The Instigator
Lady_Una
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Daltonian
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

If Atheists took over, the US would turn into North Korea and a genocide would begin on Christians

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Daltonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 55658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

Lady_Una

Pro

I will be arguing that Atheistic society is almost always accompanied by crime, genocide, and mass murder, and that religion is required in a moral society.

Round 1:Acceptance
Round 2:Arguments + Rebuttal by con
Round 3:Conclusion + Conclusion and Rebuttal by Pro

Violating the terms of the debate constitutes in an automatic forfit
Daltonian

Con

I eagerly accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Lady_Una

Pro

My Argument against the tyrannies of atheism
There is a correlation between atheists and murderous or genocidal governments. Almost every example of an atheist being elected as a leader of any country or powerful state has resulted in the following resentment and genocide towards Jews, Christians, and other ethnicities.

Examples of Atheist Mass Murderers:
Pol Pot, of Cambodia, an adamant atheist, he forced socialism onto his people, and enslaved them as labours. 3 million christians died during his regime.

Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Nazi Germany. Adolf's logo, the swatsika, represents a disfigured cross. Being an atheist in power, as easily predicted, without the proper morals that a religion offers to guide him, he butchered millions of jews, christians, and other ethnicites in the holocaust.

Stalin, an adamant atheist who butchered millions of Russians during his stay in office.

Examples of communistic atheists:
Karl Marx

Every time that an atheist has been elected into office, his oppositors have undergone butchering and murder.. so why would it be different this time?

- Without a key set of morals to prevent atheists from murder, history has proven that they have no problem with killing to achieve political aspirations.
- Con cannot refute the simple fact that genocide and death accompany atheistic power.

Sources:
http://www.doxa.ws...
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...;
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...

Daltonian

Con

My opponent's proposal is laughable - meaning it literally made me chuckle. Her entire argument is anecdotal.


Not only is her argument empty of any real intelligence, the fact that she had the audactiy to cite Yahoo Answers as a source.. oh dear.

But, alas, I will refute. My argument starts here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Rebuttal(s)

1. To say that because Stalin was an atheist, and committed murders, so all atheists are responsible;

is akin to saying that since Osama Bin Laden was a theist, all other theists, including christians, hindus, and the likes are responsible.

Atheism and theism are broad terms, and people who describe two these two concepts often have extremely varying political positions and views.

The only connection that atheists have to each other are a disbelief in god.
The only connection that theists have to each other are a belief in god.

Therefore, they both share the same moral permissibilities.

If you are to say that since, one atheist commits a foul act, all atheists are responsible, no matter how different they may be
then you must also concede that if one theist commits a foul act, all theists are responsible, no matter how different they may be,
or that if one agnostic commits a foul act, all agnostics are responsible, no matter how different they may be.

And, this, of course, is a logical fallacy. My opponent has a sad and bigoted outlook on life, in which she sees everything in black and white: where all people who even have the remotest of associations to any sort of criminal are thus equally guilty of another's crime.

Like theists, atheists are an extremely diverse group: some atheists are literally nothing like other atheists with the exception of having a belief in god.
Buddhists, in all technicality, are atheists.. when has a buddhist leader ever commited a genocide? Or a taoist leader?
Atheism is too broad of a term to begin associating people to specific practices.

2. Hitler was not even conclusively an atheist; rather, an anti-theist. There is no conclusive proof of such.

The other political figures named, Pol Pot and Stalin, are merely two examples of literally thousands of atheists throughout history, the majority of which were not murderous or genocidal. So, even if my opponent's argument wasn't an illogical fallacious mess, it would still be a manipulation and thus untrue.

3. My opponent holds the burden of proof. She has failed to prove that the actions of one atheist are universal and that all of the world's hundreds of millions of atheists will pursue the same path when provided with power, rather, she has merely presented a slipper slope fallacy.

Absolutely do not vote Pro, as her argument is an insult to the spirit of debating. This debate is already won.
Debate Round No. 2
Lady_Una

Pro

Con, as expected, has ignored the content of my article and rather insisted that "it's ok because Christians have done it before too".

This claim is false, as no
true Christian would ever commit said acts.

An atheist has no dogma restricting him and henceforth he can do whatever he wants, including murder, whilst not disrespecting his atheistic name.

But a Christian, in order to call themselves a Christian, has to follow Christian dogma. So, if a Christian violates that dogma, they are not really a Christian, but something else.. perhaps an atheist?

Yes, that's right! Since the Christians who supposedly committed these acts did not actually do it in the name of Christ, and were false Christians, they were likely either Satanist's or atheists trying to disgrace the name of Christ.

Those "thousands of other atheists in government" that you speak of can easily be dismissed, as they are inviable: they were minor politicians and did not have the power to conduct any genocides, there were other Christians in government there to stop them.
In Conclusion
Con has provided no evidence that the endless chain of atheistic genocide will end. Therefore, he has failed his burden and an atheist in government would likely conduct genocide against Christians as done in the past.
Daltonian

Con

Pro has succeeded in completely neglecting my entire argument, and instead acted as if I had said nothing at all.

Rebuttals

- My opponent claims that since an atheist has no respective dogma associated with his atheism, he can do whatever he wants. This is untrue. An atheist is still restricted by the United States constitution, law, and other things.

Additionally, the fact that have no strict dogma has no significance as morals can still be developed atheistically, like in the case of buddhism.

- My opponent claims that "...a Christian, in order to call themselves a Christian, has to follow Christian dogma. So, if a Christian violates that dogma, they are not really a Christian" This is untrue. Christian, as according to dictionary, is defined as "of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith." Therefore, if someone makes actions pertaining to the teachings of Jesus Christ, whether they do so wrongly or not, they can effectively call themselves a christian.

- Once again, my opponent fails to explain how these particular atheists represent the views of every other atheist in existence. How does Stalin speak for the views of a Buddhist Monk or an American Intellectual?

- Let's be hypothetical for a second. Let's say all my opponent's claims were true, and that atheists are all somehow evil tyrants. My opponent, in her argument, claims that the reason those "thousands of other atheists in government" did not commit murderous acts, would they not be stopped in the US as well?

- My opponent asserts that I hold a burden of proof in asserting that her theory is incorrect. This is a fallacy and not how the burden of proof works. Voters, it is not my duty to disprove her "genocide chain theory", but rather it is her duty to prove the definitive and universal correlation between atheists and mass murder, which she has failed to do.

My opponent has done nothing other than use fallacious reasoning, manipulations, and purposefully anecdotal views about atheism to make it seem as if she can prove that all atheists are genocidal and hate christians. She has not even come close to filling her burden of proof. For these reasons, vote for con.



Sources for all of my arguments, including in round 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://atheism.about.com...
http://www.skepticink.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 3 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro is right in the title of the debate and gave good examples of what happens when societies become boldy atheistic.......it boils down to the evolutionary survival of the fittest, so they think killing off anybody who disagrees with their views is nothing but natural selection and survival of the fittest. Most people on this site are far to biased to think objectively. Pro won this debate. America was founded as a Christian nation. Christian ministers led prayer in congress for a long time. Our Founders did not intend for Christians to be considered the enemies as modern media and the public schools and increasingly our laws are making them out to be. Our nation has been taking a long slow progressive turn for the worst as atheistic beliefs and influences have become more and more dominant in our culture. America is losing it's soul, and being sold out to dark forces which are bound to result in persecution against Christians for no reason other than they believe the Bible to be the Word of God and hold to it's teachings agaisnt sin. Atheism always brings persecution against Christians........always has and always will. Good job pro for pointing out the millions upon millions killed by communist and facist regimes, and shame on anybody who brushes over them saying it had nothing to do with atheism.
Posted by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
This debate is somewhat offensive. Atheists would not start a genocide against Christians. Atheists, unlike Christians, are acceptant of other beliefs.
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Whoops! I'd compiled a list of sources and forgot to add them on at the end. I'll include them in the next round. For now, here they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://atheism.about.com...
http://www.skepticink.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Posted by 9Dipity 3 years ago
9Dipity
This is even worse than I wouldve imagined.
The sources are really bad, 2 of them I dont even recognize, seems more like points of view rather than actual facts.

Please do more in depth research rather than taking Yahoo answers as facts or valid opinions on anything. Consider the fact that most of sites such as those are infested with internet trolls who like nothing better than making fun of people and spreading false information based on their personal views, often dogmatic in nature on these subjects.

Really appalled by the Pro side argument so far...
Posted by Thia 3 years ago
Thia
LOOK AT PRO'S SOURCES

omg lmaooo
Posted by Narwhalicorn 3 years ago
Narwhalicorn
All I can say is...

Dis gon b gud
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
I'm really anxious to debate this topic but it seems as if my opponent has gone quiet. lol.
Posted by 123456789123456789 3 years ago
123456789123456789
This is a very bigoted debate by a theistic pro debater. I would like to see the outcome and sources presented by both sides.
Posted by 9Dipity 3 years ago
9Dipity
This will be interesting.

Reminds me of the quote 'Internet is where religions come to die".

Look forward to the arguments from both sides.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
Lady_UnaDaltonianTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was much more interesting than I gave it credit for on first glance. first of all, Conduct to Pro due to Con's borderline personal attack regarding a bigoted view on life. I mean it is true, but is an unnecessary retort. As for arguments, Con correctly indicates that simply picking out a few major examples of atheist dictators (of which Hitler is a debatable example) and blanket applying their results to all atheists is fallacious.Pro's claim that every single atheist that has come to power has lead to genocide is simply bare asserted. It would have been better if Con picked out a few examples of atheist leaders who are not genocidal, but is unnecessary this time around. Pro's complaint of what I think is Pro using the to torque logical fallacy doesn't work this time around single the resolution is such that it's an either/or situation, and thus using the same reasoning (as a reducio ad absurdism) to theistic leaders such as Obama is valid.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Lady_UnaDaltonianTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I seriously hope pro does not actually believe in the case that she put forward. It's impossible not see the con's logic and sources as much superior. As con said, most of this debate was literally laughable.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
Lady_UnaDaltonianTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, this debate is somewhat offensive. Secondly, most points to Con. He made much better arguments and used better sources.
Vote Placed by Cutiepuffle 3 years ago
Cutiepuffle
Lady_UnaDaltonianTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
Lady_UnaDaltonianTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: 1)Pro has not backed his claim that religion is required in a moral society. 2) Pro made no true Scotsman fallacy in round 3.