[1][2][3]
I remind you, The Constitution is the one document we should be paying attention to. Not one of the words in that document are "God" or "Jesus." The Pledge of Allegiance is actually unconstitutional by blending church and state.

"If they already don't believe in god, are they potentially able to give us the freedom we deserve?"
Being atheist doesn't mean we're all copies of Stalin or Mao. It doesn't mean we don't have morals. Also, god and freedom are not intertwined. You can have one without the other.

"We could end up being punished because this so called "atheist" believes that since god "took" one of their close family members that we should be "taken" as well."
Is this really what you have? None of my close family/friends have died, and if they did, I wouldn't blame the big man upstairs. I would also not take it out on over 314 million people. Obviously if this atheist has been elected President, he/she has proven themselves to be mentally stable. Also, why is atheist in quotes? I'm pretty sure when I say I'm atheist I'm not joking.

"Do we really want to trust someone who already won't believe in 'one nation under god'?"
God doesn't play a role in morality. I'm not going to slaughter all Americans for my deep hatred of someone I don't think exists.

"The United States is mostly all Christians who believe in god."
So? Does that mean that only a Christian should be President?

My opponent has yet to fill her burden of proof, but I will still present an arguments that she could make.

1. Morality
I've mentioned this a bit. You don't need to believe in God to have morality. I haven't killed anyone, yet I'm an atheist. If anything, Christians are the ones without morals. Just look at your holy book!
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-31:18

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
Deuteronomy 22:8-22:9

Just filled with good, clean morals for the whole family!





Debate Round No. 2
hopester1111

Pro

"Forfeit"
patrick967

Con

Pro has forfeited, and as such, all conduct points should go to me.
Debate Round No. 3
hopester1111

Pro

Forfeited
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheDebateMaster1 3 years ago
TheDebateMaster1
Why does everyone assume we atheists are not nice, i mean look at christians, they burned us and we haven't done anything back, so why are we punished still today
Posted by FMAlchemist 3 years ago
FMAlchemist
"..."atheist" believes that since god... "

NO
Posted by FMAlchemist 3 years ago
FMAlchemist
"..."atheist" believes that since god... "

NO
Posted by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
All of Pro's arguments are laughable, but the funniest one by far is " We could end up being punished because this so called "atheist" believes that since god "took" one of their close family members that we should be "taken" as well." An atheist would not blame and god for taking a close family member because an atheist does not believe in any god. If you are worried about people who are angry at god(s), focus your energy on the people who believe in them.

@XionChan Apparently the bible is still God's word. Did God make a mistake when he wrote the OT? Why did his son have to come and re-write the laws?

Plus there is also Matthew 5: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The bible is so full of contradiction. The founding fathers were very smart to denote a separation between church and state because the bible can be used to easily justify any good or bad action. It has no place in the governing of people.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
I don't think conduct should go to Con just because Pro forfeited. I mean, he forfeited intermediately, he didn't waste your time. That's respect, he knew he was not going to win. In the other hand ff for time is a fail in conduct.

And I don't think god has not been justified, at least not all except Kan, it was more like half and a half. Sure, not exactly the half, but you know what I mean.
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
The context can be interpreted in different ways. The founding fathers were philosophers as well, and generally god has been justified even to the irreligious. The only philosopher who denied a "divine" like essence is Kant to my knowledge.
Posted by XionChan 3 years ago
XionChan
The reason the Founding Fathers didn't have "under God" originally doesn't mean that they were irreligious. Obviously, the original context must have been written long ago, when America was a "Christian nation." (I can bring up a couple of Supreme Court cases from the 1800s that I quoted this from, if you want.)

As far as your Bible thing is concerned, you shouldn't bring up laws like that unless you follow up with "but."
If you know much about the Bible, you would then realize that the New Testament put away those laws, even if the text still says it. I would only assume otherwise that the references you pulled out where said in metaphor. "Slaying" as in being condemned to Hell, stuff like that.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 3 years ago
Free_Th1nker
Wow I wish I had gotten to this debate first...Pro's stance is moronic.
Posted by Natsu_Dragneel 3 years ago
Natsu_Dragneel
And theeeeeeeeeeere is the counter attack I was afraid of...
Was smart of Con to take advantage of that weak argument.

Not to mention
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:8-22:9
Is the story of my life...
Posted by patrick967 3 years ago
patrick967
Today is just not my day.
2nd round sources:
[1]-http://www.ushistory.org...
[2]-http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[3]-https://en.wikipedia.org...
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ben671176 3 years ago
ben671176
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: hopester1111 should've not ff. I would've liked to see this debate too. :'(
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 3 years ago
NathanDuclos
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I saw the debate and thought it would be fun to read, and was so disappointed by hopester leaving. . . .
Vote Placed by neveragain 3 years ago
neveragain
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should not be allowed to procreate.
Vote Placed by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by YaHey 3 years ago
YaHey
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ofrfeited and thus loses conduct points. Pro forfeited and thus loses arguments points.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Free_Th1nker 3 years ago
Free_Th1nker
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Weak argument given by pro, capitalized on by con.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 3 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
hopester1111patrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit