The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Atheism is More Beneficial Than Theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,397 times Debate No: 24209
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)




I recently saw ScottyDouglas' debate and am interested in debating this resolution. I offer the following definitions and am also willing to hand the opening round to my opponent, though I ask he limit the amount words in his final round to 4000 to make it fair.

Atheism- The doctrine or belief that there is no God [1].
Theism- The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe [2].

In other words, I challenge you ScottyDouglas! Will you accept?



I want to thank my opponent for this challenge! He is right I recently debated this subject previously and was kind of successful. So lets see if I can do the same here.

Resolution: Atheism is more beneficial than Theism.

My opponent did not give definitions to his resolution so I offer some here:

Beneficial- conferring benefit; helpful in the meeting of needs!

More- In greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: an additional quantity, amount, or number.

I agree to my opponents definition of Atheism and Theism!
My opponent also used the word belief in both definitions. So my opponent asserts that atheism is in fact a belief. So I offer a definition of belief as well:

Belief- Doctrine that a person or group accepts as true; an opinion, especially a firm and considered one.
I will go forward by these definitions since my opponent did not give any in his RD1. I also give some rules and round structure also.

1. Must stay on topic.
2. Debate must stay respectful.
3. Pro is required to make the argument and provide reasons why atheism is more beneficial than theism. Con is required to rebuttal Pros argument and provide one of his own.
4. Winner will be who makes the most convincing arguments and evidence.

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals
5. Conclusion

I thank Pro again and hope this will be a good debate.
I send it back to Pro!
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for setting up the debate structure and defining key terms that I forgot to define during my first round. I accept his rules, definitions, and structure.

Now before I begin my arguments I would just like to state my main contention against theism: I believe that it enforces the idea of moral objectivism, or in other words, an absolute, black and white idea of right and wrong, whereas atheism promotes the idea of moral relativism. I believe I say this from an unbiased perspective (I myself am not atheist), and I say this because a lot of my arguments tie into this belief.


Atheists are more compassionate than theists.

Surprising but true, studies say that atheists are more compassionate than theists [1]. This was proven through three methods, a poll/questionnaire, an experiment in which the 1300 participants were directed to watch an emotional video and then given money, a portion of which they could to donate to a stranger (atheists donated more), as well an experiment in which 200 college students were told they received money from a stranger, the money was doubled, and they could give a portion of their money in order for the process to continue. All three studies found a negative correlation between theists and compassion.

The studies reason that atheists are more likely to feel empathetic because they are not motivated by the supernatural “carrot-and-stick”. What happens to some believers is that they end up being compassionate not because they feel empathetic, but rather because they want to go to heaven and do not want to go to hell. Whenever atheists are compassionate, it is because they can genuinely feel empathy for the cause in question. Atheists could be more generous because they are compassionate for the right reasons.

This ties back into the idea of objective morality. Because most religions enforce the idea of an objective right and wrong, most believers do things simply because it is “the right thing to do”. As such, it is possible that some theists stop considering how other people feel and just act based on a brainless code of conduct.

Atheists are more intelligent then Theists.

This contention has also been proven by studies [2][3]. The majority of studies point at a negative correlation between theism and IQ. I don’t want to delve to deeply into this argument because it may be considered offensive, however, regardless of whether this implies religion makes people less intelligent or whether less intelligent people are more likely to believe, there are negative implications for theists.

Atheists are healthier than theists.

Studies show that atheists in early adulthood are 50% less likely to be obese by their 50s to 60s than theists [4]. This puts theists at an increased risk of diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The study suggests that this might be linked to going to church and engaging in the consumption of large, caloric meals.


Theism causes conflict.

This is a historically proven fact; theism has caused many horrendous wars (crusades) whereas atheism has not. Again, this relates to the concept of moral objectivity; most theists support the idea of a black and white perception of right and wrong. Therefore, when God requires a theist to do something, sometimes the theist is unable to consider how their actions affect other people because he believes that his actions are simply the “right thing to do”. A biblical example of this would be the binding of Issac, when God requested Abraham to sacrifice his son (even though god relented at the last moment).

Because in most religions, God’s will is considered unquestionable and absolutely right, when the crusades occurred, many believers were unable to understand the suffering the child soldiers and other religious factions had to go through during the crusades. This eventually led to the massacre of 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 people in the name of “God’s holy word” [5]. In total, some 890 million people have died in religious wars.

Atheists on the other hand, are more likely able to accept and live peacefully among people of different beliefs simply because they are not fed the idea of absolute right and wrong.

Theism allows for rationalization.

This point also ties into the idea of objective morality. Because many theists believe that “God’s word” overrides all other points of view, theists who commit crimes against humanity often claim that they were not at fault because they were simply carrying out God’s command. For example, when a schizophrenic Chinese man murdered and cannibalized Canadian Tim Mclean on a greyhound bus, he pleaded not criminally responsible because “God’s voice told him that Tim Mclean was a force of evil and was about to execute him” [6]. Similarly, Joseph Kony, infamous for the rape, abduction, and murder of many children in Uganda through the LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) does not believe that he is responsible for his actions because he is “acting on the behalf of god”. Atheists are forced to take responsibility for their own actions because they often do not believe that there is an absolute right and wrong and have to consider how their actions impact other people before making a decision.

Theism oppresses positive social/scientific change.

Many commonly accepted ideas and standards today were rejected in the past because it interfered with the theistic belief of right and wrong. For example, because many holy books believed that the earth was flat; scientists who claimed that the earth was spherical were accused of spreading blasphemy and tortured, humiliated, and executed. The idea that the earth is a sphere is now a commonly accepted fact. Additionally, because both the Bible and the Quran condone the idea of slavery, attempts to liberate slaves in these theist-dominant areas were crushed. The idea of slavery is now condemned.

These social/scientific changes would have all occurred earlier if it weren’t for theistic beliefs.

Theism opiates the masses.

While this final contention is not a particularly strong point, I’d just like to point out that Hitler, Kony, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il some of the most unpleasant dictators in all of history, have used the concept of religion in order to convince masses of people to brutally murder, torture, and surrender their rights. Even people who wouldn’t otherwise participate in genocide were swayed by the idea of “God’s will”. Theism is a tool that allows for the abuse of human rights. Atheism is not.


I’d first like to apologize for the late response. I look forward to my opponents arguments.





I thank my opponent for this challenge!

I would also let my opponent know his comments are not offensive in the least and I am thankful for your respect.

Now before I start I would like to contend against Atheism: I have the belief that arguementation is the standard to be followed. Against such a conclusion, atheists argue that atheism, as a simple lack of the theistic hypothesis is the 'automatic' position in the absence of positive evidence. But relativism abandons the idea of natural fortitude for others instead of yourself(inner-selfly.) It starts the crumbling of the foundations of what is, good and decent. I do take my whole being as a Christian and see this is the massive forming of a Godless society. Then abandoning of all hope for grace.

===Brief Rebuttal against my Opponent===

:Atheists are more compassionate than theists.:
I think what this shows is that many atheists don't have a fixed idea of what they consider the correct way to act. Which can be both a positive and a negative thing, depending on the circumstances. It certainly doesnt mean that atheists are more compassionate, just that they can be influenced easier on moral issues.

:Atheists are more intelligent then Theists.:
"Give me an honest, hardworking man or woman over a self-important academic any day.
In the end, the important truths of life are accessible to all, not just to the worldly wise."

:Atheists are healthier than theists.:
It all depends on your purpose in life. If you are an atheist without purpose then you will not be happy.
The reason for your assumption is because generally Christians have a purpose and that is serving the image of God on earth.

I met atheists who seem happy and Christians who are not but i do not know how accurate these surveys really are. Strawman!

:Theism causes conflict.:
Since we have a massive population of thiest(throughout history), this of course would tilt in the atheist's favor. Though this fails to properly provide proof that theist today are more violent than atheist by whole and whole comparision. This is a strawman comparision.

:Theism allows for rationalization.:
I will get into this one more in the following rounds.

:Theism oppresses positive social/scientific change.:
How does it oppress? Thiest are not smart enough to be scientist to oppress discovery. Who opresses discovery>?

Are we not continuing to provide sciences? Theism has opressed, though so has Atheist also.

"And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."

Theism opiates the masses.
Provide proof. Strawman!


1. The Atheist's Confidence:
When an atheist rejects belief in God, he rejects any source of confidence beyond his own level of reasoning or understanding. The thinking atheist will forever be questioning the origin of the universe, will be perplexed regarding morality, and will be unsure of his own destiny and purpose in life. The atheist uses faith, too. He puts his faith in science or self. He presupposes that science or self are trustworthy places for his confidence, and finds corroboration for this presupposition in the evidences that he can comprehend. He believes in his own testimony. The atheist finds himself in the difficult position of denying all of those things that speak to God's existence and the validity of the Christian faith. He rejects God. He rejects the creation of the world by God. He rejects the deity of Christ. He rejects God's Word. He suppresses the inner testimony that he has concerning the reality of God. All that he is left with his a feeble self-confidence. This is the atheist's confidence.

2. Feeding on Freedom:
Research suggests that atheists are more numerous in peaceful nations than they are in turbulent or warlike ones. However, proponents of this view cite examples, such as the Bolsheviks (in Soviet Russia), who, inspired by "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy", "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such". In 1918 "[t]en Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "[c]hildren were deprived of any religious education outside the home."In 1967, Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania; by year's end over two thousand religious buildings were closed or converted to other uses, and religious leaders were imprisoned and executed. Albania was declared to be the world's first atheist country by its leaders, and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people."
Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza writes that "The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth."He also contends:

3. Even Atheist have built in sense of God:=Even if they refuse it!
An argument that true atheism exists is the reaction to people in front of a stressful, difficult life event life a critical illness, or death. Even hardcore atheists are quick to fall into prayers to implore a deity to save or help in the situation.


1. The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.

2. The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.


The Christian's source of confidence--his faith--is an unshakable faith in God, revealed in His Word, manifested in Jesus Christ, and confirmed by His Spirit. This is not only a more defensible belief system than the atheist's; it is a far better way to live. In fact, it is the only way to really live. "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:6).

Atheism declares that there is no god. Christianity teaches that there is a God. Both cannot be true. So which one is correct, the atheist or the Christian? How you respond depends upon faith. It depends on the source of your faith. Will you have faith in self? Or in God?
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to first both thank my opponent for his prompt reply and apologize for my late one. Onto my arguments.


Atheists are more compassionate than theists.
While Pro cites an editorial that disagrees with my study, I would like to point out two things that I believe validate both my contention and the study.
First of all, empathy precedes compassion, and empathy is by definition “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another” [1]. I believe that if you are capable of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, (say a beggar on the street); you are more likely to be “morally swayed”. Since even my opponent admits that atheists “are more easily morally swayed”, it enforces the idea that atheists are more empathetic, and since compassion is built on empathy, atheists are more likely to be compassionate.
Secondly, one of the studies involved a similar demographic in which both atheists and theists were given money by a stranger and asked to pass on a portion of the money they were given. The bottom line that the research found was that atheists were more likely to return this random act of kindness and theists were more likely to keep the money to themselves. I would like side con to explain why this does not show that atheists are more generous and compassionate than theists before questioning the validity of my contention.

Atheists are more intelligent than theists.
In response to this contention, Con essentially argues that a hardworking, honest man is preferred over an intelligent man. However, he has not provided evidence that theists are more hardworking and honest than atheists. Therefore we can only conclude that Con concedes this contention, and accepts the fact that atheists get the benefit of a higher intelligence.

Atheists are healthier than theists.
Again, Con responses by saying that happiness takes priority over healthiness, but this is essentially a straw man argument because Con has not provided evidence that theists are happier than atheists and also does not challenge the contention itself, instead he says that there are other priorities. Therefore, we again conclude that Con concedes this contention and accepts the fact that atheists receive the benefit of staying healthier.


Theism encourages conflict.
Con attempts to negate this contention by saying that historical examples are skewed due to the higher ratio of theists. While there are more theists than atheists, however, the fact remains that the number of lives lost due to atheism and the belief of atheism is zero, whereas the number of lives lost due to religious reasons is over 890 billion. The reason for this is simply because theistic gods mandate their followers to impose their ideas upon other people and crush the people that disagree for their “incorrect” views.

Theism allows for rationalization.
My opponent has chosen to concede this point till further notice.

Theism oppresses positive social/scientific change.
My opponent states that theism does not oppress discovery and while this is true, theism does oppress the freedom and spread of information that is considered blasphemous. An example of this, as stated earlier, is how scientists who believed that the earth was not flat were executed on accusations of heresy before it became a commonly accepted fact. Theists HAVE oppressed the spread of knowledge and theories.
Additionally, my opponent attacks atheism by accusing atheists of creating dictators such as Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao. The problem with his argument is that though Stalin and Mao did commit atrocities and were atheist, there are many more dictators that have committed atrocities and were religious. Additionally, Pol Pot was actually a theist. He was a buddhist, and the idea of him being atheist is a common misconception.

Also, I’d like to point out that Communism isn’t inherently atheistic, regardless of what Pro would like you to believe.


Atheist’s confidence.
My opponent has made a confusing contention and while he states in his argument that atheists require faith too and put their confidence in science and other beliefs, he does not explain why this is explicitly bad. Additionally, an atheist does not necessarily have to believe in science. According to the definition, an atheist is anyone who doesn’t believe in god. It doesn’t specify that atheists have to believe in science.

Feeding on freedom.
This again, was a confusing contention, because even though Con uses a statistic to support his claim that the majority of atheists live in developed, first world countries, he does not explain why this is explicitly bad.

Built in sense of god.
Con has not sourced his argument or provided statistics about how “even the most hardcore atheist is quick to fall to prayers during difficult times”. I would like him to back up his source with a statistic.

I have to dismiss the next two of my opponents arguments as irrelevant because they concern whether god exists, which is a separate debate altogether. For this debate, I would like my opponent to refrain from making such arguments and stick to the resolution (argue based on positive and negative effects of atheism/theism).

I would also to point out that Con abuses the term “Strawman”. The true definition of a strawman argument is a rebuttal that does not address the true contention of the opponent [2]. As I have not made any rebuttals during the first round, I could not have made the strawman arguments that my opponent accuses me of making.



I would like to thank my opponent for his reply. On to my reply:

===My Case and Rebuttal===

--Atheists are not more compassionate than theists--

Pro cites an editorial that agrees with his stance, I would like to point out that I believe his contention and study are false and is in fact a study of atheist own choosing.

My opponent believes that if you are capable of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, you are more likely to be "morally swayed". But does this sway come from compassion or the lack of stability and determination in princibles?

This boils down to what kind of person you are regardless of religion or lack thereof. My opponents leaves us thinking that to be compassionate you must be atheist and thiest do not care at all. Religionist have for thousands of years provided healthcare, food, shelter, and goodwill to the entire planet. What has atheist done for man-kind on that scale? This is all the study is need to determine which is more compassionate.

Is a emotional decision a greater tool than concerned doctrine?

When atheist try to invoke compassion in a specific moment, thiest are not as moved by it…they're cooperative, they're generous regardless of whether they have tried to tap into compassion — whereas people who are low on religion seem to be much more influenced by a moment of compassion from emotion being brought on.

The more religious, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or repetitional concerns. It just seems like if people feel that they are religious on a day-to-day basis, their compassion seems to be a little bit more sort of ingrained all the time rather than something that comes on in a specific moment.

Then my opponent wants us to believe that athiests are more bound to return money than a thiest. This is assumption and the survey shows this itself. I ask was this survey done with all athiest and thiest? Is my opponent to claim all athiest are generous and giving that no thiest are? This is what is seen in this survey.

--Atheists are not more intelligent than theists--

In response to this contention, Pro argues that a hardworking, honest man is not preferred over an intelligent man. My opponent does not deny that thiest are hardworking and honest and athesit are the smart ones. But how much does a survey conclude? Not much at all. Lets look at the overall picture. So-called theist have more a urge to become better and intelligent in thier faith and not man-made knowledge.

We can have surveys all day long and if I use mostly thiest in my survey it will conclude the opposite of Pro's. This means nothing. There are intelligence from both sides and any other way to look from that at way shows unintelligence.

--Atheists are not healthier than theists--

This again is all assumption on a few studys. This could not and would not be factual in a valid research. Is my opponent saying that on even grounds atheist will be more healthier than theist? I provide natural logic that says both are unhealthy and both are healthy. This simply is the habits of the person not thier beliefs. Nothing more and nothing less.


--Theism discourages conflict--
Pro negates this contention by saying that facts remain that the number of lives lost due to atheism and the belief of atheism is zero. I disagree. Many athiest countires have and do kill thiest by the millions to relieve thier country of believers in God. Albania-Russia-China for just a few have killed millions for thier belief and/or lack of belief in God. We should note that in these countries atheist are the majority. We also can see what happens in a atheist ran society(anyone who does not follow thier doctrine will die).

Many leaders have done much harm to humans while using religion to back them. This does not speak at all of the real thiest who use thier religion for what it was created for. Which is charity, love, ethics, and concrete faith. My opponent should supply us with proof that theism is primarily used for conflict within societies.

--Theism allows for rationalization--

I do not concede at all to my opponent. He gave us nothing to support this view or that rationalization is incorrect(my opponent has given no reason why).

Just because someone gives an excuse does not mean thier philosophy is wrong. It just means that it is not viewed by others to be proper. I am not a apologetic at all so this does not apply for me. God set the rules and the guidelines to follow and I will never apologize for it. Nor will I apologize for evil men who use my faith and religion as a way to kill and control others. Theism is not for such acts and any who uses it to do such acts are not following the ethicial boundaries revealed in such religions.

--Theism opposes negative social/scientific change--

My opponent concedes that theism does not oppress discovery and this is true. Though then he states that thiest oppresses freedom and the spread of information. I ask my opponent where are the facts for this claim? When are theist opposing and what are thiest opposing?

He also denies the fact that science and freedom are reigning today and it is at the cause of theism. Theism does not oppress the freedom and spread of information it supports it.

Regardless what my opponent has sayed, atheism does support communionist and marxist propaganda and materials and this is what is opposed.

--Atheist's confidence--
My opponent seems to be confused here. I simply stated that atheism is clearly about self means and self assurance and can careless about past beliefs and tradition of others. This in itself shows the lack of compassion amoungst atheist.
Feeding on freedom.

The contention is that atheist prefer countries where there propaganda will be well consealed. Like today we have many atheist today and alot more than in the past. From living in america they have the best of both worlds. They live free to believe what they want to believe and then also can oppose all that built america. By doing this they come from the inside out destroying what America was built on and in result can claim this nation for themselves.

--Built in sense of god--

I have experinced this myself alot. I have alot of friends that all life long claim atheism and no God. But when thier relative dies they talk about them being in heaven with God when they did not believe in God. Thier are many experiences like this. I do not need a straw-pole to verify this, anyone can. Just look at someone who is atheist and then a tragedy happens they will refer to God for help. This happens alot and it is not some wild scheme theory. I bet that many that reads this have had the same experience.


I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. This has been very good for both sides. I send it back Pro's way.
Debate Round No. 3


OneElephant forfeited this round.


Thank for reading.

I pull all arguments from last round down!

I await my opponents response.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4


I’d first like to thank my opponent for his quick response, and apologize for my forfeiture. Normally I would forfeit my conduct points to my opponent; however, I’d like to point out that Con plagiarized a couple of his arguments from this source, starting from “When an atheist rejects belief in God, he…” ( I hope my opponent will refrain from copying and pasting his arguments in the future, as it ruins the integrity of the debate.

Onto the case.


Atheists are more compassionate than theists.

My opponent is incorrect in labeling my source as an “editorial” because an editorial is based on opinion, whereas the article I cite is written based on a study that includes both atheists and theists (my opponent’s source is actually an editorial). While my opponent is correct in stating that the study does not imply that theists are completely cold hearted and uncooperative, he cannot deny that the studies show a definite correlation between atheists and compassion.

As I have stated in my round 1 argument, the study has used three large, systematic surveys that comprised of over 1000 atheists AND theists only to find the SAME correlation between atheism and generosity. The specific study my opponent and I reference is a study with over 1000 atheist and theist college students, in which the students were given a sum of money and told that the money was donated to them by another random student, and that the lump of money the student gave them was doubled. They were given the choice to donate a portion of their money to another random student and allow the process to continue or keep the money. The study found that atheists were more likely donate money than theists.

So even though my opponent accuses the study of being an “assumption”, the fact is that at the end of the day, atheists are more likely to give than theists. Therefore my contention stands and my opponent’s rebuttal falls.

Additionally, again I am not saying that all theists are cold hearted and unwilling to donate, I’m just pointing out the fact that atheists are more likely to contribute and donate more.

And to answer my opponent’s question, emotional decision is a greater tool than an ingrained doctrine, ESPECIALLY when that ingrained doctrine is programmed into a theists mindset, so they don’t give because they feel empathetic to the cause, they give only because they were told to give.

Atheists are more intelligent than theists.

My opponent misinterprets my reply. First of all, I state that theists are not more hardworking than atheists and Con has given us no reason to believe this. Secondly, Con fails to distinguish intelligence from knowledge. Intelligence is one’s ability to recognize patterns, understand sequences, etc. Knowledge is simply how much you know. Therefore, while it is possible that theists tend to be more knowledgeable than atheists, it is proven that atheists tend to have an IQ score that is 7-13 points higher than theists.

Additionally, my opponent states that “We can have surveys all day long and if I use mostly theist in my survey it will conclude the opposite of Pro's. This means nothing.”. However, note that my opponent has not used a single study or survey to validate his contentions.

In summation, I have shown you with scientific proof that atheists are more intelligent than theists, and my opponent has not provided proof that suggests theists are more hardworking or knowledgeable than atheists. Therefore, my point stands and my opponent’s point falls.

Atheists are healthier than theists.

My opponent attacks this point by saying that a person’s obesity and health is determined by habits and not religion, but fails to recognize that religion has a huge influence on a person’s habits. And when atheists consistently show signs of a healthier lifestyle compared to theists, it suggests that religion is playing an influential factor on these lifestyles.


Theism encourages conflict.

I will try to conserve words now. There are many flaws in my opponent’s case. Firstly, there’s no such thing as an “atheist” country. Secondly, my opponent states that in a country ran by atheists, anyone who goes against the atheist doctrine will die. This is blatantly false because the Canadian Prime minister, Stephen Harper, is an atheist and there is clearly no genocide going on in Canada. Whereas historically speaking, there have been many religiously motivated killings such as the crusades, etc.

Finally, we are not speaking about the “real theist” vs the “fake theist” in this debate because there is simply no way to define what “real theism” is and what is fake. Therefore, my opponent’s points fall.

Theism allows for Rationalization.

Again, I’d like to remind my opponent that he cannot use “real theism” as an argument, because there is no set definition of what “real theism” is. Therefore, he cannot say that these “fake theists” who use their religious beliefs as an excuse to murder and commit brutalities do not reflect upon the religion they belong to and in turn, theism in general.

Theism oppresses positive scientific and social change.

First of all, I’d like to point out that communism is actually rooted in theism, so therefore all of my opponents points on “communist atrocities” are invalid [1]. Secondly, my opponent asks for facts, and since he seems to deny all logical arguments I have made so far, I will present my opponent facts. Galileo was prosecuted by the Catholic Church for presenting evidence that the earth is revolves around the sun, a commonly accepted fact today [2].


Unfortunately, it seems I have run out of words. I’d like to conclude by saying that my opponent has failed to provide any sort of verification for his claims, for example he cites his contention that atheists have a built in sense of god on personal experience. I believe this contention should fall for obvious reasons. I wish my opponent good luck in this final round.






Pro FF last round as do I for fairness.

Thanls to all. Thanks to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Question_Mark 5 years ago
You could simply use the Atheist's Wager, then, Benny.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
This debate is the time to use Pascal's Wager. It doens't work in a lot of areas but here it would have been perfect.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Scotty, learn how to use bold. That is all.
Posted by OneElephant 5 years ago
Thanks for being considerate, but didn't you already lose a round of arguments and rebuttals in round 4?
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
Ok with me man.
Posted by OneElephant 5 years ago
Oops, sorry about the forfeiture. Completely forgot. Thank god there's a last round.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
Ok ill send you a challenege along your lines.
Posted by roboris 5 years ago
Well, it is simple, as I have said: we have the belief that God sent us the Qur'an to let us know that the other scriptures he sent down had been corrupted by man, and that among other things, Jesus, peace be upon him, was a prophet, a man, born from a virgin woman, Mary, may God be pleased with her.

We reject the Trinity, and you want a debate like this ? : "if I can prove that there are differences between the Christian and Islamic beliefs on the ONE Creator, then we can conclude that they are not worshiping the same God".

How can I prove with a simple example that you are not looking at the question from right angle? Let's see: imagine that we both have a book describing China, but our books contain differences. You would then say: "The China in your book is not the same China as in my book".

It might not be obvious yet, but my point is: even if we have different data on China, which could be explained by a number of reasons, it doesn't mean that we are not referring to the same country, just as it is not enough to find differences between scriptures suspected to have been tampered with to conclude that we are not worshiping the same God.

We need to be smart, and I want a smart debate that other people can look at and say: "wow, these religious guys are logical and consistent and they really are open minded".

If you can offer me an intellectually and spiritually interesting debate, I'll be happy to take on the challenge.

Thank you
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
If they are the same God they would be identicle. If they are not then they are not the same God.
Posted by roboris 5 years ago
That sounds like an interesting topic, but not too sure how it would go, what would be the criteria to argue this. I mean, it is quite obvious that Christians would reject a book saying that their books have been tampered with. The Qur'an itself tells us Muslims that we worship the same God. That debate could go various ways. I could for example speak about the books that the Church have rejected because they didn't like their content. I could also say that Jesus, peace be upon him, even in the current documents, has never been quoted saying he was God, or the son of God in the literal sense. On your end you could try to find key differences, or you could try to attack the authenticity of the Qur'an, it would then come down to a "The Bible or the Qur'an, which one is the truth?".

If you have something in mind, it would be my pleasure to take part in a debate with you, we just need to make sure we know exactly what we are arguing about.

Thank you
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SarcasticIndeed 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of the time, Con misunderstood Pro and made many arguments that didn't make musch sense. Pro's arguments weren't refuted, so arguments to him. Conduct is tied because pro has ff-ed and Con has copied off yahoo answers.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Too much drama with this so I am unvoting. Don't care enough about religion debates anyhow.