Atheism is more dangerous than Theism
Debate Rounds (4)
Hello, I shall be arguing for the motion that atheism fundamentally more dangerous than belief in God.
Atheism : Disbelief in God
God : Most maximally perfect and powerful being
First round is acceptance. Last round is final rebuttal and summary.
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.
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.
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.
Thankyou Con for your response and sorry for my time getting back to you;
"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.
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 forfeited this round.
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.
Febi1999 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.