The Instigator
andymcstab
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Febi1999
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism is more dangerous than Theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
andymcstab
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,451 times Debate No: 48134
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (1)

 

andymcstab

Pro

Hello, I shall be arguing for the motion that atheism fundamentally more dangerous than belief in God.

Definitions:
Atheism : Disbelief in God
God : Most maximally perfect and powerful being

First round is acceptance. Last round is final rebuttal and summary.

Thank-you
Febi1999

Con

Atheists are NOT fundamentally more dangerous than theists. Atheism does not mean disbelief in god. It is believing that there is NO SUCH THING as god. What we do each day, depends on what we, personally believe. It is a reflection of our morals and what we believe is right. This means that we, ourselves, chose what we are able to do. Of course i am not insisting that there are no 'bad' atheists. Of course there are. But that does not make atheism more 'dangerous. Since we, ourselves give us the belief of what is right and wrong, then that mans we feel less oppressed. And therefore, more free. It is proven that when the emotions and feelings you have oppressed come out, it is much worse than if you were to deal with it at the time.

So, to sum up, there are people in both theism and atheism, who are good. Likewise there are people on both sides who are evil. Generalising them based on whether or not they believe such a thing as god exists is what is 'fundamentally dangerous.' Atheists are not more dangerous than theists, because we are going y what WE think is right not (in the case of christianity) what a 4000 year old book says.
Debate Round No. 1
andymcstab

Pro

Thank-you to the condender for accepting the debate then jumping straight in to debate the debate definitions, while ignoring the call for first round acceptance. I can see this is going to be fun and informative for everybody.


Atheism is fundamentally more dangerous than theism, because theism involves positive reasons to be good to eachother. For one, we are all watched by an almighty, necessarily all good being. Whereas In atheism there can never be any authority higher than yourself. Theism would contend that all creatures are made by God, thus deserving inherent respect. Atheism would assert that all creatures are just promiscuous machines with the sole aim of reproduction. In the atheist world view there can therefore be no other objective good than the good of reproducing oneself. Whatever it takes to reproduce oneself therefore becomes good as there is no other objective good.

Rape, according to the atheistic world view, is a pretty "good effort". It cannot be anything less. Robbing, stealing, lying, cheating, murdering. All of these become positively good things when they increase your chances of reproduction.

The atheistic states in the last century demonstrated this clearly, murdering over 100 million civilians in under 100 years. There is nothing that can repress atheism. A theist is disinclined to do "crimes in the dark" because of the idea that God is watching. There is nothing stopping an atheist doing whatever he can get away with. Indeed, he positively SHOULD do anything he can get away with.

A wise man once said "never remove a fence before you know why it was built". Even if belief in God is false, it is surely prefarable to lawless, criminal, dangerous society that atheism positively promulgates.




Febi1999

Con

I am terribly sorry for ignoring you call for acceptance, but please excuse that as i am simply a beginner. I apologize for any inconvenience i may have caused.

The fact that there is no higher authority than yourself does not automatically mean that crime becomes a good thing. There are still laws that are followed by millions of atheists all around the globe. We live our lived based on our morals and do wh we think is good for others AND ourselves. The fact that some atheists choose to live a life of crime is beside the point. There are many theists, perhaps significantly more, who follow a life of crime. This shows that believing in a higher supreme being does not automatically make you a good person, thus, proving that not believing in it, does not make you evil.

If children are told that everything they do are being judged by someone else, a higher authority, then how are they then going to make mistakes that give them life lessons? If they have in their minds that they may only ever do good in their lives, in fear of what may happen to them otherwise, then what happens to the part of them that craves the evil side? there is both good and evil in all of us. That is the main point of the yin yang symbol. If we suppress our evil side in fear, then it just multiplies. It does not go away. Linking back to my point that atheism is not more dangerous than theism, this means that atheists do good because they believe it is right, whereas theists do good in fear of God. This goes to prove that when atheists go bad, it is by their own choice and situations. When theists go bad, it is because they choose to disobey their entire morality, which could cause them to have a 'fearless' feeling.
Debate Round No. 2
andymcstab

Pro

Thankyou Con for your response and sorry for my time getting back to you;

Con replied:
"The fact that there is no higher authority than yourself does not automatically mean that crime becomes a good thing."

This isn't my point at all. Belief in a higher authority is a leash to theists pertaining to how low they can go. Atheists recognise no such leash. They have no positive equal, indeed they have their own positive reasons - stemming from the fundamentals of naturalism - to see themselves as the only authority and commit whatever crime they can get away with which will aid their ability to reproduce.



"There are still laws that are followed by millions of atheists all around the globe. We live our lived based on our morals and do wh we think is good for others AND ourselves. The fact that some atheists choose to live a life of crime is beside the point. There are many theists, perhaps significantly more, who follow a life of crime. This shows that believing in a higher supreme being does not automatically make you a good person, thus, proving that not believing in it, does not make you evil."

Con should recognise we are not talking about crime or other tertiary factors. We are talking about fundamentals. That is, what are the fundamental conclusions of atheism? and are those conclusions more dangerous than the fundamental conclusions of theism?

Con should recognise that theism is ingrained into society. Atheists living in Europe or America today are heavily influenced by for example Christian theism, but they take its implications for granted as cultural norms which will they assume will persist after the death of Christianity and into an atheistic culture, when they won't.

As Christopher Hitchens said: "The west today is living in the afterglow of Christianity", this is very true. Few atheists today question what their grandparents and family taught them pertaining to morals. They don't recognise that those morals were ingrained over 1000+ years of Christian theism which teaches positive reasons to be good to your neighbor and not lie or steal etc. We don't see millions of atheists today behaving so badly, because of this afterglow of Christianity.

Within a couple of generations of atheism those cultural norms will disappear and then a person will be left to look at the fundamental doctrine of the atheist: Survival of the fittest, reproduction is the only objective good, there is no higher authority. This doctrine can only lead one way, it provides positive reason to commit any crime that will benefit yourself. When things get tough and people really have to think about their actions, then the difference will become very apparent.

Who would you prefer their finger over a nuclear launch button? A person who believes they will be judged, a person who has innate value for human life, a person who believes that suffering -even dying- but doing the right thing is more important than their personal advancement? Or a person who believes that personal advancement is the -only- objective good, that human beings are nothing more than machines which replicate themselves, and there is no authority higher than themselves??

Forget the nuclear launch example. Ask yourself who you would prefer to be your neighbor in a time of severe unrest, famine or riots?

Can CON provide a single fundamental assumption of atheism which would guard against this behavior?

"If children are told that everything they do are being judged by someone else, a higher authority, then how are they then going to make mistakes that give them life lessons? If they have in their minds that they may only ever do good in their lives, in fear of what may happen to them otherwise, then what happens to the part of them that craves the evil side? "

Well, this doesn't seem to be a moral objection. We teach children in a way which innately disinclines them to satisfy their "evil side". Its surely better than teaching children implicitly that reproduction is the only objective good and that there is no moral authority anywhere to ever answer to.

We have seen since the time the Bible was removed from American schools in 1963. All forms of crime have increased constantly requiring more and more security measures and expenses to protect against it, which makes us all poorer, and less happy, which stimulates more crime, requires more police and CCTV, and its a spiral loop downwards.

In 1962 the US had a population of 185m and 301'000 violent crimes.

By 2012 the population had increased to 313m, little more than 1/3rd, but there were 1.2 million violent crimes. An increase approximately 400%. Then you must factor that there were far fewer police officers per capita in 1960 and no deterrents such as CCTV. The change has been stark.

http://www.disastercenter.com...
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...

Correlation is not causation, ofcourse. But correlation suggests that a specific relationship may be true. And I think in this case I have given good reason to believe it is.
Febi1999

Con

Febi1999 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
andymcstab

Pro

I am sorry that my opponent has forfeited the round.

Im summary, the contender has failed to show anything in the fundamental assumptions of atheism which would encourage good behavior, and he has failed to argue against the fundamental assumptions which i pointed out would encourage bad behavior.

He has also made no case against theism which would suggests that its fundamental assumptions are more dangerous than the atheist ones.

I feel therefore that in this debate atleast i have shown atheism to be more dangerous than theism, so please vote for me.

Thankyou
Febi1999

Con

Febi1999 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by peacefrog 3 years ago
peacefrog
Secondly, of course modern conflicts killed more people, considering, the fact that the world population has risen exponentially since then, and the crusaders didn't have as effective of killing machines as modern weapons. Honestly, your whole debate has been fallacy after fallacy, and your entire argument has no foundation considering your misuse of facts, and incoherent logical connections, such as the crusades vs. Stalin.
Posted by peacefrog 3 years ago
peacefrog
The rulers of the totalitarian regimes you listed used atheism merely as a means of achieving uniformity. It was easier to say "don't believe in anything" than "believe in this", as well as the fact that the goal was to value the state above all, meaning no higher authorities, including religion. You're twisting the facts of history to fit your own agenda, and I don't really dig that.
Posted by andymcstab 3 years ago
andymcstab
Apologies for calling you an a priori voter sagey.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually, if you want my ideology on this debate, I'm neutral.
It's not the belief system that is the issue.
I'm a psychology student and I know full well, that problems are created on both Atheism and Theism side of the fence by the psych of the individual.
For instance Stalin would have been dangerous, whether he was Theist or Atheist, because he was a Megalomaniac Psychopath.
Had he been a Christian, he would have used the church to gain leverage and power and still Massacre all that opposed him.
It's the individual's psychology, not the belief system that is at fault.
Same goes for Pope Innocent III who was also a Psychopath.
He didn't care about the lives of the people he killed, so long as he had his position of power, like Stalin, he killed off the opposition that could diminish his power.
So here we have a Theist (Innocent) and Atheist (Stalin) Psychopaths causing death and destruction.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I only debate on worthwhile subjects and ones where the opponent hasn't tried to stack the deck with irrational definitions.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Well Andy, had they modern weapons in the 13th century like an Atomic Bomb, I'm certain Pope Innocent III would have used it on the Albigensians. Then the death toll would be a hell of a lot higher.
Swords and spears don't really make a similar toll as machine guns and bombs.

Though also in the 13th century, the population density was only a tenth of what it is now, so that also adds to the lower death toll.

You really need to put History into perspective.
Had Pope Innocent III tried the same thing now days, the death toll could have rivaled the Holocaust.
Though he'd have UN opposition and thus it would have been stopped by force.
Same goes if another Hitler arose today, the UN would have him deposed, thus there can never be another Holocaust, Ever.
Posted by andymcstab 3 years ago
andymcstab
Anyway, i wont be drawn into debating the comments. The debate is done, i have stated my case, my opponent stated his. The votes should pertain to the debate and i shouldn't feel obliged to continually defend myself in comments.
I have 0 doubt sagey will vote for Con, because he is an apriori voter who really doesn't care about the debate, only pushing his ideology. This is why i don't reply to him directly, although i challenged him to debate and surprise, he refused.
Posted by andymcstab 3 years ago
andymcstab
Real life examples of what, frog?
Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, almost certainly Hitler, Pol Pot and many others were all enabled if not encouraged directly through their atheism.

Sure, bad things have been done in the name of religion. But fewer things in 2000 years than 100 years of atheism. Bad things always happen because man is bad, but theism gives no positive reason i can see to be bad. Atheism on the other hand does, for the reasons i have already gone to great lengths pointing out. Before the 20th century there had never been an atheist state on earth. During it there were 5 or 6 atheist states or atheist rulers with complete control, and together they easily killed 100m people.

Meanwhile Sagey goes back to the 13th century talk about the crusades which all together perhaps killed 2m people, over about 300 years. No doubt there were crimes committed during this time, but if it were not for the crusades you would be living under Muslim rule today.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
True PeaceFrog: The Albigensian crusades were because the Albigensian (Cathar) people had a different concept of how Jesus died and how to worship him.
Yes The Catholics tried to exterminate the Cathars, because, even though they were also Christian, they had different ideas on Jesus.

For centuries Catholics massacred non-believers as heretics and witches, as well as massacred other Christians because of differences.
As Hitler pointed out, Catholics treated the Jews as lowly citizens and even murdered them for 1500 years before Hitler was born.
Yet Hitler (also a Catholic) was disappointed when he tried to finish the job of exterminating the Jews that they started a couple of centuries after the death of Jesus.
Posted by peacefrog 3 years ago
peacefrog
Do you have any real life examples to support your theory? I see a lot of wars being started over religion, but none over the absence of it...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
andymcstabFebi1999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I disagree with Pro, as it is the person that is good or bad, often in spite of their belief system, though Con forfeited and did not present an argument. Crime statistics don't mean anything, more crimes are committed where greatest opportunity for it exist, slack law enforcement and people are desperate, insufficient average income. Truly crime has nothing to do with Theism nor Atheism, they are used in naive non-sequitur reports and statistics, essentially as far as Crime in modern society goes, belief system is irrelevant. This does not equate to Islamic countries though where a lot of the crime is by the government maintaining the status quo of Islamic belief.