The Instigator
bublez07
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
108 Points

Atheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,318 times Debate No: 7950
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (19)

 

bublez07

Con

Atheism is the most insidious belief system in the world and is responsible for all of the greatest atrocities of the last century.I refer to Hitler,Stalin,Pol Pot and Mao.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to participate in this debate and how for an excellent exchange.

My opponent seeks to show that Atheism is responsible for all the world's atrocities in the last century. Since we are now living in the 21st century, then he must be referring to the period of 1900-1999.

Here is a list of all the greatest atrocities of that century.

http://users.erols.com...

I argue that not all of these atrocities are directly linked to atheism. Hitler himself was a Christian and did not use Atheism as a background for his decision to perform genocide.

Since this atrocity was not the result of atheism, then there is at least 1 atrocity in the 20th century that was not caused by atheism and my opponent's statement is debunked.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
bublez07

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for showing me what century we are in!Hitler was raised a roman catholic but rejected it at an early age.Hitler,before and during the war was an athiest,as were most high ranking nazis.He paid lip service to God and religion only as a propaganda tool.It is well documented that in private he was an Atheist.Nazi ideology,in common with communism were shaped by a belief that there is no God.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for the response and will now respond to his points.

My opponent stated that Hitler was an atheist in private and that Religion was used as a propaganda tool

1. If it were not for that propaganda tool, then there is a good chance the atrocity of the Holocaust would not have occurred.

2. There is no correlation between Hitler's alleged Atheism and the practices. Nazisim and the ideals that Adolf Hitler had resulting in the mass genocide of countless millions had nothing to do with atheism directly. It was due to Hitler's twisted views of several things.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, atheists were the target of Nazism and there was a crusade against godlessness by Hitler. Thus, my opponent is wrong.

Another example of a great atrocity not involving atheism is WWI. The war occurred because of politics and not ideology.

Yet another is the Second Sudanese Civil War, in which this atrocity was due to oppression and not atheism.

I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
bublez07

Con

Sudan??I specifically stated Hitler,Stalin,Pol Pot and Mao.Their collective campaigns were in terms of scale and wider impact the greatest massacres of the century.They were all documented Atheists.Please debate me on THESE points.Also,I did not say that Hitler used religion as a propaganda tool but that he appeased the various religious communities in Germany while remaining an Atheist in private.The ideologies which gave rise to nazism were derived from early 20th century esoteric mystical cults,themselves influenced by various pagan beliefs in magic and master races.Virtually all of the top ranking nazis were active members in one or more of these groups,which rejected the existance of God.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and will continue rebutting his argument.

My opponent states that he is dealing only with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.

I quote:

"Atheism is the most insidious belief system in the world and is responsible for all of the greatest atrocities of the last century.I refer to Hitler,Stalin,Pol Pot and Mao."

My opponent clearly says that Atheism is responsible for ALL of the greatest atrocities of the last century. Everything on the list I gave could be classified as a great atrocity, and thus, all of them are suitable. In fact, WWI as an atrocity killed more people than Stalin's regime did, since WWII atrocities were listed along with the figure of 20 million. The fact that he refers to those 4 atrocities mean nothing, he could only be listing them as some examples. There are plenty of examples of atrocities that occurred in this century that did not result from Atheism, but if my opponent is going for quantity, WWI is still a good example.

Regardless, my opponent then goes on to speak of "esoteric mystical cults". Then, it is probably due to that and not atheism.

My opponent asserts that Hitler was both an Atheist and a Magical "voodoo" type pagan.
My opponent then says that terrible atrocities came forth from Hitler.
There is direct correlation between those pagan concepts of superior Aryan races and the atrocities, but no correlation between those atrocities and Atheism

Thus, I find my opponent's conclusion to be absurd, classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. He has no proof that atheism was the pure cause, only a beginning and an end with no middle. Thus, his argument is invalid.
Debate Round No. 3
bublez07

Con

How sad that you will not debate me on my points.World War1 was not mentioned as it was principally a war between nations for power.It does not qualify as one of the greatest atrocities because there was little specific targeting of racial groups for mass murder,unlike the Atheist inspired campaigns of those i mentioned.You still have not begun this debate!You seem to be cynical about my claims of esoteric cults having influenced nazi idealogy.I refer you to the work of Nicholas Goodrick Clark.In fact this point is common knowledge among historians.The beliefs of these cults varied wildly,yet they had common ties,chief among these was a rejection of a belief in God.Therefore their members had to be Atheists.It is true that Hitler targeted Atheist groups.This was because these specific groups had free thinking as part of their motif and as such were seen as dangerous and not for their belief in no God which they had in common with Hitler.Hitler needed slavish devotion and could acheive this through manipulation of the general population which was christian.However he was privately an Atheist.Only the Atheist regimes targeted civilian populations on a massive scale.This was a 20th century phenomenon.Previous to world war2,wars were fought for dominion and territory.With the new Atheist based ideologies of communism and nazism,wars were waged in order to wipe out perceived enemies from existance!This was ok because as there is no God,we are just animals and should live by the law of the jungle or Social Darwinism which is a logical Atheist progression as was Eugenics.
Kleptin

Pro

My opponent has chosen to change the tide of his argument to make unfounded accusations about my responses and to introduce his own definition of the resolution. As this is already round 4, I need not state that these new definitions are unacceptable, and I contest his definition below. In addition, my opponent says that I will not debate on his points. First, allow me to state that as he is the instigator and I the contender, the burden of proof rests on *him* to prove that atheism is directly linked to all atrocities that occurred in the last century.

Now, I point the audience to my opponent's sudden statement of his strange definition of "atrocity" in which he states that in order for something to be an atrocity, it must involve the targeting of racial groups and violation of human rights. Please see these two entries for the definitions of atrocity and atrocious from Merriam Webster:

atroc�i�ty
1 : the quality or state of being atrocious
2 : an atrocious act, object, or situation

atro�cious
1: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : barbaric
2: appalling, horrifying
3 a: utterly revolting : abominable b: of very poor quality

Please note that in both of these entries, reference was made to warfare, not specifically violations of human rights, targeting of racial groups, etc. This is my opponent's deliberate attempt to distort the definition of a word in order to favor his own argument. WWI by these definitions, most definitely counts as an atrocity, and by my opponent's own admission, is but a war between nations for power. No Atheism involved. As such, I believe I have made the necessary point in proving my opponent wrong. Unless my opponent wants to change the definition of "atrocity", then the resolution is negated.

My opponent also states that I do not believe that esoteric cults influenced nazi ideology. This is wrong and my opponent is twisting my words. I admit that these esoteric cults influenced nazi ideology, but I also argue that my opponent is making a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that Nazism has some atheistic components and some other components does not mean that all actions from nazi ideology stem from the atheistic ideas. Thus, my opponent's argument fails at the very start.

In addition, my opponent is trying to mislead the audience by creating a false connection. Please take note of his manipulative and deceptive language. My opponent's entire argument is a giant fallacy known as "the association fallacy" which is a long chain of non sequitors, so on top of failing at the very top of the chain, it also fails along the chain as well.

1. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist
2. Social Darwinism stems from Atheism
3. Hitler used social darwinism to commit atrocities
4. Therefore, Atheism is responsible for atrocities.

If my opponent sells me a gun, and I sell the gun to my brother, and my brother sells it to his friend, and my brother's friend decides to shoot this entire audience dead, does this mean that my opponent should then be jailed for mass murder? Unless my opponent can provide an argument that *DIRECTLY* relates atheism to the atrocity of Hitler, without all the garbage in between such as connection one ideology to another ideology to another ideology, his case makes no logical sense whatsoever. We are not playing "Six degrees of separation" and Hitler is not Kevin Bacon.

The chain of responsibility that my opponent is suggesting is, at best, completely absurd. Social Darwinism is one of many interpretations of Atheist concepts and does not naturally progress from Atheism. Any ideology that requires additional premises other than what directly follows from the parent ideology is simple a branch, not a natural outgrowth. There are atheistic concepts that are not in favor of social darwinism, therefore, my opponent is wrong on that count.

Next, social darwinism is one thing. The deprivation of rights is another. Hitler had flawed notions about what made a human dominant and the elements by which natural selection took place. This flaw in his thinking negates the responsibility of Atheism. My opponent is wrong on this count as well.

So, when my opponent's argument is logically fallacious in several locations, top to bottom, how can we still judge his proposition as valid? It is plain to see that my opponent is simply biased and at a lack of information, and must resort to semantics and distortion of logic and fact in order to manipulate an argument.

It is more reasonable to say that the atrocities that Hitler committed are not due to Atheism, but to his psychotic nature and distorted ideologies.

Just to recap:

1. My opponent is the instigator and I am the contender. The burden of proof rests on him to connect Atheism with all the atrocities. If he wishes to discuss them, then he should not wait for me to address them. If he does not address them, he has not fulfilled his burden and his argument fails.

2. My opponent cannot adequately rule out WWI as a great atrocity of the 20th century. Unless he can show how Atheism is responsible for it, his argument fails.

3. I have debunked my opponent's argument claiming that Atheism was responsible for Hitler's atrocities against mankind on the basis that it is logically fallacious in several areas. Unless my opponent can counter this, his argument fails.

I urge the audience to see through my opponent's carefully crafted and deliberately deceptive arguments. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
bublez07

Con

Wow.I managed to get halfway through your responce before becoming extremely bored and losing the will to continue.You obviously are unwilling or unable to debate my original point, which was pretty unambiguous.This debate was supposed to be about how atheism did or did not influence the campaigns of those i mentioned.Instead i get pedantic, lame semantics.Pathetic.I can see your response already"my opponent refers to me as pedantic,the websters definition of pedantic is......."
You might even win this debate as my opinions are quite unfashionable right now.If you do,i recommend bringing your dictionary out to dinner to celebrate.
Kleptin

Pro

I regret to announce that my opponent has conceded this debate. Although he has accused me of making "lame semantics", he has decided not to respond to anything I have said despite the fact that through my formality (which is a necessary component of debate) my arguments still ring true.

It is fact that my opponent's connection of Atheism and Hitler's atrocious genocide violates key logical structure and is completely fallacious.

It is fact my counterargument was not based on semantics, but on the rules of logic and the identification of a key error on his part. Even if my opponent WERE correct in saying that I was making "pedantic, lame, semantic" arguments, it does not apply to my counterargument against his flawed logic.

It is fact that I questioned my opponent's strange definition, a definition of "atrocity" that was contorted to match his. I merely quoted out of Merriam-Webster, and my opponent is invalidating my argument based on that fact? Perhaps aside from a bias against atheism, my opponent also has a bias against dictionaries.

It is fact that my opponent's attack has nothing to do with my argument, he simply cannot develop a response to all the points which I have raised and this is his manner of conceding.

I thank my opponent for this debate and I urge the audience to vote PRO, as my opponent has decided to waste his last post crying foul.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Points to Pro. Not only was the conduct and presentation on the Pro terrible, but the Pro entirely failed to link any of his examples, with the exception of a very poor job regarding Hitler, to the "evils" of atheism. By his logic, I should be out committing genocide by now...I have a lot to catch up on as a non-believer :D
Posted by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
People bring up hitler, but even if he was an athiest, which I am not saying he's not, it dooesn't mean all athiests hate jews. Hitler was also a vegetarian, was german and had crazy facial hair. None of this means Vegetarians, germans or people with crazy facial hair want to kill all jews.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
It was amusing to see CON have a temper tantrum mid fourth or fifth round. Way to go Kleptin, my vote's for you.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro must prove that there is an essential link between atheism and bad acts. There are numerous bad acts linked to religion: the Inquisition, various holy wars, modern terrorism etc. There are, of course, numerous good acts linked to atheism and to religion, respectively. An atheist founded the Red Cross, etc. Buddhists are atheists and do good deeds. Pro failed to make any cause and effect relationship, so the argument necessarily fails. Pro argued it well.
Posted by Mdal 7 years ago
Mdal
Kleptin, I must commend you. You were both flexible and clear in you responses in this debate. I feel it was your crystal clear rebuttals which clearly explained your reasoning which impressed me most. Well done.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
CON failed to uphold his own resolution. In round 1 he said all world atrocities are caused by Atheists , using Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. as examples.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Sorry but I don't see millions of Hitlers and Stalin's in the U.S. or anywhere. There have been aristocrats influenced by all religions but I fail to see how not believing in a deity makes me more likely to cause genocide and such. Enlighten me?
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
"I managed to get halfway through your responce before becoming extremely bored"

See, this is how you win. Bore your opponent's until they quit. lol
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
It's rare that I'd allocate all my points to one side when there were no forfeits, but this fits the criteria. Bitter remarks, cramped sentences, and a lack of sources means they all go to Pro.
Posted by bublez07 7 years ago
bublez07
Im argueing that the belief system of atheism is of itself dangerous and unnatural!BRING IT ON.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by vervatos 6 years ago
vervatos
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by kevsext 7 years ago
kevsext
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Madoki 7 years ago
Madoki
bublez07KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by threelittlebirds 7 years ago
threelittlebirds
bublez07KleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07