The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
18Karl
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism has debased morality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
harrytruman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 82509
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

harrytruman

Pro

Atheism;
Did you ever wonder why the worst people in human history were atheists, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, why is this? It is most likely because of their way of thinking, take this for example; there is no physical proof of morality, it does not exist In a tangible form, so if you eliminate the existence of god because there is no proof, even though there is, then you can most definitely eliminate morality because it is not physical. There is a reason why Niche was an atheist, not a Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Shintoist, Confucian, or Sikhist, why, because a religion, even philosophies such as Confucianism, demand a standard of virtue, atheism demands no virtue. Why, because atheism "demands no further qualifications than that you do not believe in god", so if your whole belief system is based on "I don"t like the bible it is always trying to tell me to do stuff", then you can pretty much guess why evolutionism is appealing to atheists. This is because evolutionism is just a buttered up version of Hitler"s famous quote "might is right", all it is- is survival of the fittest, Hitler used this to justify the Jewish holocaust, John D Rockefeller used it to justify whatever he did by saying "capitalism is survival of the fittest", he basically believed that the strongest survived and that he was the strongest so he deserved to survive but no one else did.
Most every atrocity was justified by some form of evolutionism, and most of the perpetrators were atheists, so now we can see a direct link between atheism and mass genocide. Now, I understand that some people will come to me and tell me that Christianity did this also, but there is a difference, how- because the Christian perpetrators used a sick ideology and passed it off as Christianity, there is no link between Christianity and any atrocities done by so called Christians. Take one for example; slavery, the truth is- is that Christianity was only something convenient, I do not see how you can get "Black people are less than white people" out of "You cannot be a respecter of persons". I can see, however, you can justify mass genocides from "survival of the fittest", or "if I can"t see it; it isn"t there". Now, Christianity was not their only excuse for slavery, it was only their prime reason early on, they later shifted to a pseudoscience, skull shapes, so this was a branch off of evolution.
So, atheists don"t believe in god, ok, we all know that, the issue is; is that "they were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights", there it is, if you don"t believe in god, you cannot believe in unalienable rights. Rights on the other hand, not unalienable though, they believe are endowed by the government. The problem is that this is called a "collectivist mindset", G Edward Griffin made a video on it called "the collectivist conspiracy", this guy is kind of- off, I would not believe it if not for the fact that this was among the conclusions drawn up during the milligrams test. I know of no scenario where a mass genocide occurred without a collective morality.
So that is pretty much it, I would like to see your responses.
18Karl

Con

FRAMEWORK

This debate talks about reducing the value of morality in causation with Atheism. To this, I would like to argue that to say that atheism reduced the value of morality (debasing morality) is simply flawed, as morality simply has been revised under the post-modernist memes that one lives in.


ARGUMENT

a.) Post-Modern Morality

In this argument, I shall argue that atheism does not in anyway debase (redue in the value) of morality, but rather, it creates a new way of interpreting morality. The debate on morality has gone on since the earliest of times. However, the current ways of interpreting morality often arise from David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume's philosophy basically states that since reason is neutral, then it cannot put value into things. The neutrality of reason henceforth creates the mere moral vacuum, as morality is basically a valuing or devaluing of certain acts. [1] Although it would be sufficient to add that Hume was an atheist, his philosophy actually derives from a rich tradition of theists. For example, Hume's philosophical grandparent, John Locke, was a theist.

To go on with the history of the post-modern interpretation of morality, morality was also discussed in the works of Soren Kiekengraad. Kiekengraad was a Danish philosopher, most famous for his book Either/Or. Kiekengraad was a devout Christian, whose theology was to profoundly effect the way theology worked. Kiekengraad saw God's command as supreme to morality. An example, not necessarily used by Kiekengraad himself, was Abraham attempt at killing his son for God. Kiekengraad, of course, argued that this was morally unjustified. Yet, as God was in no way below morality, then God's commands are supreme. The effects of this on the interpretation of morality is interesting. Christians are now presented with another way of interpreting the Gospels: they are God's command, rather than moral precepts. Some of them may have some relations to moral precepts, but since they are from God, one does not violate this.

Now, we come to Nietzsche. Nietzsche was an atheist, undoubtedly, but he also hated Christian morality. Christian morality limited the "will to live," to use Nietszsche's words. He also saw Christian morality as a slave revolt against the strong, the prideful etc. But, in the realm of the interpretation of morality, he also introduced perspectivism-the belief that all we believe in is a perspective. [2] This rudimentary and rushed history shall be enough to conclude many things. Firstly, no one of these three philosophers in anyway reduced the value of morality. In fact they all proclaimed it is key to living life. They merely reinterpreted morality-and this is crucial. To debase morality is to say morality has no more importance in our life-virtue is dead, and that this is good. However, the three post-modern philosophers here argued differently: morality needs to be debated, but virtue is not dead, and it shall live on, albeit differently.

Hence, to conclude, atheism has in no way debased morality. Quite the opposite, many atheist philospher has proclamed morality to be fundamental to life, and shall be kept that way.

REBUTTALS

b.) Evolutionism and Mass Murder

There is no connection between evolutionism and mass murder whatsoever. This is because "evolutionism" is in every way a descriptive doctrine, and is not supposed to be prescriptive. Moreover, only misinterpretations of this doctrine has justified mass murder.

Firstly, it is a well-known fact that Hitler did not kill based on his unflinching belief on Social Darwinism. Although he did believe in it, he also had many nationalist factors. The Jews, according to Hitler, had robbed Germany. They organised the 1918 November Coup, and betrayed the millions of soldiers who were fighting for their Volk. Without this, and without other sentiments to incite it, it would have been hard for Hitler to have justified his fight. Moreover, Hitler and other scientific racists based their doctrines on a flawed notion. This is the notion of the Indo-European Urheimat. Hitler's scientific racist friends purported to have definite proof of his race being the "original" speakers of the Indo-European languages, and henceforth being the original "White" people. This proof was to come in the form of the Indo-European word for called salmon. But since then, this proof has come under attack from large amounts of linguistics, and it is often suggested that the word does not necessarily means salmon, but rather a "trout-like" fish.

Secondly, this argument assumes that every who believes in Evolution is immoral. This includes Christian. Christians, like the current Pope and the many current scientists, under Pro's test, shall be included as immoral for no apparent reason but that evolution's misinterpretation has been used, unfairly, to justify "mass murder."

c.) Rights and Atheism

This notion is the most flawed in Pro's argument. To use a slogan from one document, which has no relevance on the other side of the world, to prove that atheists do not believe in human rights, is as funny as to speak English to tigers. I would like to explain rights using natural law. We humans, once we come into society, are separate from every human being forever. And hence, our rights cannot come from them. But our rights cannot come from something outside us too-that would mean our rights are arbritarily decided, and can be taken away at any time (or that it is not known, for we can not know something that is outside us for sure). Yet, we know our rights, and we know that it is unalienable. Our rights, in actuality, come from our being a human. Humans are special-we have cognition and consciousness. Yet, with speciality comes responsibility, but of course, privileges. These privileges do not come from anything else but our humanity.

Hence, the resolution remains negated!


CITATIONS:

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

"This debate talks about reducing the value of morality in causation with Atheism. To this, I would like to argue that to say that atheism reduced the value of morality (debasing morality) is simply flawed, as morality simply has been revised under the post-modernist memes that one lives in. "
"In this argument, I shall argue that atheism does not in anyway debase (redue in the value) of morality, but rather, it creates a new way of interpreting morality. The debate on morality has gone on since the earliest of times. However, the current ways of interpreting morality often arise from David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume's philosophy basically states that since reason is neutral, then it cannot put value into things. The neutrality of reason henceforth creates the mere moral vacuum, as morality is basically a valuing or devaluing of certain acts. [1] Although it would be sufficient to add that Hume was an atheist, his philosophy actually derives from a rich tradition of theists. For example, Hume's philosophical grandparent, John Locke, was a theist."
This is irrelevant, Hume saying that morality is "illogical" does not in any way support your argument, you would think that an atheist saying that morality is stupid would help my debate, and lo and behold, it has.
"To go on with the history of the post-modern interpretation of morality, morality was also discussed in the works of Soren Kiekengraad. Kiekengraad was a Danish philosopher, most famous for his book Either/Or. Kiekengraad was a devout Christian, whose theology was to profoundly effect the way theology worked. Kiekengraad saw God's command as supreme to morality. An example, not necessarily used by Kiekengraad himself, was Abraham attempt at killing his son for God. Kiekengraad, of course, argued that this was morally unjustified. Yet, as God was in no way below morality, then God's commands are supreme. The effects of this on the interpretation of morality is interesting. Christians are now presented with another way of interpreting the Gospels: they are God's command, rather than moral precepts. Some of them may have some relations to moral precepts, but since they are from God, one does not violate this. "
No, god is not above morality, gods command is always in line with morality, and as far as Abraham goes, so what, maybe he sat out in the sun too long, it doesn"t matter, god did not order him to kill his son, if it was god saying that, then it was most likely a test to see if Abraham would do what invisible voices in his head say. This is most likely why he stopped him. You will not find any of kiekengraads nonsense in the bible, what you will find is things like "test every spirit."
"Now, we come to Nietzsche. Nietzsche was an atheist, undoubtedly, but he also hated Christian morality. Christian morality limited the "will to live," to use Nietszsche's words. He also saw Christian morality as a slave revolt against the strong, the prideful etc. But, in the realm of the interpretation of morality, he also introduced perspectivism-the belief that all we believe in is a perspective. [2] This rudimentary and rushed history shall be enough to conclude many things. Firstly, no one of these three philosophers in anyway reduced the value of morality. In fact they all proclaimed it is key to living life. They merely reinterpreted morality-and this is crucial. To debase morality is to say morality has no more importance in our life-virtue is dead, and that this is good. However, the three post-modern philosophers here argued differently: morality needs to be debated, but virtue is not dead, and it shall live on, albeit differently. "
I do not see your argument, niche argued that there is no right or wrong but if there was it would be morality because it prevents you from getting what you want. So what relevance does this have, you backed my argument yet again but failed to show how it supports your argument.
"Hence, to conclude, atheism has in no way debased morality. Quite the opposite, many atheist philospher has proclamed morality to be fundamental to life, and shall be kept that way."
Which ones, you just said some and cited 2 atheists who did not say that.
"There is no connection between evolutionism and mass murder whatsoever. This is because "evolutionism" is in every way a descriptive doctrine, and is not supposed to be prescriptive. Moreover, only misinterpretations of this doctrine has justified mass murder. "
"Firstly, it is a well-known fact that Hitler did not kill based on his unflinching belief on Social Darwinism. Although he did believe in it, he also had many nationalist factors. The Jews, according to Hitler, had robbed Germany. They organised the 1918 November Coup, and betrayed the millions of soldiers who were fighting for their Volk. Without this, and without other sentiments to incite it, it would have been hard for Hitler to have justified his fight. Moreover, Hitler and other scientific racists based their doctrines on a flawed notion. This is the notion of the Indo-European Urheimat. Hitler's scientific racist friends purported to have definite proof of his race being the "original" speakers of the Indo-European languages, and henceforth being the original "White" people. This proof was to come in the form of the Indo-European word for called salmon. But since then, this proof has come under attack from large amounts of linguistics, and it is often suggested that the word does not necessarily means salmon, but rather a "trout-like" fish."
No, Hitler"s campaign Sayed that Jews were less evolved than the "Aryan Race", he supported the idiocy that Jews were in some way a different species somehow. All this was based on evolutionism, if not for this nonsense they could not say that Jews were any different from Germans, and they could only claim membership to the human race, they could not justify their genocides.
"Secondly, this argument assumes that every who believes in Evolution is immoral. This includes Christian. Christians, like the current Pope and the many current scientists, under Pro's test, shall be included as immoral for no apparent reason but that evolution's misinterpretation has been used, unfairly, to justify "mass murder."
No, Christians openly detest the notion of evolutionism, strangley enough, atheists always back it;
http://www.debate.org...
"This notion is the most flawed in Pro's argument. To use a slogan from one document, which has no relevance on the other side of the world, to prove that atheists do not believe in human rights, is as funny as to speak English to tigers. I would like to explain rights using natural law. We humans, once we come into society, are separate from every human being forever. And hence, our rights cannot come from them. But our rights cannot come from something outside us too-that would mean our rights are arbritarily decided, and can be taken away at any time (or that it is not known, for we can not know something that is outside us for sure). Yet, we know our rights, and we know that it is unalienable. Our rights, in actuality, come from our being a human. Humans are special-we have cognition and consciousness. Yet, with speciality comes responsibility, but of course, privileges. These privileges do not come from anything else but our humanity."
Great, all they have to do is dehumanize someone, this should be easy. Oh, he is less evolved thn me, he is not a human because he is a jew. And lo and behold this is what they did, they use evolutionism to say that they are in some way superior than them, in Christianity, you have "and all seeds bearing afdter their own kind", so, a human is a human and it cannot be more evolved than anyone else.
18Karl

Con

FRAMEWORK

This debate has gotten out of hand, so I would like to clarify some theoretical aspects. We are not talking about Christianity in relation to atheism, or even religion in relation to atheism. We are talking about atheism, and atheism alone. We are also talking about how atheism, as a significant intellectual movement, has debased morality (or as I have to prove, not). We are NOT talking about evolution, or rights, or "bad things" done by atheists, but rather, the intellectual effects of atheism.

Moreover, I would like to clarify: we are talking about a debasing. Debasing involves the reduction in quality or value of something. Hence, Pro has to prove that atheism has destroyed morality by any means possible. If this proof is not filled, then it becomes a Con ballot. My baseline throughout this debate, which I have failed to mention in the first round, is that albeit atheism may attempt to reinterpret morality, it does in no way devalue morality as many atheists still value morality. Atheism should be defined as a rejection of God in general. But since we are talking about atheism as an intellectual force, atheism must also be expanded to include the atheist philosophers as representatives of what "normal" atheists think (this is a very unrealistic assumption, but it has been made and shall be sustained throughout the debate). The BoP is shared, although Pro has a larger burden, as he is attempting to convict a philosophy which does not say anything about morality.


DEFENSES

a.) Debasing vs. Interpreting Morality

Perhaps I should've been clear here. In this argument, I attempt to argue something twofold. Firstly, I attempt to argue that morality has not been debased by atheist and atheistic philosophers, but rather reinterpreted. Secondly, I attempt to argue that Christian philsophers, such as half-theologian Kiekengraad, has taken part in this reinterpretation. Because of this, a reinterpretation of morality amounts, not to the debasing of morality, but rather, to a reinterpretation of it. With this said, I would like to respond to Pro's argument.

Firstly, on the case of Nietzsche (not Niche). Pro argues here that Nietzsche "argued that there is no right or wrong," and since he is an atheist philosopher, then atheism has participated in the debasing of morality. This would be correct if Nietzsche attempted to argue for the destruction of the concept of right and wrong. However, Nietzsche did no such thing. He criticized some morality, but not all. Nietzsche's oeuvre is filled with such examples. For example, in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche launches an implicit attack on the concept of life-denying morality. He argues that one must "put aside entirely the blundering psychology of former times...[and teach] man the future of humanity as his WILL, as depending on human will." In fact, Nietzsche does in no way attack morality. Nietzsche argues that "only one kind of human morality...[the] "I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!" [1] In his more meta-ethical work, Genealogy of Morals, he argues against herd morality. He argues that Christian morality (or European morality) is slave morality. Accordingly to Nietzsche, “the people have won – or “the slaves”, the “plebeians”, “the herd”, or whatever you want to call them. This victory causes the "reversal of the evaluating glance." [2] Nietzsche here has done nothing to devaluate morality. In fact, Nietzsche is a fan of morality. He, however, attacks the notion of "slave" or "herd" morality, which he blames for the degeneration of the European.

Secondly, on Kiekengraad: I will not get into a theological debate with Pro. It seems that he has contented in saying that Kiekengraad is himself a partaker of this moral revolution within our times.

Moreover, a slight note on Hume: his attacks on morality were descriptive attacks on the concept of morality. Hume attacked the concept that morality comes from reason, as reason is neutral. He in no ways attacked the concept of the value of morality-which is the debate today, that atheism has contributed in the devaluing of morality. Hence, to conclude and make things crystal clear: I do not argue that atheism has made "morality "illogical"," or in anyway deny morality whatsoever. I argued that atheist and atheist philosophers have merely introduced a notion that maybe morality deserves to be reinterpreted, but not in anyway devalued.

REBUTTALS

a.) "Evolutionism" and Genocides

In this rebuttal, I would like to show that belief in Social Darwinism is (1.) not evolutionary, (2.) not the only reason for genocides, and (3.) does not in anyway show that atheists debase morality. However, I would like to make something very clear: I do not in anyway claim Hitler was not a racist. I just claim that the Holocaust had many other factors, and that Hitler's racism is false.

Firstly, social darwinism and the theory of evolution itself has very weak links. This is contra's to Pro's claim that "[Hitler believed] that Jews were in some way a different species somehow. All this was based on evolutionism." The first proponent of this theory was, more or less, Herbert Spencer. I shall like to say something crucial: social Darwinism was a thing before Darwin's theory of evolution was. Spencer, in his Social Statics, first advocated this idea. It was printed in 1851. Darwin's book was printed in 1859. I shall not analyse Herbert Spencer's theoretical inclinations so much as so to refute Hitler's social darwinism. Nazism argues that the Nordics were the purest of the Aryan race and also the original and least corrupt. [3] There once was evidence for this, and surprisingly, that did not come from the field of biology or evolution at all. It came from the field of linguistics. The "first" Aryans are widely assented to have spoken a language called Proto-Indo-European (or PIE). From a reconstructed words, there was the word Lok, which linguists thought to have meant salmon. And since salmon did not exist anywhere else but in the Baltic states, then, the Nordics are the purest. However, there is new evidence that this word actually described a trout-like fish. [4] Moreover, evolution talks about compeitition between species with a genotype difference, rather than a phenotype difference, whilst Hitler's theory talks about competition between phenotypes, which is wholly incorrect and unevolutionary.

Moreover, there were other contingencies around the Holocaust that influenced the events. For example, regional hatred for Jews, as well as political factors such as the November 1918 Revolution. This is not new-a genocide, although driven by ideology, is actually a combination of political and social factors. Lastly, even if this argument is to stand and "evolutionism" (which doesn't exist) would be accepted, it still ignores one crucial thing: that Christians who believe in the word of Jesus and Darwinism exist on a large scale. A survey by the NCSE suggests that as large as 89% of the Christian Churches in the United States support evolution education. [5]

b.) Rights and Humans

Pro has done nothing to refute this case at all. Pro asserts that "all they have to do is dehumanize someone." But how do you dehumanize a human? To say that "he is less evolved than me" does in no way refute the fact that human rights are not God given, but rather, inherent without our nature and our consciousness. Hence, Pro fails to refute this case and henceforth, his own case that rights are "God given" cannot stand whatsoever.

TO CONCLUDE: Pro's misunderstanding of my first case, as well as futile defenses of his case, amounts to the resolution being NEGATED!


CITATIONS

[1] https://www.marxists.org...
[2] http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl...
[3] http://holocaust.umd.umich.edu...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://ncse.com...


Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

"This debate has gotten out of hand, so I would like to clarify some theoretical aspects. We are not talking about Christianity in relation to atheism, or even religion in relation to atheism. We are talking about atheism, and atheism alone. We are also talking about how atheism, as a significant intellectual movement, has debased morality (or as I have to prove, not). We are NOT talking about evolution, or rights, or "bad things" done by atheists, but rather, the intellectual effects of atheism. "
Come on, things like the Jewish holocaust could not happen without atheism, when"s the last time a Christian started preaching about how Jews are somehow "inferior" to them. When is the last time a Buddhist advocated a communist dictatorship, the truth is, atheism has a direct link to atrocities.

"Moreover, I would like to clarify: we are talking about a debasing. Debasing involves the reduction in quality or value of something. Hence, Pro has to prove that atheism has destroyed morality by any means possible. If this proof is not filled, then it becomes a Con ballot. My baseline throughout this debate, which I have failed to mention in the first round, is that albeit atheism may attempt to reinterpret morality, it does in no way devalue morality as many atheists still value morality. Atheism should be defined as a rejection of God in general. But since we are talking about atheism as an intellectual force, atheism must also be expanded to include the atheist philosophers as representatives of what "normal" atheists think (this is a very unrealistic assumption, but it has been made and shall be sustained throughout the debate). The BoP is shared, although Pro has a larger burden, as he is attempting to convict a philosophy which does not say anything about morality."

Reinterpret, yes, their "new interpretation" reassesses their values, that is to say, they have none. My debate about their debasing morality, actuality meant that they "devalued morality", meaning that they do not hold it as high of a value as theists do. The truth is that you will find no case where someone committed mass genocides over god, the Spaniards for example, did not kill Native Americans because of Christianity; they did it because of gold. The Muslims are not killing because of god; they are killing for world domination.

"Perhaps I should've been clear here. In this argument, I attempt to argue something twofold. Firstly, I attempt to argue that morality has not been debased by atheist and atheistic philosophers, but rather reinterpreted. Secondly, I attempt to argue that Christian philsophers, such as half-theologian Kiekengraad, has taken part in this reinterpretation. Because of this, a reinterpretation of morality amounts, not to the debasing of morality, but rather, to a reinterpretation of it. With this said, I would like to respond to Pro's argument. "
Said "reinterpretation" does devalue morality according to their virtues, that is to say, they have none.

"Firstly, on the case of Nietzsche (not Niche). Pro argues here that Nietzsche "argued that there is no right or wrong," and since he is an atheist philosopher, then atheism has participated in the debasing of morality. This would be correct if Nietzsche attempted to argue for the destruction of the concept of right and wrong. However, Nietzsche did no such thing. He criticized some morality, but not all. "
"Nietzsche's oeuvre is filled with such examples. For example, in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche launches an implicit attack on the concept of life-denying morality. He argues that one must "put aside entirely the blundering psychology of former times...[and teach] man the future of humanity as his WILL, as depending on human will." In fact, Nietzsche does in no way attack morality. Nietzsche argues that "only one kind of human morality...[the] "I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!" [1] In his more meta-ethical work, Genealogy of Morals, he argues against herd morality. He argues that Christian morality (or European morality) is slave morality. Accordingly to Nietzsche, "the people have won " or "the slaves", the "plebeians", "the herd", or whatever you want to call them. This victory causes the "reversal of the evaluating glance." [2] Nietzsche here has done nothing to devaluate morality. In fact, Nietzsche is a fan of morality. He, however, attacks the notion of "slave" or "herd" morality, which he blames for the degeneration of the European."
What the, alright, you are making no sense, what did he mean by this piece of nonsense? All I can hear is some pseudo messianic bull crap about "I am morality", what the. Anyway, niche was in fact a lunatic as anyone who would read those quotes of yours could guess; there is a reason why he went to the sanitarium amigo.

"Secondly, on Kiekengraad: I will not get into a theological debate with Pro. It seems that he has contented in saying that Kiekengraad is himself a partaker of this moral revolution within our times. "

"Moreover, a slight note on Hume: his attacks on morality were descriptive attacks on the concept of morality. Hume attacked the concept that morality comes from reason, as reason is neutral. He in no ways attacked the concept of the value of morality-which is the debate today, that atheism has contributed in the devaluing of morality. Hence, to conclude and make things crystal clear: I do not argue that atheism has made "morality "illogical"," or in anyway deny morality whatsoever. I argued that atheist and atheist philosophers have merely introduced a notion that maybe morality deserves to be reinterpreted, but not in anyway devalued. "
There is no reinterpretation, morality is morality, right is right and wrong is wrong, you cannot redefine morality, you can pretend as if it means something different, but that is it. If you mean that they are reassessing the cause of morality, they have completely destroyed it.

"In this rebuttal, I would like to show that belief in Social Darwinism is (1.) not evolutionary, (2.) not the only reason for genocides, and (3.) does not in anyway show that atheists debase morality. However, I would like to make something very clear: I do not in anyway claim Hitler was not a racist. I just claim that the Holocaust had many other factors, and that Hitler's racism is false."

"Firstly, social darwinism and the theory of evolution itself has very weak links. This is contra's to Pro's claim that "[Hitler believed] that Jews were in some way a different species somehow. All this was based on evolutionism." The first proponent of this theory was, more or less, Herbert Spencer. I shall like to say something crucial: social Darwinism was a thing before Darwin's theory of evolution was. Spencer, in his Social Statics, first advocated this idea. It was printed in 1851. Darwin's book was printed in 1859. I shall not analyse Herbert Spencer's theoretical inclinations so much as so to refute Hitler's social darwinism. Nazism argues that the Nordics were the purest of the Aryan race and also the original and least corrupt. [3] There once was evidence for this, and surprisingly, that did not come from the field of biology or evolution at all. It came from the field of linguistics. The "first" Aryans are widely assented to have spoken a language called Proto-Indo-European (or PIE). From a reconstructed words, there was the word Lok, which linguists thought to have meant salmon. And since salmon did not exist anywhere else but in the Baltic states, then, the Nordics are the purest. However, there is new evidence that this word actually described a trout-like fish. [4] Moreover, evolution talks about compeitition between species with a genotype difference, rather than a phenotype difference, whilst Hitler's theory talks about competition between phenotypes, which is wholly incorrect and unevolutionary. "
I did not claim that evolutionism is evil because it comes from Darwin; I claimed that it is the pseudoscience which was used to back Hitler"s pseudoscience, regardless of who invented it. I could not care less for the "who" invented the base idea, I am addressing the idea and how it relates to atheism.
"People require dignity, ideas do not require dignity"

"Moreover, there were other contingencies around the Holocaust that influenced the events. For example, regional hatred for Jews, as well as political factors such as the November 1918 Revolution. This is not new-a genocide, although driven by ideology, is actually a combination of political and social factors. Lastly, even if this argument is to stand and "evolutionism" (which doesn't exist) would be accepted, it still ignores one crucial thing: that Christians who believe in the word of Jesus and Darwinism exist on a large scale. A survey by the NCSE suggests that as large as 89% of the Christian Churches in the United States support evolution education. [5]"
Obcourse this nonsense existed before, Hitler was just the first one to provide a "scientific" backing for their ridiculous beliefs. Allowing for the German Anti-Semitism to go well beyond anything which was attempted before; this is actually most like the slave trade, the Muslims started the slave trade, but it is the Christians who industrialized it. This was, obviously, not on Christianity, these people wanted money, it was money and Christianity was convenient to them. Atheism, and the pseudoscience"s related, can actually be linked to their atrocities.

"Pro has done nothing to refute this case at all. Pro asserts that "all they have to do is dehumanize someone." But how do you dehumanize a human? To say that "he is less evolved than me" does in no way refute the fact that human rights are not God given, but rather, inherent without our nature and our consciousness. Hence, Pro fails to refute this case and henceforth, his own case that rights are "God given" cannot stand whatsoever."
Really, because people have been doing this since always, interestingly enough, they are all atheists.
18Karl

Con

18Karl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

Harry Truman Wins by knockout,,, AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!
18Karl

Con

18Karl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

Harry Truman wins by knockout!
18Karl

Con

18Karl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by a414078 1 year ago
a414078
"There is a reason why Niche was an atheist"

*Niche*

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
harrytruman18KarlTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.