Atheist VS. theism
I am a Jew, and the question i get a lot is proof proof proof, they're always asking about proof, well not everything is about proof, the reason religion exists is because of no proof, if there was proof then it wouldn't be a religion it would be law.
I'm reading Tom Sawyer in class, so please excuse me if the grammar of mine is leaning slightly toward the lefthand side. In other words, I may be speaking like it is the olden most days, such as the early parts of the 1800s. Not docking me in spelling and grammar is something that I am most wishful for. I thank you many in advancement.
Nah, I'm screwing with you. Let's get started.
An atheist will be defined as a "person who does not believe in God or a mighty spiritual leader."
A theist will be defined as a "person who believes in God or a mighty spiritual leader."
I will be arguing that atheists are better (in life and science) than theists.
My opponent will be arguing that theists are better (in life and in science) than atheists.
For your first argument, I fail to see how it corresponds to the argument. She stated a fact, not why theism is better than atheism. I will not refute it unless you show me how it is relevant to this debate. Now, onto my arguments.
--Argument 1: Actual life (facts from (1,2))--
After the Ancient times (ends in 476 C.E) Europe was cast into a dark age (called the Dark Ages.) During this period, there was only one thing that people focused on: getting into the afterlife. After the period ended, also known as the Renaissance, people started focusing more on the actual life in the current world, instead of just going to church day in and day out. The quality of life was improved greatly due to absence of religion.
Even before the Renaissance, we see more disadvantages from the religious theists. For this argument, I will be looking back at what theists have done in the past (Medieval time period.) As you must know, the Crusades, ranging from 1095-1291, was a series of battles between the Christians and the Muslims (the Jews didn't do much.) Little good came from this war, as Jerusalem was left in a pile of blood and not much advanced.
What did the Crusades actually do, though? Besides causing bickering throughout the whole Europe nation, they killed about 2,000,000 people (3). 2 million people died because of religion. Now keep in mind, these two groups (Muslims and Christians) believed mostly the same things, and they STILL fought. You don't see any major atheist wars, do you?
The previous argument leads me right into my next argument: atheist do not fight their own kind. There are many types of theists: Polytheistics, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. However, an atheist solely lies on a single definition and a single kind (most of the time): the widespread belief that there is no Creator or God.
The simple facts that they even fight eachother is pretty outstanding, don't you think? Atheists usually come to an agreement on their beliefs: God does not exist. Theists all believe God exists, but not which one(s). In conclusion, theism is a complicated belief system that the world, and life, would be better off without, at least by the standards of fighting.
Now, let's look at present day. The average church time (taken from many answers) is about 1 hour, 30 minutes every Sunday (4). Say you go to 50 church services a year. You lose 75 hours of your life every year to church. Since church only (supposedly) does things for the afterlife, it is a negative influence on real life. Those 75 hours add up to three days, three days more sleep, education, video games, gym time, etc.
Next, atheists do not have to worry about sinning at all. Since they do not believe in God, so therefore no afterlife, they go total YOLO and swear, drink, dive off cliffs and do a ton with the time they actually have in the real world. So yes, atheists do live a fuller life than theists. Now, they also do not have to worry about suffering because they can always perform abortion, suicide, euthanasia etc. while many theists can not.
In final conclusion of this section, I have shown that atheists have a better quality of life with both historical facts and present-day facts. My opponent may prove this argument wrong next round if she wishes to.
--Argument 2: Science--
These three words will likely sum up my whole argument, so read closely. Atheism. Promotes. Science. In both a study way (i.e fossils) and a humane way (i.e brain.)
First off, I would like to say that atheists promote science. Since they do not believe in Creationism and God, they are pushed to find answers for the world. While God may be the answer for the world, it is needless to say that along the way, many important inventions have been made. For example: Stephen Hawking . He is letting us come closer than ever before to making a big scientific breakthrough.
(1) My Social Studies teacher
Ok, I understand that as a Jew you do not believe in a hell, but im Messianic Jewish, so i do.
Do you think G-d appreciates you saying that Atheists are better for the world he created? Hell or no Hell, I know G-d wouldnt want people not believing in him
Theism is better for the world because it provides more morals than Atheism does, without religion,there is no faith, without faith, there are no morals, without morals, there is no law, without law, people get killed, when people get killed, their relatives get depressed, with depression, comes suicide, and the chain goes on and on and on leading to a very painful world, worse than the way it is now.
My opponent has failed to provide rebuttals for my arguments. Please consider this in both the conduct section (ignoring the opposition's arguments) and the argument section (dropping the points.) Thank you. However, I will provide rebuttals for hers. They will be short, as her arguments are short.
I will be refuting each one of my opponent's points in the last paragraph:
Yes, there actually would be faith. The definition of faithful is technically "loyal, constant." One does not have to believe in God to achieve this. One can be faithful in another to do an action, faithful in a doctor to save a life, or even faithful in their own dog to fetch the mail for them. Faith comes in many different forms, and religion is only one of them.
Yes, there would be morals. Atheists have morals, and they don't believe in God. They know their own guidelines and what they can and can't do in society. To say that one would not have morals just because they do not believe in God is simply outrageous. Plus, you have no evidence for this... at all.
A law can be enforced by the government. While people will ALWAYS disobey this law, no matter what their beliefs, God does not have to exist to tell you what laws you can and can't do. That is what the government is for. If the U.S.A didn't have laws, but everyone believed in God... would they believe in God but have no morals? According to you, yes and no.
People are getting killed by the second. People are being cast into depression by the second. Therefore, by your flawed logic, no one believes, has morals, or laws. How can this be?
There are about 1,000,000 suicide (successful) attempts a year... does this mean no one believes in God? Again, your argument is flawed and just contradicted itself.
I thank my opponent so far for the debate and I also thank you for reading. Vote con.
What my opponent has failed to do is explain if God would like it if there were more atheists walking around.
Now I am going to ask some things: If atheists have morals, where do they come from? If they are personal, then why not we all follow our own morals? Then what would happen? chaos? Suffering? All of the above?
Atheism: The rejection of a God or higher being. Well, If you reject a higher being, then you are self-centered, if you are self centered, you tend to be ignorant, which is why I think atheists are generally ignorant.
My meaning of ignorant: Having the ability to listen, but not wanting to because you keep insisting that you are correct.
I don't see why you should take high offense by me calling you a girl... Are you saying that girls are worse than boys?
First off, I don't know what God likes and doesn't like. But I do see a flaw in your argument. God is thought to be the highest being, meaning he does not believe in anything higher than himself. Therefore, God is an atheist. By your logic, God is self-centered, ignorant, and moral-less. Your argument has many flaws.
Atheists have morals because they are born with them, like any human. Buddhists have morals, and they don't believe in God. It is not just atheists. Second, we don't all follow our own morals because we are taught what is right and wrong early on in the childhood.
I will minimize this argument since it is the third round. I thank my opponent for the debate, and I thank you for reading. Vote con.
|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:||0||4|