The Instigator
patriots16-0
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Wierdkp326
Con (against)
Winning
78 Points

If your an Atheist bring it on.

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: 1/11/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,046 times Debate No: 1687
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (30)

 

patriots16-0

Pro

Please anyone that is judging the debates read all arguments.

Anyone that says Hitler was not wrong well i dont know whats wrong with them. Hitler was wrong in the sence that he killed 6000000 jews and he didnt just kill them he tortured them by gasing them and burning some alive. When America was in the 1800 we had slaves that we whiped if they didnt work hard enough or would cut off there feet if they ran away. We have parents that abuse their children, dont feed them and do all sorts of other cruel things. But if you are an Atheist none of these things are wrong because there is no God no supreme being. Do you HONESTLY think that ABUSING your kids, or TORTURING JEWS just because you think its rite, or SLAVERY in our own country is ok.
Its crazy i mean listen to yorselves how do you live in a world with that kind of thinking that there is no write or no wrong. If Atheists say that there is no rite and no wrong then we might as well get rid of all courts and prisons, heck, why not let all the prisnors go from jail so there can be more murderurs, rapists and drug dealers. Is that what Atheists belive because that would be a world of toatal hell and chaos. Everybody being able to do what they want because after all every man justifise himself. If every human being was able to do what they wanted then i could go out an kill every single Atheist in the world and nobody would be able to put in jail for it because i justijy my own actions. Thats why the exsistence of God is so imprtant it is so important its not even funny because thats what the World would be like if we didnt have a God it would be toatle and utter chaos. Every one steeling from each other and everybody murdering everybody.

PLEASE ANSWER THE FALLOWING QUESTION IN YOUR DEBATE:if there is no God then would i have the rite to kill every atheist in the world because nothing is wrong.

2 If nothing is wrong why do we have jails, sould we get rid of jails sensce everyman justifies himself?
Wierdkp326

Con

Patriots,
Interesting topic, I think this will be fun. Now, if my understanding is correct, you are asserting that an individual who does not have a belief in god, or ascribe themselves to any particular faith will then have no basis for any "moral" they might believe in. Example, if you believe in the parts of the bible that assert that homosexuality is immoral, then your moral is in some way justified. On the other hand, if you don't believe in a god, and have no holy document to base your life decisions on, then you should have no ethics because you have no basis for them.

The problem with your argument is that just because you have no religious faith does not mean that you can't have any immediate positive or negative response to an incident. One can choose not to believe in a god, while still holding the principles that a christian, or jew, or muslim might hold true.

In your first question, you assume that god makes all the rules, and you imply that people would/should have no morals if they do not feel their is a consequence to their actions in the afterlife. But, in life TODAY we already have consequences for our actions. Let's say that I am in society (go figure, I am), and society has deemed murder as wrong. If that is the case, then to murder someone, anyone, is a crime to which I pay a consequence. Now, someone will always have the right and ability to deny that social moral, but society will offer the highest of punishments as a result. This means that regardless of gods presense, a consequence occurs. Further, is it necessary to believe in god to know that murder is wrong? Not if there is a society that naturally responds negatively to it.

In your second question, you also seems to neglect that fact that something is wrong if and only if society has deemed it so. Because society has deemed something wrong, NO MATTER WHAT the reason, then people will likely conform to that standard. Jails then, become society's way of punishing a 'criminal' they created.

You are latching onto a very good point, however, in that morality and ethics are not rigid constructs. Ethics are to be debated. What is right and wrong is not written in stone, and therefore people MUST challenge their morals every once in a while. It is always a fair question, even if it comes off as ridiculous, to ask why murder is wrong. Also, what is right or wrong will change over time, as society evolves to new mindsets, new ideas, etc.

Coming back to your questions, If you really believed killing every atheist in the world was ethically right, then you would justify yourself. However, you would not be justified by society's standards, and you would/should suffer the consequences by society's laws. But, if you believe in a god, and we'll assume that god is from the bible, you also believe that murder is wrong, even if it is an atheist. :-)
Debate Round No. 1
patriots16-0

Pro

"But, in life TODAY we already have consequences for our actions. Let's say that I am in society (go figure, I am), and society has deemed murder as wrong. If that is the case, then to murder someone, anyone, is a crime to which I pay a consequence"

Well what if its not "TODAY" what if it was back in the time of the Barbarians or the time of the Aztecs or the time of Germany back in World War II. Then who says they are wrong when they didnt deem murder as a punishment are a certain race to kill is wrong. Dont you see that dont you see that if everyman were to JUSTIFY his own actions it would be hell on earth. I mean your 21 is this what they teach you in college youare just agreeing with it none of it makse any sence. For instence i was debatimg another kid about this same topic and he said hitler was no wrong in what he did. Thats just mind blowing to me your not as bad as him but still.. any ways i feel like ever sence i have joined this debate.org i am wondering why there are basically so many Hitler supporting Nazi loving arregent stupid people there really are that are out there. Back to the subject; If your basing this all off society man socity changes all the time I think people on this website and all over the world for this madder dont want t accept that there is one rite and one wrong they want to stick up for people like Hitler in saying that he didnt do anything wrong that is the most rediculouse kind of thinking i have heard in all my life. The guy says that and then people are stupid enough to vote for him. You may think that my idea is stupid well look at his he wont admitt what Hitler did was wrong.

OK seriously back to the topic you say that "and society has deemed murder as wrong." well in the past when they deemed murder as fine such as Barbarians and the Aztecs or Germany was saying it was ok to kill jews. But now its not ok to do that in our society. And i will tell you why it isnt ok to kill in society today because of the Word Of God and how he transformed nations into being more civilized it has happened so many times in Africa dont deny it and thats not the only place God has made things more civilized. But thats not what we are here to debate about. Anyways as you can see society changes all the time so why would we base it off of something that changes all the time and not something that is the same past, present, and future and that is the word of God.

PLEASE DO THIS, PLEASE: If you disagree with me in anything that i said please fell free to debate back. But tell me why you belive that there is no God dont after all thats what were debating about isnt it the exsistence of God, were not debating why I am wrong about what im saying. You should be able to give me some FACTS about how he is not real just pretend tis is you opening argument you should say something like God cant be real because....
Wierdkp326

Con

This argument is less about the existence of god, and more focused on the concept of whether or not atheists have ethics. To even debate the concept of an existing invisible man, or god, that does not directly intervene in the lives of people would be frivolous.
To your credit, IF life had no organization, IF society did not have have general consensus on morality, and IF there was nothing governing our actions making us able to act without consequence to ourselves, then the world would operate as "hell on earth".
Luckily, life does have organization and society interacts, debates, and reaches consensus on ethics. Further, there are governing bodies that help facilitate the process of consequences against criminal actions. These are not necessarily God-based, but there are definitely correlations between laws today and religion.
As long as society interacts with one another, agreement on laws and morality will occur. Example, if I want to prevent murder, I can reasonably agree with my neighbor that if he doesn't try to kill me, I wont assassinate him in any way. For theft, if I want to maintain possession of all of my belongings, and my neighbor wants to keep his, I can agree with him that we should not take from one another. These don't require a God, or higher being to obtain, it just requires interaction within society.

To your points that the Aztecs and Barbarians did not believe that murder was wrong, you are mistaken. Those races were not savage by any means. As an example, the Vikings had complicated laws that made practical requirements for why one would kill another person. Murder was not acceptable unless an individual committed a dishonorable sin. The laws of the Vikings actually turned out to be more complicated than many of the laws of today's governing bodies. For the Aztecs, they were actually a peaceful people, and it was the Christians who treated them as savages by killing, raping, and enslaving them. Thankfully, people who believe in the bible today are more civilized than their predecessors. It only took a 116 year Crusade into the Middle East to kill Muslims and a few instances of enslaving anyone who might have looked or thought differently to calm them down.

Alas, I apologize for straying from my point. An Atheist can have practical morality without the need of a book or religion because people are self interested. Someone is, often, not going to act too far out of society's norms because they will feel the reprisal from it. Knowing that there are laws, rules, stringent requirements on people is exactly what causes positive conformity within society. Atheists are not a foolish people by any means, they merely do not believe in the existence of god. That does not, however, mean they are unable to rationalize what treatment they should give others in society.

Hopefully this helps you understand the nature of the godless atheist swine. I look forward to your response! :-)
Debate Round No. 2
patriots16-0

Pro

"As long as society interacts with one another, agreement on laws and morality will occur. Example, if I want to prevent murder, I can reasonably agree with my neighbor that if he doesn't try to kill me, I wont assassinate him in any way. For theft, if I want to maintain possession of all of my belongings, and my neighbor wants to keep his, I can agree with him that we should not take from one another. These don't require a God, or higher being to obtain, it just requires interaction within society."

SENTANCE 1
With this there are alot of things i want to rebud for your firs sentence "As long as society..." well there is alot of things wrong with that. Just because society interacts with one another it will mean that society will usually agree on things like making laws. You are toatally rite. But does that mean that society will come together and make laws that arnt wrong. For instance I am very sure that Germany was communicationg with each other but does that mean that the PEOPLE of that nation were rite in KILLING 6000000 jews. Why you would even bring that up i dont know because it can be thrown back at you so easily. I hope you see that and if you do then the debate should be over for that.

SENTANCE 2,3
These sentances are quite rediculous also because you are basically saying in sentence 2 that im not going to kill my neighber if he dosent kill me yes thats how society works thes days. But what if he was trying to kill you what would make him wrong if according to atheism EVERYMAN JUSTIFISE HIMSELF. So YOU HAVE BEEN AVOIDING THE DEBATE YOUR WHOLE 2nd ARGUMENT. Nothing would make it wrong because he JUSTIFISE HIMSELF now do you get it now do you UNDERSTAND the importance of a God because it cant be us humans that determinse rite and wrong because we change are morals all the time from one generation its fine to kill 6000000 jews the next Generation its not. Thats why there has to be the Bible and God that were are and will be the same.

PART 2

When i said the Barbarians i meant not the "Vikings" way to put words in my mouth and actually the Vikings were terrible people but i meant the onse that faught Rome like the Huns who were just blood thirsty an didnt care who died all they wanted was power, hummmm kind of like Hitler. In your argument you said

"Luckily, life does have organization and society interacts, debates, and reaches consensus on ethics.

But life back in the Barbarians time when all they were was blood thirsty and killing raping torturing anyone in there way. So tell me what are we supposte to do in times like that when there is no goverment or when there is goverment but all the goverment is about is killing and conquering land. So when there is no organazation which there has been what do we do, what do we base what is rite and what is wrong.

HERE IS ANOTHER POINT THAT YOU TOATALLY AVOIDED: If you believe that there is no God then give me some evidence that would make me believe that, give me facts that would make me belive that there is no God. If you can.
And dont just say "well i cant prove that there is no God if you couldnt do that then why are you even debating with me. I say God is real because we dont no what is rite or wrong without him and the world would be toatal chaos. PLEASE if you can tell me why you think that there is no God then please state it in your last argument.
Wierdkp326

Con

I ignored the "disprove god" point because it was irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not atheists have ethics. I shall continue to ignore it, until scientists can prove that the resurrection of Christ actually occurred, rather than proving his ascendancy to heaven by proving that his tomb was empty.

Again, I'll concede that every person justifies themselves. But to make a claim that atheists would put the world into chaos for having their own justification for their actions is absurd. Consider tribal life as the best example. Tribes in Africa tend to be small, often less than 30 people. They may have some spiritual belief, but it certainly does not come from any literature (especially nothing as poorly written as the Bible). They have communicated and relied on one another to survive. There's no "chaos" as you would put it. But the group holds certain morals and principles very sacred, and those who might choose to deny them would be immediately ousted from the society. The point to consider is that, with or without a god, society will create social morality.

Also, the bible is inconsistent in its own morality. Every generation of reading the bible has supported or fostered different passages to their churchgoers. People will often search it for any semblance of justification for anything that they already have believed to be true. With such a large book written almost entirely in parable, it's very easy to justify any person's beliefs. Further, the bible is an edited text, and the Vatican had held committees to determine which passages will enter (or leave). In all, the so called "Word of God" has changed over time, and the interpretation has changed as frequently as society has.

Take care patriots.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wierdkp326 9 years ago
Wierdkp326
Guys, this debate was not about Hitler (though some mention of it was made in the rounds. Nor was the debate about the existence of god, though there was some pressure to discuss it. The debate was whether or not Atheists have ethics. While I'm very happy to see that so many people took an interest in the debate, PLEASE stop having a mini-comment debate about things that were not directly relevant to the topic. I encourage you guys to criticize the arguments of me or my opponent, and it's also cool if you have a comment about Atheist ethics (though I cant think why you would want to do so), but if you have something to say about the existence of god or hitler (I'm sure he existed, but still), start a debate and go for it. My inbox is filling from all these new comments!!! Thank you for your cooperation. :-)
Posted by Lastphoenix0 9 years ago
Lastphoenix0
ask your selfs did god created men or men created a god because in my opinion i think men do. the reson is because the aztec the mayas and the other indians tribes not to mention anciant egyptian belive in powerfull god such as for the aztecs they belived in the god of suan also the egyptians but in a whole compltely diferent way ans the mayas belive in the god of rain now they belive that they were god was because they didn't know what really was happening but what really hapen is that they did not understood what the nature was doing the Aztex and egyptians belive in the god of sum becasue they sat it in the sky n thought it was a mighty god but no the sun only gave them heat and light for the maya the rain of god was only rain they didn't know wat really happen it just something that nature gave them. n for ma coclusion i think that the reason people make gods or belive there is a god is because they discoverd something weird they never saw in their live. For exampel if you went hyking on the plain and u discoverd a mountain but u never saw a mountain in your life so u might think is big mighty n powerful n u might consider it a god because of it charectaristic not to mention you name it a god because you never saw it n your intentions are to belive that it is a god.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
patriots, you got pwned. seriously. good god.
Posted by sirdebatesalot 9 years ago
sirdebatesalot
Anyone who thinks Hitler was wrong needs to see my debate with Adolph_Hitler. He said that it was unwinable even though I am beating him at the voting. Please come vote.
Posted by spinaltap 9 years ago
spinaltap
Patriots16-0:
In my opinion, you're wrong on many subjects. Assuming you voted for yourself, I am appalled that two other people voted for you.

When slavery was rampant in America and Europe, not one religious leader or church took a stance against it. They were silent and went along without preaching against it. Now assuming you agree that slavery was a bad idea and morally bankrupt, then your argument is wrong. There are a ton of other examples and WierdKP386 has done an admirable job pointing out some of them.

Also, you could benefit from learning how to spell. I can take a few typos here and there but you have so many that it's difficult to read your side of the argument without assuming your intelligence is below average.
Posted by Fabian 9 years ago
Fabian
WHo care what ever he is wether he was jew catholic christian atheist w/e what he did was wrong and religion has no face in his case.
Posted by Lastphoenix0 9 years ago
Lastphoenix0
correction fabian hitler was jewish
Posted by Fabian 9 years ago
Fabian
you are right mindjob =] i agree with you also our judgemtn from right and wrong and can be a natural human insticnt =]
Posted by E_Colucci 9 years ago
E_Colucci
Alright, I will set it up as soon as I have the time. It would be a good debate, you are right. I'll send you a challenge in a day or so.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Hitler used the jews as scapegoats for how poor life was in Germany after WWI, but his hatred for them was derived from the christian tradition of antisemitism generated from the passion. Throughout European history, christians were reminded both of jesus's sacrifice and that it was the jews who killed him during annual passion plays around ash wednesday. Passion plays were particularly popular in northern Europe, in present day Germany. Hitler was heavily influenced by all of this history and it was what drove him to the evil extents he went. Besides, something being contrary to basic christian beliefs has very rarely ever stopped christians from committing any number of unspeakable atrocities, both in gods name and for their own sick pleasures.

An atheist can easily say that Hitler was wrong. While I'm agnostic, I'm saying it and whole-heartedly believe what he did was wrong, as per my comment below. If you are versed in the social contract, then you are aware of where we get our morals from. Morals and ethics have existed since pre-judeo-christian times. How is it that all sorts of false gods, as you might call them, instilled all of their devoted followers with morals that we recognize today if we supposedly get all of our morals from your christian god?

I think we would have a good debate. How about "where did our knowledge of right and wrong come from?" Sounds close enough to what we're debating now. Set it up and lets do it. :)
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by simmyjaye 9 years ago
simmyjaye
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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 Keithinator 9 years ago
Keithinator
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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 stevster 9 years ago
stevster
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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 Logos 9 years ago
Logos
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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 patriots16-0 9 years ago
patriots16-0
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Lastphoenix0 9 years ago
Lastphoenix0
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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 mtbaird5687 9 years ago
mtbaird5687
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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 Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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 sirdebatesalot 9 years ago
sirdebatesalot
patriots16-0Wierdkp326Tied
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