The Instigator
Solomon_Grim
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
dawndawndawndawn
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Atheism is a harmful belief

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 6 votes the winner is...
dawndawndawndawn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,391 times Debate No: 44392
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (92)
Votes (6)

 

Solomon_Grim

Pro

I will like this debate to be taken only by an atheist, no devil advocates.

The debate is simple, is atheism good, helpful, or ethical to have. I believe that religion helps more that atheism. You can either argue that atheism is best for an individual, or as a nation, I don't mind.

THE ONLY CATCH: to accept the debate, you must provide the name of someone who has been helped by atheism. Someone whose life was going bad, he turned atheist, and he did a turnaround in his life. This may seem odd, but please don't skip this.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

My mother was raised in a very Catholic family.

If she had stayed religious, she would have been VERY poor and done NOTHING but pump out
too many children to feed.

As a result of defying the church, she finished college.

She did not teach us to be atheists but she did not prefer to discuss the bible, ever.

I decided to defy her ideas and read the bible myself, in secret...just me and god.

The bible was so stupid that I came to atheism all by myself.

Later, I tried to find what ever it is that ever one loves about religion and
had myself baptized and got very serious about religion.

I, really, did try.

The promises are big and pretty.
Debate Round No. 1
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate. I will keep it quick.

1. Evolution is racist- I claim that evolution is mostly an atheistic idea since it usually held by most atheists. Evolution is racist in several ways. Charles Darwin's book's full name was The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. "Favored races" is a dangerous. It is known that Charles Darwin himself considered Caucasians above Asians and Africans. This can be shown even in modern times.
http://m.washingtontimes.com...-/
This is an article in the last few months talking about a white man knocking out a black man, claiming that the black man hadn't experienced the "blessing of evolution".

2. It affects morality- I put a link down in the comments already talking about this. Basically, a study showed that everyone considers atheists less moral than religious people. Even atheists rated atheism lower than religion. This is odd since most people will be biased toward their group. If atheists will rate themselves lower, that may be because...

3. Atheism has no set morals- a big problem I have seen from atheists is that they look at people who do bad stuff for Christianity and says that's the religion. In reality, you must look at the actual religion, like in the Bible. Christianity is the most loving belief in existence when you learn the actual religion. Atheists don't have this. You can't say atheism is moral, since all atheists think they are moral. They draw their own lines to not cross. This has been misused many times. For one example, several years ago there was a major court case that happened. A man took a drunk, passed out girl home with him and had intercourse with her. He was charged with rape (obviously). At which point, many people claimed that the man was in the good. For a large number of people, it is moral to have sex with a passed out girl. To them, crossing that line is fine.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

Charles Murray makes the point, in his book, "Human Accomplishment" that, there, really, was a time when the well-fed part of Europe surpassed, even China, with it's mental work but that that time is long gone and that the African American is the next, upper, piece of the Evolutionary Ladder.

You might state that it is racist but, if the racial negatives are used improperly and in an unwarranted fashion, that is negative racism. If all the "racism" is actual facts and positive, it isn't racism. It is researched facts.
Research facts find PLENTY wrong with us crackers. We have PLENTY of diabetes, skin cancer and alcoholism, enough to shut up and never brag about being white EVER.

More importantly, eugenics aside, it might not be a bad idea if we ALL had fewer children and made some sort of effort to weed out things like my copious varicose veins (THANKS mom, grandma, great grandma (etc) )

One study never shows the whole picture. Consider how studies are done. One question is arranged so that the data will not get muddy (as much as possible) and then, the funding is arranged for ONLY that question.
If you want more money, you need a new question. So, bringing up one study is not good evidence.

Moreover, so many studies have been done about the brain that, college and graduate-level courses are available that make the study that you are touting, laughable. Morality is hard-wired in humans and "lower" vertebrates.
...old news...VERY old news. Here is a new book on that old subject: Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain Patricia S. Churchland and a course that you can buy: Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills & Optimizing Brain Fitness (Set) www.thegreatcourses.com

Atheists do have a set of morals, aside from what is hardwired.
Those are called "laws".
Debate Round No. 2
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for your reply.

1. In your reply, you stated how morals are hardwired into humans. I do agree with this, since humans seem to react to moral situations similarly. However, I believe that this morality is very basic and can be burned over time. You claim that laws also set a moral standard, however, this usually isn't so. Most people are ok with going against one part of the law. Look at how easy it is to get drugs. Or beer back when it was illegal. Atheists can claim that their inborn morality can hold them for life, but many times they end up relying on their limited knowledge of an aspect it is impossible to know about. This is where religion is good since it has knowledge you can rely on.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

Saying that laws are not enough of a moral standard, and then, using drugs and alcohol as your example,
is, in my opinion, a weak choice.

Theft and murder are better examples.

Your paragraph seems to state that morals weaken with age.
You'd need proof to make that claim.

It does not seem likely that you will find it since
naughty people tend to die off while they are young
and, only those who make an effort live long enough to age.

~ limited knowledge of something that cannot be known,
is nonsense.

Moreover, since the bible is LOADED with contradictions, stating that the bible is reliable is nonsense
Debate Round No. 3
Solomon_Grim

Pro

I don't quite understand your statement of it being a poor example. Theft and murder will have harsh punishment. However, there are many things that are against the law that people do, like drugs and DUI. what makes them weak examples? Shouldn't all laws be on the same level, or are some lower than others since say it is?

Also, many people claim that the Bible is filled with contradictions because they find one thing confusing and never study into it. You can provide contradictions, and I will love to answer them since I do study on them.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com...

and the lovely art to show you how MANY contradictions.

"However, there are many things that are against the law that people do, like drugs and DUI. what makes them weak examples? Shouldn't all laws be on the same level, or are some lower than others since say it is?"

Are you not aware that some crimes have different punishments than others?

Out of all the crimes you could have chosen to use as examples of morality, you chose ones that have to do with
hunger ( people are told to wait too long to eat ALL throughout our society. the body doesn't care. it gets hungry. suppressed hunger surfaces and humans put things, other than food on the inside...HARDLY immoral )

You could have used theft or cruelty-to-the-point-of-murder or, the classic subject for morality - sex.
Seriously, using drugs and alcohol as examples for morality are EXTREMELY weak choices
and many drugs are prescribed by doctors.

You gave no proof of your claim that morality weakens with age.

State the nature of your study of the bible.
Debate Round No. 4
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for your post.

1. Just because someone thought that those verses were contradiction does not make it so.
http://www.philvaz.com...
This we page goes into detail of why many contradictions are wrong and explains the top 170 or so of them.

2. I do know that crimes have different levels of punishment. However, you are implying something simply horrible. Are you claiming that it is okay to do these minor crimes since they have little punishments. A law is a law, no matter the punishment. By the logic you are implying, it's okay to murder if it outweighs the punishment. Drugs are a strong example. A law says no, people think they are above it, so they do drugs. That logic can be put with any crime.

3. Does morality weaken with age? I am going to reason yes since it is well known that escalation occurs in addiction and crime all the time. You don't start doing heroine on your very first day ( I'm guessing most people don't that is). You start off with something weaker and go up. Most rapists didnt just do it one day out of the blue. Same with murders, and gang members. I would say that as long as atheists don't have a set line to them saying that it can't be crossed, they can go as far as they want and feel no self persecution. This is a dangerous thing when your only line between good and bad is a fake line you drew yourself.

4. Not sure what you meant about the bible studying question. Detail it for me in the comments please if you would like.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

(caps for me)

1. Just because someone ...NOT "SOMEONE". MANY SCHOLARS. thought that those verses were contradiction does not make it so.
http://www.philvaz.com......
This we page goes into detail of why many contradictions are wrong and explains the top 170 or so of them.
WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW?

2. I do know that crimes have different levels of punishment. However, you are implying something simply horrible. Are you claiming that it is okay to do these minor crimes since they have little punishments. A law is a law, no matter the punishment. By the logic you are implying, it's okay to murder if it outweighs the punishment. Drugs are a strong example. A law says no, people think they are above it, so they do drugs. That logic can be put with any crime.
MORALITY WAS YOUR SUBJECT, NOT LAW. DRUGS ARE A POOR EXAMPLE. SEX IS THE MOST COMMON EXAMPLE. CRUEL BEHAVIOR, THE NEXT MOST. I DID NOT, IN ANY WAY, IMPLY THAT MURDER IS FINE RE: PUNISHMENT. I STATED, THAT DRUGS ARE A POOR EXAMPLE FOR A DISCUSSION OF MORALITY SINCE MOST DRUG MISUSE CAN BE HANDLED WITH PROPER FOOD-INTAKE. I STATED THAT THERE ARE BETTER EXAMPLES FOR A DISCUSSION OF MORALITY.

3. Does morality weaken with age? I am going to reason yes since it is well known that escalation occurs in addiction and crime all the time. You don't start doing heroine on your very first day ( I'm guessing most people don't that is). You start off with something weaker and go up. Most rapists didnt just do it one day out of the blue. Same with murders, and gang members. I would say that as long as atheists don't have a set line to them saying that it can't be crossed, they can go as far as they want and feel no self persecution. This is a dangerous thing when your only line between good and bad is a fake line you drew yourself.
PLEASE, CHECK YOUR FACTS. THERE IS A REASON WHY CAR INSURANCE IS HIGHER FOR YOUNGER PEOPLE.
YOUNGER PEOPLE MISBEHAVE MORE AND THEN, A BUNCH OF THEM DIE OFF - EVERY YEAR. ONLY THOSE WITH STRONGER IMPULSE-RESISTANCE AND THE WISDOM OF AGE ARE GRACED WITH LOWER INSURANCE RATES AND CONTINUING LIFE.

4. Not sure what you meant about the bible studying question. Detail it for me in the comments please if you would like.
"State the nature of your study of the bible." THIS SENTENCE IS TELLING YOU TO STATE HOW, WHEN, WHERE AND WHY YOU STUDIED THE BIBLE. WAS IT IN THE NATURE OF JUST-READING-IT-ON-YOUR-OWN OR IN THE NATURE OF SEMINARY OR AFTER-CHURCH STUDY?
Debate Round No. 5
92 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
The Bible was altered, originally there were around 30 gospels, of which only those few remaining were chosen from, likely because they suited Constantine's political goals. Now that is biasing the Bible, which is a form of editing.
Posted by theCynicalSir 3 years ago
theCynicalSir
No, Arosi2123 used it correctly. It is a scientific theory. It is well supported and has made several accurate predictions. Additionally it explains a fact (A fact in science is not necessary something that is true, just something observed to be true).

It's like the cell theory, atomic theory, heliocentric theory, theory of relativity etc, many of which are generally accepted by the scientific community.

Many theories will never become scientific laws, because that's not how science "works." They simply explain, but can rarely be actually be proven to be "true".
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
@Arosi2123
You do not know what "theory" means.
Posted by Arosi2123 3 years ago
Arosi2123
this is bull, evolution isn't racist, it's science, and we can't even prove it exists. It's a theory!
Posted by theCynicalSir 3 years ago
theCynicalSir
"You have based your entire existence on theories that will be unimportant in fifty years."
I know you aren't responding to me, because I didn't claim that "just because something is based on faith, it is wrong." But how can you tell what will happen in 50 years? If you mean the future in general, one could argue that Einstein's contribution to quantum physics will be very pertinent in space exploration, etc. Even so, how can you say that what you think of God will not change in 50 years? It very possibly could. It was 400 years until someone could disprove Newton's concept of gravity- about the same time the Catholic church was corrupt. That changed.

Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "based your entire existence on." What does they even matter? How I live my life doesn't depend on whether or not God created me or I evolved from a monkey. I want to reach out and help as many people as I can, as I've gone through troubled times as well. Whether or not our beliefs in science changes in 50 years doesn't matter to how I will live.

"Science, however has constantly changed and is mostly wrong today."
Well religion changed also. Quite a bit. Wrong... Yes I would agree with that. But the Catholic Church of long ago is wrong also. What makes you say that what we think of God now will be wrong in the future?

"Christianity has been a source of kindness and charity for centuries."
You could argue this is true, but I would say that atheists can also be as kind and charitable. Zuckerberg pledged $500 million in 2013, and he's an atheist. And from my personal experience (Which is not representative of all cases, I admit), atheists/agnostics have helped me the most when I needed it. For example, I went through an extreme suicidal phase, and a lot of my religious friends ditched me. One even said "Suicide is wrong, I cannot help you."

I do not believe polls/surveys cannot tell which is kinder/more charitable: atheists or theists. They always have bias.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
A_Flying_Toaster
Allow me to refute that line of thinking for you, Solomon.

Science THRIVES off being no more correct then any other time. That is how it works. We make theories, work to disprove them with more and more evidence until it becomes a near perfect theory. Gravity is a theory, but you wouldn't deny that NOW would you? Because we have developed upon its knowledge so much that only a truly ignorant person would deny it. That is how it works, science may not have all the definitive answers, but it is slowly getting there through theories. I am sorry it is not like faith where you make outright claims that theists say cannot POSSIBLY be wrong and to attempt to refute them is just simply foolish. And then act like they are 100% true basically going "Lalalalala!" like a child when evidence comes to prove it wrong. Sorry that science is better then that. And yes, theories might become unimportant in the future of science, but do you want to know why? Because it will have evolved into a much better conclusion.

Christianity has been a source of kindness and charity, hm?

Charity... Yes, that is why they are so rich. VEEERY Charitable. (Sarcasm.) http://www.patheos.com...

Kind? TO THE BIBLE! WOOSH!

"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." Exodus, chapter 21 verse 7.

Yes, very towering morals in Christianity. That is new testament by the way. And you know, common stuff like hating gays, forcing religion into children at an early age too. Yes, very moral indeed...
Posted by Solomon_Grim 3 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Allow me to point out that according to history and science, your most likely wrong. Things like the half life of knowledge and end of time illusion, science today is no more correct than at any other time. Plus, how ignorant are you to claim that just because something is based on faith, it is wrong. You have based your entire existence on theories that will be unimportant in fifty years.

Christianity has been a source ofkindness and charity for centuries. Science, however has constantly changed and is mostly wrong today.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
*yup
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
yep
Posted by Danielt1928Atlas 3 years ago
Danielt1928Atlas
Arguing with Christians is like playing chess with pigeons. They can't accept the fact that they are simply wrong in believing that donkeys and snakes could talk and that Jesus was a white wizard and a master vintner. If you mistake fictional archaic writings for actual facts you may be unstable and angry when it's pointed out.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Solomon_GrimdawndawndawndawnTied
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 dropped all arguments (understandably, given how non-sequitur they were) and fixates on whether laws can be a basis for morality. However this becomes irrelevant when he agrees that morals are hardwired into humans. Pro also does not contest that Con's mother did in fact only get out of her predicament by becoming atheist, so this is a valid example of atheism being helpful rather than harmful. Pro loses conduct for the absurd ad hominem attack that since the title of Darwin's book contains the phrase "favored races", that all atheists are racist (never mind that "races" here refers to different species of animal, not black vs. white vs. asian)
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Solomon_GrimdawndawndawndawnTied
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: Convincing arguments, met and matched all Pro points. Cited sources were more reliable and trustworthy as neutral and factual.
Vote Placed by AgnosticRadar 3 years ago
AgnosticRadar
Solomon_GrimdawndawndawndawnTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was attacking the beliefs of people. And had some good arguments. Although con gave more, so I gave most of the points to Con for his conduct and arguments.
Vote Placed by TH3Antag0nist 3 years ago
TH3Antag0nist
Solomon_GrimdawndawndawndawnTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The con used good counters against pro.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
Solomon_GrimdawndawndawndawnTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called into question where an atheist gets morals, con says they are hardwired in humans yet fails to explained how they got hardwired in there. Con used no sources and relied mostly on anecdotal evidence. I almost did sources as a tie but then I saw pro did provide one source. spelling was pretty equal as was conduct surprisingly
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Solomon_GrimdawndawndawndawnTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar go to pro because of multiple uses of all caps. Both sides greatly under used sources. Several uncommonly known facts were stated by both side without citation. Neither side deserves sources. Arguments were extremely weak by both sides but I felt like pro had the burden of proof and therefore had less convincing arguments. Both sides had good conduct.