The Instigator
DraftyBasilisk
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Craighawley215
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Is atheism better for the world than theism?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Craighawley215
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 63382
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

DraftyBasilisk

Pro

It is clear that religion has had a large effect on my penis. Our legal system and personal morals are all structured around historical theism, so it is quite easy to believe that we are better off with it. However, lets take a look at what theism has actually done in the past. It supported the rise of Nazism and gave support to Nazi war criminals after the war by smuggling them out of their countries. It used it's power in history to attempt a multitude of genocide (the crusades for example), and in terms of the morales that it teaches: there has been no bigger hurdle to jump for homosexuality and womens rights than religion.

So let's take a look at the idea of the comfort that belief in God can give people. When a person dies it is more comforting to believe that they are going to heaven than it is to think that they are just 'gone'. But that is all it is, comfort. There is no factual evidence to support that they are in a better place, and personally I prefer to believe that they are just 'gone' compared to believing that everything they have done in their life is being judged by a deity who's morale judgements are questionable at best. I once watched a debate where a girl asks a philosophical debater whether she is going to hell or not, she explains her case and every christian person in the comment section of the video blunty claimed 'she is going to hell' as if it was a known fact. It is more comforting to me to know that I can live my life without being judged by a deity that would perscribe a hell to people who do not live by the morales given to us by this dictator.

Another argument for theism is that it helps bring communities together and that it creates a stronger set of morals to follow than atheism. This I believe to be wrong. For a start, let's look at Ted Haggard, senior pastor of the New Life Church in Colerado. He was removed from the church after a homosexual scandal, and was only allowed back into his community after publically declaring that he was 'completely heterosexual'. This to me does not spell out a good community, and it was down to the religious beliefs that this happened. Not shining the best light on theism. On the subject of the morals given by theism, I do not want to follow a book that openly says to kill the homosexuals and non-believers. Nor do I want to follow the islamic states that refuse treatment to people suffering with AIDS and sentence women to gang-rape if they commit incest.
Even supposed 'peaceful' religions such as Buddhism have incredibly bloody histories. For example, There are many different forms of Buddhists, and in history they have all attempted genocide of eachother while following the mentality of 'kill the few to save the many'

I know that the attrocities of Stalin will come up in the opponents argument as he is a clear example of an atheist gone bad. But I think the key thing to consider in that argument is that Stalin was not a bad person because he was atheist, he was a bad person because he wanted to create a perfect state. The purpetrators of the crusades however, we bad people because of their faith, so refering to Stalin is an attack on dictatorship, not atheism.

I look forward to seeing if this argument is convincing enough, and I await the reply from my opponent. If you have taken the time to read this all then I thank you, I also thank whoever takes the time to make a response to this. Good luck!
Craighawley215

Con

Greetings. I accept the debate, and I hope that I can provide an intelligent and thought-provoking response.

"It is clear that religion has had a large effect on my penis."
That is the miracle of prayer I suppose. In all seriousness, though, I am not sure what relevance this sentence has, or if you intended to leave it in the debate at all.

The early laws are largely based on religious premise. Specifically, the teachings of the Biblical Old Testament can arguably be referenced as the first set of laws. However, most of the current law structure is based on the needs of any particular culture, and law documents are ever-changing in modern times.

"So let's take a look at the idea of the comfort that belief in God can give people. When a person dies it is more comforting to believe that they are going to heaven than it is to think that they are just 'gone'. But that is all it is, comfort. There is no factual evidence to support that they are in a better place, and personally I prefer to believe that they are just 'gone...'"
I can respect that. But just as you have your personal belief, many people have belief and hope in life after death. If it makes it easier for someone to cope with death, then who are we to deny them that comfort? We have no factual evidence for life after death, but we do have personal testimonies from "near-death" experiences, which have encouraged the belief in life after death. We also have no evidence not to believe in life after death, so there is no grounds to argue the concept of life after death.

"I once watched a debate where a girl asks a philosophical debater whether she is going to hell or not, she explains her case and every christian person in the comment section of the video blunty claimed 'she is going to hell' as if it was a known fact. It is more comforting to me to know that I can live my life without being judged by a deity that would perscribe a hell to people who do not live by the morales given to us by this dictator."
I apologize, but I do not think this constitutes argumentative evidence. If you intend to reference Youtube comments in order to demonize religion, then it would also be acceptable for me to reference cases where atheists have called Christians stupid for their beliefs. On this site alone, I have been insulted for my beliefs on several occasions. I will admit that there are Christians and other religious individuals that make unfair judgments, but I would submit that there are equally as many nonreligious individuals that will make unfair judgments. However, since you have not provided any hard source for the audience to reference independently, I suggest that this "source" is first-person and not reliable.

"Another argument for theism is that it helps bring communities together and that it creates a stronger set of morals to follow than atheism. This I believe to be wrong. For a start, let's look at Ted Haggard, senior pastor of the New Life Church in Colerado. He was removed from the church after a homosexual scandal, and was only allowed back into his community after publically declaring that he was 'completely heterosexual'."
Religious groups generally will be a close-knit group. Religious organizations, such as churches, are simply social groups that connect based on philosophical views. Atheist groups are no different. Each church group is unique, so it becomes inaccurate to make such a broad statement that religious groups are not close communities. Regarding the sense of morals that comes with a church organization, morals are a universal concept. However, when one believes that there is something on the line, they tend to try harder. This same concept applies to religious morality. If someone believes that their afterlife is at stake, then the morality of the current life is stressed.
In addition, you are oversimplifying the situation with Ted Haggard. Ted Haggard was a well known evangelist, and the leader of a church that very harshly advocated against homosexuality. Haggard called out homosexuality and created a church culture of demonizing homosexuality, and then was exposed in his own extramarital homosexual affair. He then faced intense controversy, but it was because of the entire situation, not only because of homosexuality. It would have showed poor judgment from the church staff to allow him to keep his job in the church after being exposed in an affair, and homosexuality was an added nail in his coffin.

"On the subject of the morals given by theism, I do not want to follow a book that openly says to kill the homosexuals and non-believers."
The Bible does not command people to kill homosexuals and non-believers. The Ten Commandments specifically command "Thou shalt not kill."

"Stalin was not a bad person because he was atheist, he was a bad person because he wanted to create a perfect state. The purpetrators of the crusades however, we bad people because of their faith, so refering to Stalin is an attack on dictatorship, not atheism."
This is a double standard. If we cannot blame atheism for atrocities, then we logically cannot blame theism for atrocities either. Stalin and Hitler both represented totalitarian regimes, and you contrast them to fit your argument. You are attempting to blame religion for bloody pasts, yet you deny that atheism could be blamed for Stalin's bloody past. Stalin, Hitler, and many other leaders have committed horrible crimes, some of these were in the name of religion, and some were not. This argument is a double standard, and has no logical backing.

I will not deny that there have been horrible acts in the name of religion, but there have also been tremendous acts of benevolence in the name of religion. For example, the Southeastern states, which is where religion is most prominent in the United States, are the same states which have the higher percentages of charitable giving. On average, the difference is a 1.5 % increase in the amount of giving. In addition, after natural disasters, the largest source of civilian volunteers comes from religious organizations.

The final concept that I would like to address is that of science. Atheism proposes that there is no God, so any Godly theories must be replaced by scientific explanations. Atheism means that science is responsible for observing and explaining every phenomena within mankind's perception, as well as every phenomena beyond mankind's perception. In order for a person to believe in any phenomena that exceeds known science, theism must be considered.

In conclusion, Pro's argument contained double standards, dubious sources, and multiple spelling and grammar errors. Pro's arguments are based largely on Pro's bias, and not sufficient to say with certainty that atheism is better for society.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DraftyBasilisk 2 years ago
DraftyBasilisk
Also, you make some good arguments, I'll take them into account when I argue in future debates. :)
Posted by DraftyBasilisk 2 years ago
DraftyBasilisk
sorry about the first sentance, wasn't me I'm afraid. Left my computer on with friends around....
Posted by PaoPao 2 years ago
PaoPao
Both sides show their problems but neither shows how theism or atheism is better for the world.
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
Dat first sentence...
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
@LubricantSanta
That's what I was thinking when I saw this debate, but on deeper consideration, it would seem you've got Stalin vs every other dictator or genocidal maniac who used religion as a motivator.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
2 words: Joseph Stalin.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
How can "theism" itself be responsible for supporting the rise of Nazism and assisting with Nazi war criminals? Within the context of theism is a wide spectrum of different belief systems and religions; including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

You've also presented a rather large double-standard in stating that if a religious person does "bad" things it's because of their religion, and not individual character as you have implied with atheism.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by QTAY21 2 years ago
QTAY21
DraftyBasiliskCraighawley215Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately con had the more convincing argument. It seemed pro had too many points that were influenced by bias. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with religion (although I don't follow any). The idea of someone believing in something, and the afterlife is comforting for them. Those who have killed in the name of their religion are the ones who have taken it too far. Religion does not cause these people to commit such horrible acts, it's their own actions. It's not their god who is killing other people. Religions are technically theories, and those who kill and start wars in it's name are very naive. I wouldn't blame religion for the horrible things that have happened.