The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Winning
74 Points

Atheists should have their own Constution and Bill of Rights.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 3/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,590 times Debate No: 3129
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (112)
Votes (24)

 

sadolite

Pro

Since Atheists don't believe in god they should have to make their own rights and laws and be separated from the current Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since the the Preamble to the Constitution states that all men are endowed by God to certain inalienable rights, Atheists should not be afforded these rights because they are endowed by God and for people who believe in God. You can not say that atheists can have rights that God created, they don't' believe in God therefore can't believe in any rights created by God. And furthermore they should not be able to copy any of the rights listed in our current Constitution because that would be contradictory to Atheism.
DucoNihilum

Con

I think you're making some serious misunderstandings. The biggest one that the founders of the constitution necessarily meant 'God'. I believe strongly that they were speaking more of 'Natural Rights', which may be described as coming from God, but only simply to mean that people were born with them. Natural rights are rights you are born with, it is not a far leap to assume that 'God' gave you those rights. However, Natural rights still exist regardless of whether or not God is in the equation, the adding of God is simply a semantic decision.

To suggest that atheists can not be afforded with natural rights simply because of the word 'God' in front of it is wrong.

Just because somebody claimed that these rights came from God does not mean they did (Argument to Authority), so it is very possible that these rights exist outside of God.

Natural rights are not contradictory to atheism. An atheist can believe in something a Christian does without being contradictory. Christians tend to believe (as per the bible) that living is a pretty good thing. Would that mean it was contradictory to support their own lives and to not commit suicide?

All of the rights listed in the Constitution are secular. While some of them may pertain to Christians as well as non-Christians, they are all secular. Even natural rights are secular. The rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are separate from God, regardless of whether or not the creators believed that these rights were derived from God, or if they were simply drawing a parallel in order to show that people were born with those rights.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

First a quote from Atheist Alliance International: "We don't care what they say in order to get elected in this religious country. We care about what kind of judges they give us on the Supreme Court . . . I don't care what kind of verbal obeisance they pay to religion if that's what it takes to get a person in the White House who will give us church-state separationists on the Supreme Court. -- (Atheist, Edward Tabash, on Democratic Candidates)
The very foundation of the Atheist movement is based on deception in order to take control of Govt' and not allow anyone with religious beliefs to hold office. It has been and will continue to be the agenda of organized Atheists to destroy the very foundation this country was built upon. Every single person without exception who framed the Constitution believed in God. They all believed that God made this nation possible and that God would bless it. The Atheist agenda wants to completely eliminate from existence any reference from religion anywhere in public and that includes your front yard. It is the agenda of organized Atheists to make the United States a Godless country. It is their agenda to eliminate the first amendment and replace religion with the govt. I, as a person who believes in god have to be sensitive to atheists because they might be offended by the sight or sound or anything pertaining to religion or God in a public forum according to current bastard rulings under the law. But an Atheist can take a picture of Jesus and sit in the middle of town square and smear dog crap all over it without impunity. There clearly is a double standard already taking place and it is just the beginning. That is why they should make their own constitution and bill of rights. WE, THE RELGIOUS PEOPLE WERE HERE FIRST. WE DONOT WANT A GODLESS COUNTRY.
DucoNihilum

Con

Your second round seems to move into a non sequitor incoherent rant, for the most part. I will still respond to some of your comments, however random they seem to be.

As for your first quote, I have a few objections.

1. The views expressed by the AAI are not necessarily the views of all Atheists. Your policy suggests stripping essential liberties away from ALL Atheists.

2. To me it sounds as if the quote is in strong support of an official who is secular and who will push secular policy. I agree with the fact that our government should be secular but I do not believe that this secular person can be anybody. There is no talk of not allowing anybody with religion belief to hold office, but rather push for people who will keep their office secular (as required).

I disagree that the "Atheist agenda" supports the removal of all religion in the nation, and have several objections to this as well.

Firstly, there is no "Atheist agenda". We do not all think alike, we are not all the same person.

Secondly, you have only shown evidence that Atheists would like religion eliminated from public government. I agree with this, religion being imposed on the non religious by the government is tyrannical. I have seen no evidence (and I certainly dont support) religion to be removed from private practice. Could you please show exactly where all atheists support the removal of religion from private individuals?

Atheists you speak of want to support the first amendment and the ideals of liberty supported by our founders, be it liberty for the religious or liberty for the non religious.

HOWEVER- your entire second round was mostly irrelevant to the argument at hand. How does this all tie in with the idea that Atheists should not be afforded the same rights as Christians under the Bill of Rights?
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

The main argument for atheists is freedom of expression and freedom from judgement in personal behavior and choices is it not? Atheists don't believe that you should be allowed to judge ones personal behavior. Take homosexuality, it is a behavior not a right. Pedophilia is a behavior not a right. Bestiality is a behavior not a right. Take any form of human depravity you can think of it is behaviour not a right. As stated by my opponent not all atheists think alike, what is good for some is not for others. But we must accept all personal behavior regardless of how vulgar and disgusting we may think it is. Atheism has no code of conduct, anything goes, there is absolutely no standard for personal behavior for an atheist in public or private. Lets take a precursor look at things to come with no limits on personal behavior: Every year in San Francisco a gay pride parade is held, last year several people were arrested for openly engaging in lude and lascivious acts that are currently against the law, some of this activity going on in clear view of small children. Religious people do have a code of conduct it's called the ten commandments and the bible. It is impossible to remove religion from a religious person when making decisions about what kind of personal behavior is right and wrong. Therefore no one who is religious could run for public office because they would be compelled by their beliefs that vulgar and disgusting behavior in public is wrong. Under a totally secular govt' as described by atheists it would be illegal to make any form of personal behavior illegal in public, all an atheist would have to argue is that it is their way of expressing themselves and you have no right to judge them. With that said, what behaviours are considered bad as an atheist in a public forum, and if you answer , what gives you the right to judge what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, This is the exact same argument atheists use right now against religious people, what gives religious people the right to judge what is considered acceptable behaviour in public. Since committing crime is also a behavior and not a right how and who will decide what crimes are OK and which ones aren't' A completely secular govt' is not possible without bringing society to the absolute bottom of the barrel most disgusting depraved and vulgar society of people the world has ever seen. Religious people would not be able to leave their homes without being subjected to every form of human depravity known to man on a daily bases, But then again the atheists have to leave their homes and look at a cross or some other religious symbol on a daily bases. Ya I guess a govt' devoid of judgement on personal behavior would be better for society NOT!!

This is the reason atheists need to write their own constitution so they can all get together and decide for the rest of us religious people what is right and wrong and exactly what if any rights a religious person has in a public forum. It is a widely accepted that it is irrational to believe in god because you can't prove he or she exists using science by atheists. Therefore Atheists believe they are intellectually superior to all other people in my opinion. I am interested in how you are going to get around all these problems with a totally secular govt without being judgemental towards someones personal behavior.
DucoNihilum

Con

Your argument in inherently flawed in two ways. I will address these two issues first, then address the other less important issues you rose up (Because they're really irrelevant rants on how evil atheism is)

FIRSTLY- your proposition and following arguments are flawed in that you claim that 'Atheists should' or that 'Atheists believe'.... The only thing you can be sure that atheists believe is that they believe there is no God. Not all Atheists hold the same beliefs. Atheism is a religious belief, you are bringing up very political issues. Atheists are not a single entity, they do not hold the same political beliefs, and they can have a sense of morality outside of the bible. Morality can and does exist outside of the bible.

You prove your own argument wrong when you bring up the argument of how 'immoral' the atheists were because they did not have the bible as guidance. Christians use THE BIBLE as guidance, and not the constitution. The Constitution is entirely secular, even to the point where it suggests total religious freedom. Religious people have the bible for moral guidance, and the nonreligious might have some other souse, their own logic, or holding some sort of philosophy (such as, for example, Objectivism). The bible is not the only source of morals, and the constitution is not based around the ten commandments. If this were truly as much of a religious nation as you say, and these atheists breaking the moral codes of the religious was a problem requiring a new constitution for the atheists, the constitution would simply be the ten commandments. The bill of rights and the ten commandments are totally separate. This is the way most of the founding fathers wanted it, and the way all those who hold liberty to be important want it as well. Law and religious / philosophical morals should not interject nor interfere with each other. As far as the constitution goes, it brings up no religious sorts of morals, only rights guaranteed to you by the constitution- those that you want to take away.

You bring up many things which you believe are 'behaviors' not 'rights'. You are totally incorrect on all examples. Everybody has the right to be a homosexual, even though it is not outlined as such in the constitution strictly. You also have the rights to have sex with your own animals, have pedophillic desires (so long as you do not act on them), ETC. These are examples of behavior that might not be accepted, but that should be totally legal. Whether or not you accept this behavior is on your end and no one elses'. So long as these people do not harm another person, what is the harm? Does it make you feel bad that somebody has an attraction to children (but doesn't hurt any kids?) Sure, I don't appreciate those people either. I won't make any quick moves to accept them. Homosexuals aren't very big on my 'bad' list, but that's irrelevant. Just because you don't appreciate somebody's behavior doesn't mean you have a right to oppress them! Creating laws claiming that their actions are immoral and thus illegal is selfish and wrong! You have the right to limit your own personal behavior, but when it comes to somebody elses personal behavior- why should YOU TELL THEM WHAT TO DO in regards to their own body, when they harm nothing but your feelings? Your idea that we should oppress those who we find disagreeable is totalitarian, oppressive, and sickening.

The claim that atheists would like all of the religious out of office because no religious person could stand not oppressing other people is absurd. Just because you believe something does not mean you should impose those beliefs on others, when you are in a position to oppress others such as when you are a politician, it is your responsibility as a politician, religious or not, to uphold the constitutional protection of Life, Liberty, and Property- regardless of your personal beliefs. In fact, your personal beliefs need not be halted. You can still believe that homosexuality is wrong while still allowing that behavior, and perhaps praying for them to become heterosexual. This goes back to the sick premise that we should oppress all people whom we disagree with rather than simply looking down at them, believing that they are incorrect. Personally, I have a problem with people like you who arrogantly suggest we arrest people, put people in jail, and throw away their liberties because they make you uncomfortable- but I will never suggest you not have the right to say or think those things, some right you will never afford other people.

You try to claim that atheists tend to be immoral because they have nothing to go by while the Christians have very much to go by, The Bible, and are thusly moral. They are not doing lude acts on the street, and being evil like those darned atheists. This is totally untrue, in fact, most of the prison population is Christian, if I remember correctly- even if you include the factor that there are more religious than non religious in the US. Almost everybody, religious and non religious included try to follow their own set of moral code, whether they got this blindly from the bible or if they managed to come up with this based on their own logic, reason, or even another philosophy.

The difference between a Christian saying it is not alright to do things that are immoral to a christian, and an Atheist saying it is alright to do such things is thus. The Christian is trying to take rights AWAY from people, while the non christian (in this case) is trying to keep it at a neutral standpoint. Let me explain, in a situation where, for example, homosexuality is outlawed homosexuals are not free to have sexual relations, or even their natural emotions. However, in a situation in which it is not outlawed, they are free to do as they please. Christians are also free to disapprove of their behavior without having to throw them in jail. It's neutral. Homosexuals can do what they want and disapprove of the lifestyles of Christians, and Christians can disapprove of the lifestyles of the homosexuals. When it gets to the point where one group takes advantage of the small numbers of one group and oppress them. You have every right to disapprove of somebody's behavior, but you have absolutely no right to take away anybody's right to do anything unless that person is violating the Life, Liberty, or Property of another.
Debate Round No. 3
112 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Harlan, That's already been covered about 80 comments ago.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "
------------------------------------------------------------

"the Preamble to the Constitution states that all men are endowed by God to certain inalienable rights"

-Sadolite

Misinformation...
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
109 comments, did I open a can of worms or what!
Posted by smith76 9 years ago
smith76
We did not go into Iraq to build a nation. That is not the reason we went. We did not go into Europe to nation build during WW2, nor Korea, Japan, Vietnam, or any other war. We went to those countries with the primary gopal of furthering our agenda around the world (destroying terrorism, stopping Hitler, stopping Japan, stopping the spread of communism, etc.) None of these agendas were to buid a nation. The fact that nation building becomes a part of a conflict after the fact that the major military portions are finished does not make those major military actions liberal by association. In a sense, you are saying that any war, unless our homeland is invaded, is liberal. You are also attempting to classify all military actions that do not involve an invasion oh the homeland as liberal because a necessary step to complete those military operations is to rebuild what has been destroyed by out military force. Isnt that like classifying the most conservative economic policy as a liberal policy because it gives as much as $1 to a social program?
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
National defense isn't a liberal policy, however none of those conflicts (or potential conflicts) were defense, rather offense (preemptive strikes). National defense is defending your homeland, much of our military budget is spent overseas. Self defense is conservative, so long as it is not excessive- nation building as we are doing in Iraq right now is not self defense- otherwise we would have been out of there by now. We're nation building, that's the primary reason why people want to keep us in Iraq.
Posted by smith76 9 years ago
smith76
National defense is liberal? Thats a new one. Last I checked, the liberal Bill Clinton slashed the national defense budget in half.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Support of going into Iraq, Iran, ETC.
Posted by smith76 9 years ago
smith76
You gave no specific examples.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
I've defended it. I'm saying it's their forign policy ideas.
Posted by smith76 9 years ago
smith76
Comment or not, if you make statements, armguements, or whatever you want to call them, you need to be ready to defend them.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by livi 9 years ago
livi
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
sadoliteDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03