The Instigator
MaxLamperouge
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Brendan21
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is atheism good for the world?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 90022
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

MaxLamperouge

Con

Hello.
In this debate, Pro will be arguing that atheism is good for the world, and I will be arguing that it is not. This does not necessarily mean that I will be arguing that atheism is bad for the world, I will simply be arguing that it is not good for the world.
Please leave the first round to acceptance.
No new arguments in final round.

Definitions:
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God or gods.
Good: beneficial
World: Mankind, the world in which we live in

I will present arguments in next round.

Thanks,
Max Lamperouge
Brendan21

Pro

Greetings to Con and thank you for creating an interesting debate topic. I will be taking the position that atheism is beneficial for the world/Mankind. I look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
MaxLamperouge

Con

Thank you Pro for accepting my debate.
Without further ado, I'll just get to the point and kick off this debate. I'll try to be brief and to the point.

Argument 1: Atheism lacks moral compass. While an atheist can make moral choices, he has no warrant, no reason to make those choices. Thus, those who pertain to atheism have no reason to have integrity or obey anyone. This is bad because it could result in anarchy. Maybe not immediately, but as an atheists inner morals degrade with time (mankind is, by himself, perverted), slowly we could see lack of integrity, then hotheaded opposition to authority, and finally anarchy. Why? Because an atheist has no reason to believe anything. He has no reason to make any moral choices. It is all governed by his will, by his conscious, which decides what is right and wrong. And since all men are, at the most inner parts of their being, perverted and dark, his choices (which are made as a result of his will) could also be perverted and dark.

As Voltaire (yes, I know he was an atheist. Which makes this statement even more relevant,) said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
https://simple.wikiquote.org...
He is admitting that religion is necessary to society, and even though he did not believe in God even he knew that religion was necessary, and that atheism was truly not good for the entire world to accept.

Again, stressing this point John Locke - the influential English philosopher - said, "Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all...".[22] "
- John Locke; A Letter Concerning Toleration; Translated by William Popple

Put simply, atheism teaches that there is no universal good and evil, and that such things are derived through evolution or natural means. They come from us. What we think is wrong is wrong. What we think is right is right. This is a problem obviously, because it allows you to do whatever you want. It allows the serial killer to murder the innocent. It allows the co-worker to cheat his boss. It allows the man to take advantage of women. Why? How did I come to such an incredible assumption? If you look closer, you will see that it was no assumption at all. Such tragedy is merely survival of the fittest according to atheism. As long as you feel it is right, it is right. Why? Because there is no reason to act any certain way. The atheist determines it. And since we know man can be a depraved and perverted creature, it it stupid to allow him to do what he wants.

While I am sure there are many good atheists, however atheism is a problem not because an atheist cannot be good, but because he has absolutely no reason too.

Atheism is not good for the world for this reason.
Once I read your arguments I can add more of my own, but for now I feel that is sufficient for now.
Brendan21

Pro

"Argument 1: Atheism lacks moral compass. While an atheist can make moral choices, he has no warrant, no reason to make those choices. Thus, those who pertain to atheism have no reason to have integrity or obey anyone. This is bad because it could result in anarchy. Maybe not immediately, but as an atheists inner morals degrade with time (mankind is, by himself, perverted), slowly we could see lack of integrity, then hotheaded opposition to authority, and finally anarchy. Why? Because an atheist has no reason to believe anything. He has no reason to make any moral choices."

Atheism by itself does not necessarily lack a moral compass. While atheism clearly does not have a moral code to follow, it can easily observe what is most beneficial for humanity as whole, co-existence or selfishness and greed. Having integrity and obeying laws and authority is useful on its own as otherwise people will not trust people who lack integrity and those you don"t obey laws will be punished accordingly. People who do not obey authority will also face consequences throughout life like they do already (i.e. losing a job for being disrespectful to boss etc.). Atheists can clearly see the benefits of society and civilization and thus will not only obey laws but continue to strive for a better world.

"It is all governed by his will, by his conscious, which decides what is right and wrong."

I"d like to argue that there is no true right and wrong, only objective meanings to the words. An atheist will decide what is right and wrong based on what he has experienced in life just like everyone else (be it personal experience or the experience of being exposed to a certain moral code).

"And since all men are, at the most inner parts of their being, perverted and dark, his choices (which are made as a result of his will) could also be perverted and dark."

I would like definitive proof of this and any kind of Biblical quote or citation will not be adequate since obviously atheists do not find the Bible objectively meaningful. I say there though many if not all people make mistakes in their life that lead a bad outcome but not everyone is perverted and dark at the inner of being. I find it frankly insulting for you to generalize everyone this way just because either the Bible tells you to or you personally have these perverted and dark feelings and thus believe everyone else does as well. There are many good people with only good intentions in the world and there have been many in the past as well.

"As Voltaire (yes, I know he was an atheist. Which makes this statement even more relevant,) said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
https://simple.wikiquote.org......
He is admitting that religion is necessary to society, and even though he did not believe in God even he knew that religion was necessary, and that atheism was truly not good for the entire world to accept."

I cannot argue as to why Voltaire would say this other than that he probably felt that some people may need religion in order to be good or perhaps struggle with life itself without a belief in an afterlife (my own personal opinion as well). All I can say is that quoting one person"s opinion, atheist or not, is not meaningful argument so I will move past it.

"Again, stressing this point John Locke - the influential English philosopher - said, "Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all...".[22] "
- John Locke; A Letter Concerning Toleration; Translated by William Popple"

This is John Locke"s opinion and clearly ours as well. However, I"ve already explained why the bonds of human society are still very important to atheists who wish for co-existence and world peace. Again, opinions of other people are not very meaningful in an objective debate.

"Put simply, atheism teaches that there is no universal good and evil, and that such things are derived through evolution or natural means. They come from us. What we think is wrong is wrong. What we think is right is right. This is a problem obviously, because it allows you to do whatever you want. It allows the serial killer to murder the innocent. It allows the co-worker to cheat his boss. It allows the man to take advantage of women. Why? How did I come to such an incredible assumption? If you look closer, you will see that it was no assumption at all. Such tragedy is merely survival of the fittest according to atheism. As long as you feel it is right, it is right. Why? Because there is no reason to act any certain way. The atheist determines it. And since we know man can be a depraved and perverted creature, it it stupid to allow him to do what he wants."

Again, it is still very important to be able to live and function in society and every atheist besides insane ones can easily recognize the importance the benefits of society. Without a society, atheists would not have science to look first of all. We can see that if we all function as a society things are better off because the power will remain on, the ambulance will arrive if I call 911 in an emergency, that police will, at least for the most part, be looking out for us and that even if they aren"t I can sue and punishment can be justly served. We can go to the store and buy food that we didn"t have to grow or kill ourselves. We have modern medicine and doctors that are reliable and professional because of society. No sensible atheist would ever want a collapse of this or we"d be back in the dark ages when religious fear ruled the world.

"While I am sure there are many good atheists, however atheism is a problem not because an atheist cannot be good, but because he has absolutely no reason too."

I believe I have negated this point.

"Atheism is not good for the world for this reason.
Once I read your arguments I can add more of my own, but for now I feel that is sufficient for now."

Now on to my argument as to why atheism is beneficial to the world. I would like to remind voters and Con at this time that it is not my obligation to argue that if everyone was atheist it would be beneficial but simply that the atheistic doctrine is beneficial.

Simply put, having the most ideas floating around in the world, the better. The more ideas that exist the better chance one of them being correct. Atheism is beneficial because it gives the world yet another possibly prospective on reality. "What if no deity exists?" What would it mean? These answers could be very important if indeed there is no kind of god. It seems to me that atheism and agnostics have the most objective understanding on reality, though that is not to say Christians or other religious people can"t be objective. Yet why do so many Christians and other religious people want to deny science even when it becomes an empirical fact? It is because they can"t not do what some of their own brethren can do, and that is look at reality objectively instead of based on a book that is objectively meaningless. There is no benefits to denying reality as we will not progress as a species. If the religious mindset had consistently ruled the world, we"d believe that going into space was impossible and that women should be considered possession of their husbands. Atheism has led to a more understanding world where people are co-existing at a greater rate than ever before. Gays are no longer considered freaks of society that must linger in the underworld. People with disease are treating as sick instead of shunned because their bodies are maladies in the eyes of God. People also have a much better understanding of reality itself even if they still hold a belief in God because of all the scientific studies done on every subject that we"ve invented.

Overall, Atheism is most definitely beneficial to mankind and I do not believe Con has proved otherwise.
Debate Round No. 2
MaxLamperouge

Con

Debate Arguments:
Thank you Pro for your arguments.
Rebuttals:
" I would like to remind voters and Con at this time that it is not my obligation to argue that if everyone was atheist it would be beneficial but simply that the atheistic doctrine is beneficial." -Pro
Not true. This debate is not whether atheistic doctrine alone is good, but whether it is good for mankind. That includes when it is actually applied to mankind. If it is not good when applied to mankind, then it is not good for our world/mankind. And if it is not good for our world/mankind, then Pro is conceding to me the debate, because that is the subject of our debate.

"Atheists can clearly see the benefits of society and civilization and thus will not only obey laws but continue to strive for a better world." -Pro

Not necessarily. You cannot assume that all atheists will simply do what is "best for humanity", especially since their views on what is "best" can differ greatly. Not every human being here is here to help others. That's kind of turning a blind eye to the world around us. I present another argument to counter your debate. Without God (atheism), how does one find purpose? What is his/her purpose? To find pleasure. To satisfy themselves. At the very core of all mans desire is pleasure. Without God, this desire is loosed completely. Now, what gives people pleasure also differs greatly. Everything from (as you say) helping others to (at worst) raping children or murdering innocent people can give mankind pleasure. What Atheism allows is for him to do anything in his power to gain pleasure. Because there is no God, there is no reason to follow the law or "benefit society." This is why atheism is bad for the world - because it allows man to do what he wants to gain his newfound goal - pleasure. Again, without God why follow the law? Why try and strive for a better world when there is only death awaiting you? Simple, there is no reason to do so. It is only about doing what you want, what gives you pleasure. And going by that philosophy can have disastrous consequences. I believe this negates many of your rebuttals.
Without God, an atheist"s primary reason for existence is pleasure.

"I"d like to argue that there is no true right and wrong, only objective meanings to the words. An atheist will decide what is right and wrong based on what he has experienced in life just like everyone else (be it personal experience or the experience of being exposed to a certain moral code)." - Pro

Thank you for pointing this out for me. This is what makes atheism even worse for the world. There are no universal standards. There is no right and wrong. And that can also have horrible consequences. People often go through traumatic experiences. An estimated 70 percent of adults in the United States have experienced a traumatic event at least once in their lives and up to 20 percent of these people go on to develop post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.
http://www.sidran.org...
These can affect their individual moral code for the worse, assuming they do not abstain to a universal moral code. Their morality is just a house on the sand, being tossed about by life"s circumstances. Right and wrong are not defined, and they have the freedom to act however they want.

"I cannot argue as to why Voltaire would say this other than that he probably felt that some people may need religion in order to be good or perhaps struggle with life itself without a belief in an afterlife (my own personal opinion as well). All I can say is that quoting one person"s opinion, atheist or not, is not meaningful argument so I will move past it." -Pro

Dropped point. How is not meaningful? He is one of the most influential atheistic philosophers admitting that atheism is not good for mankind and that religion is necessary!

"I would like definitive proof of this and any kind of Biblical quote or citation will not be adequate since obviously atheists do not find the Bible objectively meaningful.I say there though many if not all people make mistakes in their life that lead a bad outcome but not everyone is perverted and dark at the inner of being. I find it frankly insulting for you to generalize everyone this way just because either the Bible tells you to or you personally have these perverted and dark feelings and thus believe everyone else does as well. There are many good people with only good intentions in the world and there have been many in the past as well." -Pro

First, this has nothing to do with the Bible, it is a simple observation. Look around you. Observe the world. I"m so sorry you find my discoveries insulting, but the world and the men that make it up are perverted. Of course, to an atheist there are no universal moral standards, just conflicting opinions. Though you were right, not ALL men are perverted and dark. But many are. And atheism allows them to act whatever way they want. But I believe the following facts will open your eyes to how evil the world around you is. The world is dark, it not some happy place where everything is perfect. I cant believe your honestly doubting that mankind is evil, but I guess I must show you. Mankind can be a monster.
"There are approximately 20 to 30 million slaves in the world today. (human trafficking). According to the U.S. State Department, 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year, of which 80% are female and half are children.
The average age a teen enters the sex trade in the U.S. is 12 to 14-year-old. Many victims are runaway girls who were sexually abused as children."
https://www.dosomething.org...

Observe the constant wars. The size of the pronography industry. "As of the 2000s, there were hundreds of adult film companies, releasing tens of thousands of productions, recorded directly on video, with minimal sets. Of late, web-cams and web-cam recordings are again expanding the market. Thousands of pornographic actors work in front of the camera to satisfy pornography consumers' demand." - https://en.wikipedia.org...

Mankind is evil. We kill each other, hurt each other, and abuse each other, and atheism allows all of this. Since there is no universal moral code for atheists, none of this is really "wrong." You yourself admitted that there is no moral code for atheists. And that is just another problem with atheism.

So, now to my rebuttals of your argument itself. You claim that "having the most ideas floating around in the world, the better." This is untrue. There are plenty of ideas that could remain out of people"s mind. Racism, Nazism, Hate, Murder, Lust, and other evils are all ideas which can eventually turn into actions. Not all ideas are beneficial. And neither is atheism. Its not about having a vast quantity of ideas, its about having good ideas. Of course, to an atheist there are no "good" ideas, only opinions. And that ties into my earlier point about having no universal moral code. Anything goes.

You also point out that atheism has done much in the fields of medicine and helping gays get out of the underworld and accepted. You had no sources on this. I don't think either movement was fueled by atheism. Again, you had no sources to back up your claims.

"Yet why do so many Christians and other religious people want to deny science even when it becomes an empirical fact?" - Pro
How do religious people deny science or empirical facts?

I would like to point out that atheism does not equal science. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. https://www.google.com...
Atheism is, as we agreed on in our definition, the doctrine or belief that there are no God or gods. We cannot tell this by science. God cannot be confirmed or denied. Atheism is not scientific, is a belief, or a faith. You cannot know that God exists, but you also cannot know that he does not exist. You can only believe. You can only have faith. And faith, whether it be religion or atheism, is not science.

Put simply, an atheist has FAITH that God does NOT exist. Faith does not equal science, so neither does atheism.

I believe I have refuted all of your points.

To reinstate my arguments, Atheism is not good for the world because Atheism has no universal moral code, allows men to do whatever they want, and has no definition of right or wrong, again, allowing mankind to act however they want.
Atheism is not beneficial to mankind.

[1]http://www.sidran.org...
[2]https://www.dosomething.org...
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]https://www.google.com...
Thanks,
Max Lamperouge
Brendan21

Pro

Thank you to Con for some excellent points in his arguement. I will be shorting the quotes from Con to just the first few words in order to have enough room to respond, but I will be responding to each point Con has brought up.

"Not true....."
I"d argue that that is completely untrue and was no properly clarified by Con in his opening statement and in the subject itself. Questioning whether an idea or doctrine that exists is good/beneficial to mankind does apply to mankind in the sense that the idea will be good for them, but it does not imply that they all accept such a doctrine. If Con wished to argue this he should have clearly clarified that if the entire world and all of mankind accepted the doctrine it would not be beneficial. As it stands, he is arguing whether the doctrine or idea itself is good for the world/mankind whether or not they accept it as true. I am not conceding the debate by arguing this, this was not stated properly in this subject and opener and thus is not what we are debating here. To have a position that everyone would accept any belief, atheistic or otherwise, without 100% proof, is in my opinion ridiculous and impossible based on human nature which Con has discussed in length (with many assumptions) in his own argument.

"Not necessarily....."

First off, I"d like you to prove that our(atheists) primary reason for existence is pleasure. That is a huge assumption, most likely based on the Bible which as we have discussed, is objectively meaningless. Some people find very little pleasure in raising a family, for example, but still do it because they know it"s the right thing to do. People establish morals based on experiences as I have already mentioned and until you can prove that your moral code has some kind of objective truth to reality, everyone"s moral code is arrived at because of experiences not God. Even you have your moral code not because of the Bible telling you what to do but because of your experiences in life (including exposure to the Bible) and even using the Bible or God, many people disagree about certain things being right and wrong (gay sex, woman"s freedom, etc). Atheists will arrive at moral conclusions just like everyone else, which is why you still have people killing in the name of God even though according to God they should not. You have made a very large amount of assumptions about human nature and why people follow laws in the first place. People aren"t just out for themselves all the time, though certainly some people, religious and non-religious that are. Atheists, just like religious followers, can see how society is benefiting them as I"ve described in my argument in #2 which you have 100% ignored (ie ambulances etc). I"ve also explained why people still need to have integrity and function in society by obeying laws that we all can agree upon (which is how a democracy works). Con has completely failed to address my points and as only made assumptions so far as to how an atheist society would function and what atheists consider a reason for life.
"Thank you for...."
It is not put to a belief or doctrine to necessarily establish what is right and wrong and a universal standard is also not necessarily for a society to function. If, as I"ve statement above, we all can agree upon a systems of laws that are beneficial to the people in the society than there is no problem at all. Some may disagree (just as some do now) but the laws will be in place based on majority rule as is done now and those that don"t obey the laws will be arrested, just like it happens now. Society will not suddenly collapse because of atheism and it is only an assumption that it will. I"d like to point to Sweden, where almost 8 out of 10 people identify as "not religious" or "convinced atheists" yet society there has actually been improving in terms of crime rate since the 1970s and corruption is low and overall satisfaction with the government is very high compared to other western nations. As to your mention of traumatic events, I"m not really sure what the point is but I can only say that that is happening in a Christian America not an Atheistic one. A person suffering from a trauma that is so severe that it actually effects there moral code is not in their right mind and should definitely seek medical treatment. This, however, is pretty meaningless to our discussion as most trauma victims don"t have any change to their moral code.
http://www.thelocal.se...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

"First, this has nothing...."
While it is true that some people are bad, and that many bad people tend to get themselves into positions of power and wealth, I"d argue that most people are actually good intentioned. I base this on my personal experiences not what I read in the news or pull statistics about one of the most heinous crimes in the world. Most people in my family, pretty much all of my friends, and most people I"ve talked to in my life for prolonged periods of time are good intentioned people. That is the experience I can truly attest to without making assumptions or knowing of every world event that"s ever happened. There are people who go into the field of medicine because they wish to dedicate their lives to helping others, for instance. Con is falsely equating simple observations with listening to the news which panders certain stories over others because of what will sell and receive more views or pulling a few statistics from the internet about a crime he knows exists.

"Observe the constant wars. ...."
This is a completely meaningless statement without proof that porn is somehow wrong.

Mankind is evil. ..."
This is also completely false, atheism in no way allows for people to kill or hurt each other. However, people have for a fact been killing each other over God for the past few thousand years at least. I"ve already explained that Atheism can and most definitely would co-exist with a society and system of laws.

"So, now to my rebuttals..."
This is a good point Con raises, however I"d still argue that, unlike racism or Nazism, or Hate or Murder, the idea of Atheism is not evil and actually beneficial to the world. The discovery that atheism is true will not make the world suddenly evil, it will just make the believers question the meaning of existence. Humans, just like all other lifeforms on earth, are genetically weird to continue our species through breeding and working together. Monkeys have no concept of right and wrong yet a pack of monkeys will work together in a society they have created to benefit each other with protection, grooming, and gathering food collectively. Atheism does not mean that anything goes, that is contradictory to human nature.

"You also point out..."
As for the fact that Atheism has benefited gays, that is undisputable as the religious have time and time again shunned them and refused to give them equal rights even when laws were passed saying they must.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.slate.com...
Medicine, like being gay, has existed before Christianity, and back in antiquity, the scientists sometimes held beliefs that were in stark contrast to the prevailing religions of the time. Being atheist allows one to think beyond what God has limited us to do and not worry about intervening with a gods plans for us. This has led to more open-mindedness and more discoveries than in a strictly religious world. Religion during the dark ages actually halted progress because of such strong belief and fear in God and it is considered to be a terrible time in human history because of this.
http://www.nobeliefs.com...

"I would like to point out..."
I agree, however an atheist world view allows one to be more accepting of science, whereas like in the dark ages, a religious world view can impede on science.

""Atheism is, as we..."
I agree there is no prove for a god and no prove there is no god. However, this is exactly how atheism and science are tied so closely together. A scientist doesn"t decide that because he cannot disprove something it could exist, he concludes that it probably doesn"t exist if there is no evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support a god or deity and thus most atheists take the scientific approach that with the lack of prove of god there is no reason to even believe that a god could exist. Con assumes atheism is a belief based on faith. It is not a belief or a faith but a consensus that science as we know it is objectively true as far as we understand it and that there is no objective reason to even consider the possibility of a god or deity because we have no evidence such a being exists.

"Put simply, an atheist has FAITH that God does NOT exist. Faith does not equal science, so neither does atheism."
Untrue and explained why above. Atheism is not a belief based on faith but a belief based on science.

"I believe I have refuted all of your points."
You have not, and I advise to you be much more careful with assumptions in the remainder of the debate as you have not proved anything you"ve said is true.

""To reinstate my arguments, ..."
To restate my own arguments, atheism is most definitely beneficial to the world because of its ability to adapt to facts, function in a society that its members agree to, and most importantly, could be a factual idea that is a very important philosophical discovery and prove that some people (ie priests and nuns) have been wasting their lives and basing them on a false idea.
Debate Round No. 3
MaxLamperouge

Con

Before I even address my opponents arguments, I would like to explain and reinstate my own. I believe there may have been some misunderstandings, and I want to clear them up.

Argument: Atheism lacks moral compass.
What I am really trying to say here is that atheism lacks a solid set of morals. Because an atheist (as Con pointed out) believes that there is no "true" right and wrong, I believe that allows atheists not only to act however he wants, but also change his morals without a second thought. Even putting aside the fact that mankind is generally evil and generally seeks pleasure, the fact that atheism has no morals is troubling. The atheist himself can decide on his own morals, but they are not solid. They can change. They can be evil. And does atheism disallow any action? No. Thus, the atheist has the freedom to act however he wants, good or bad. The worst thing is that the atheist doesn't even believe that there is a true right and wrong. Thus, any action he takes can be justified by himself, since he is the true source of his morality. Since there is no God, you are the source of your morality.


Con has tried to counter me, giving arguments such as "People who do not obey authority will also face consequences throughout life like they do already (i.e. losing a job for being disrespectful to boss etc.). Atheists can clearly see the benefits of society and civilization and thus will not only obey laws but continue to strive for a better world."

This is not necessarily true. While the atheist may be punished for their wrongdoings, or crimes (as anyone would), they have no reason not to COMMIT those wrongdoings. Punishment does not always deter crimes, and while the person may be punished for the wrongdoings he commits, he has still done those wrongdoings, and hurt people in the process. Most people are not as rational as you and me. They may not see the consequences, and may commit the crime anyway. The problem with atheism is that they can commit any crime they want. They may be punished, but they still think they are right in their own heart.
Now, some people will see the consequences and will refrain from doing wrong. The problem with atheism is that there is no "true" right or wrong in the first place.
Finally, what does a better world look like for an atheist? And why would they try to strive for a better world when they know they have nothing ahead of them but death?
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...

Pro then goes on to change his argument and claim, "Some people find very little pleasure in raising a family, for example, but still do it because they know it"s the right thing to do. People establish morals based on experiences as I have already mentioned and until you can prove that your moral code has some kind of objective truth to reality, everyone"s moral code is arrived at because of experiences not God."
Can you show people who have very little pleasure in raising a family and still do it because its the right thing to do, and not for some other reason?
So, atheists establish morals based on experiences now. But I believe I already pointed out that this can be very bad.
"People often go through traumatic experiences. An estimated 70 percent of adults in the United States have experienced a traumatic event at least once in their lives and up to 20 percent of these people go on to develop post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.
http://www.sidran.org......
These can affect their individual moral code for the worse, assuming they do not abstain to a universal moral code. Their morality is just a house on the sand, being tossed about by life"s circumstances. Right and wrong are not defined, and they have the freedom to act however they want."
So if people develop their morals based on experience and some traumatic event happens to them (70% of people go through traumatic experiences) that could really effect their morals for the worse, right? I mean, at worst they could go onto becoming a psychopath or angry criminal, and at best a seriously hurt individual with a twisted moral view aimed against those who hurt them.
http://insight.thechicagoschool.edu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Im not saying everyone is going to become a psycopath, Im just trying to prove my point. If our morals are really derived from experience, is that really a good thing?
Does atheism say any of this is wrong? Nope. Its all what feels good. What is "good" to you is good. According to the atheist, there is no true right and wrong, no true good and evil. No moral standard to compare your actions too. All morals come from within. We cant just go by a feeling of whats good. We need a rock solid moral foundation, not a house built on the sand. Because when the storms of life come (and they will), an atheists morals can get really twisted up if they are just built on experience. We need a rock solid moral foundation. Atheism does not provide that.
Atheism is not good for the world.

Now to get onto my rebuttals.
"I"d argue that that is completely untrue and was no properly clarified by Con..."
Let me clarify now. We're not arguing purely on atheistic doctrine. We are arguing the thesis. Is atheism good for the world? Im not saying we have to apply it to every single person in the world, but in general when applied to people in the world - is it good? (benficial)

"That is a huge assumption, most likely based on the Bible which as we have discussed, is objectively meaningless."
So everything based on the Bible is meaningless? Wow. Well, Im pretty sure the Bible also talks about not murdering people...but I guess that meaningless right? Its in the Bible, so we cant trust it...
Just because something is found in the Bible doesn't mean it is automatically unacceptable, even to an atheist.

"As for the fact that Atheism has benefited gays, that is undisputable as the religious have time and time again shunned them and refused to give them equal rights even when laws were passed saying they must."
Thanks for the sources. But I dont think it was atheism that fueled the movement. Perhaps atheists helped these people to find acceptance, but atheism itself does not support gays. In fact, if an atheist were to go and kill gay people, atheism would have nothing to say against it. Why? Because as I pointed out - atheism promotes morality coming from yourself. If you feel it is right to kill someone, then its fine. There is nothing that atheism disallows.
And atheists dont always help gay people either.

In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Although Stalin was raised Catholic, he rejected this.
Mao Zedong with Joseph Stalin in 1949. Both leaders repressed religion and established state atheism throughout their respective Communist spheres.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
In the formerly atheist state of Cuba, "in the 1960s and 1970s, the Castro regime persecuted openly gay Cubans".[10] A major element in Cuba's anti-gay policies was the fact that the "government adopted the Stalinist position, practiced in the Soviet Union, that homosexuality is a form of bourgeois decadence."[11]
http://www.conservapedia.com...
after the Chinese Communist Party, which officially espouses atheism, came to power in 1949, homosexuality was deemed a sexual crime and then classified as an abnormal (buzhengchang) mental illness.[16]
http://www.conservapedia.com...
Atheism isnt always pro-gay...

"Medicine, like being gay, has existed before Christianity, and back in antiquity, the scientists sometimes held beliefs that were in stark contrast to the prevailing religions of the time. Being atheist allows one to think beyond what God has limited us to do and not worry about intervening with a gods plans for us."
On the contrary, many religious people have made many great advances in science and medicine as well.
And why do you keep citing Christianity? There are many other religions than Christianity...
"Robert Grosseteste (c.1175"1253): Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences and added greatly to the development of the scientific method.[1]
Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Prominent scientist during the Scientific Revolution. Physicist, discoverer of gravity, and an alchemist and an obsessed Christian apologist, was obsessed with trying to discern the date of the Rapture from the Bible.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): Prominent astronomer of the Scientific Revolution, discovered Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

There are so many religious people who have benefited the world. Not just Christians, but many many other religions as well. I would even like to argue that religious people have done more for science than atheists.

To reinstate my arguments, atheism is not good for the world because of its lack of moral compass, and allows the person practicing it to have any moral standard they want, and therefore commit any action they want. To an atheist there is no true right or wrong.
I would like to remind the judges that I do not have to prove atheism is bad for the world, only that is is not good.
Brendan21

Pro

Con has tried to prove that Atheism lacks a moral compass. I do not believe that he has done so. Certainly, an atheism doesn"t have true right and wrong morals that they all agree on. That is also true of Christianity and all religions, people disagree about somethings while agreeing on the overall worldview. Some Christians have killed people in terrorist attacks in the name of God. Having a god to hide behind does not in any way mean that the morals are solid or truly right and wrong. I"ve already explained that you have no prove that there even is a true right and wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The argument that atheism is not good for the world simply because atheists will disagree on what is right and wrong is a false argument. I believe I have stated why in my other arguments but it basically stems down to "Any rational human can see the benefits of society and civilization."

Con claims that atheists will not be deterred from committing crimes because of the punishment. I can certainly agree that the punishment does not always deter criminals but they are usually either irrational or harden criminals for broken homes and abusive lives. Con still continues to claim that atheists alone can decide what is right in their own rights. I"ve argued in my past arguments that everyone makes this choice, religious or not. They base morals not on objective rights and wrongs (which don"t exist until Pro can prove otherwise) but from experience that make a person judge what is right and wrong. Con has tried to argue that is a bad thing, but there is literally no other way to go about it. He himself has decided what is right and wrong based on his experience of Christianity. Atheists, unlike religious people, have more of a reason to make the world a better place because they understand that this is the only world we will ever know and the only life we will ever get. I"d argue that atheists wish to make "heaven on earth" more than anyone who has the promise of going to heaven after they die.

Cons arguments about mental illness are still meaningless. We are discussing the everyday person not people that suffer trauma that is so bad it alters their moral code. I"ve already discussed how such people should seek medical treatment. People who are rational thinkers will rarely change their moral code after it has been established at an early age without long consideration. Parents help drill our moral codes into us so that we will not change them. Some people certainly go on to be objectively bad people but they can be religious or otherwise. In fact, more crimals have a religious belief than don"t. "Of the prisoners willing to give their religious affiliations), atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population." Clearly, based on that statistic alone, atheists have the more upstanding morals overall, and while I will not agree that that is true, I do agree atheists have a more grounded understanding of what"s better for humanity as a whole than religious people who tend to just want to convert everyone over everything else.
http://www.patheos.com...

Pro still needs to provide adequate prove that objective right and wrong exist before stating that atheism is unique in lacking true right and wrong morals. I still argue that Pro has not proved that any solid moral foundation exists even in Christianity. On his statement on whether I know of people raising a family because its right and they don"t want to, I have several friends with children that they"d rather not have to raise but know that it is better for them to provide and be in their child"s life than leave it only to the mother or father. I"d also like to mention that most of these people are atheist as most of my friends arrived at an atheistic point of view sometime around the age of 17 or 18 on their on accords.

Yes, everything from the Bible is meaningless when using the Bible alone. I judge that murder is bad because I do not wish to be murdered and I believe it is wrong to take someone"s life.

Atheists tend to pride themselves as rationalists, and it is more rational to be an atheist than believe in a deity for reasons I"ve stated before. Ask yourself, is there rational reason to commit murder? Maybe, but in our society, no. We have the justice system to handle any reason we would have to commit murder. Atheism or religion does not exist by itself in human nature, there will also always be a government or society that we humans agree upon. For atheism to exist in a society, there will be a moral code that is not based on atheism but on society, which is what happens in most civilized countries today in the world. Clearly, being gay was not okay according to the Bible or Quran, but as a society we agreed that it is indeed okay and thus have made gay marriage legal and punish people who do not legalize marriage documents of gay couples.

My argument still stands that even in the face of religious adversity, science as prevailed because of people objecting to the status quo and religious norm. My point is that atheists do benefit the world and mankind and I believe that even if more religious scientists exist/existed than not, I"ve proved that atheism is beneficial to the world for reasons stated above.

I do not believe Con"s arguments have proved that atheism is not good for the world and that several of my arguments still stand to prove atheism is beneficial.
Debate Round No. 4
MaxLamperouge

Con

MaxLamperouge forfeited this round.
Brendan21

Pro

Unfortunate that Con forfeited the 5th round. I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Boatlet 1 year ago
Boatlet
I'm completely shocked about the whole moral compass idea. I didn't realize people thought this way. How does anyone know what sort of moral system I follow and how can they comment or decide on how to call my morality when they have no clue about it? This seems like an argument from ignorance, you don't even know my morals, how can you evaluate if I'm navigating correctly?

This is not even considering the fact that I was raised religious. I didn't change species, I operate under the same conditions as most people in this world. What I think is moral has not changed, what has changed is the way I rationalize and justify the belief in my morals. People act like I have changed to a different kind of human. I'm still the same person, I just don't justify my morals through the belief in God.

The best way to think of how this actually works is through an analogy. Humans are walls, religion is the paint. Just because I change the color paint I wear or the paint fades, does not mean that I have become a window. I am still a wall and I didn't like the color paint that represented me in the past. People make me think they are so ignorant when they try to put negative association on me because I'm different. Especially when they don't know me, blanket statements usually are not very helpful.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
"All morals come from within. We cant just go by a feeling of whats good. We need a rock solid moral foundation, not a house built on the sand. Because when the storms of life come (and they will), an atheists morals can get really twisted up if they are just built on experience. We need a rock solid moral foundation. Atheism does not provide that."

In what way does religion provide that?
Your argument suggests that religious people have a rock solid moral foundation, but this is obviously false, as people of the same religion can have massively different morals.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
"I would even like to argue that religious people have done more for science than atheists."

So?
They didn't discover any of that stuff BECAUSE they believed in God.
The only way this would hold any relevance is if their religion were directly linked to their scientific work.
Posted by Brendan21 1 year ago
Brendan21
Excellent job man. Great points made. I will get to my rebuttal in the next couple days.
Posted by MaxLamperouge 1 year ago
MaxLamperouge
Nah, your fine!
Sorry if i sounded like I assumed to much.
You are doing great.
I hope life gets better for you.
I know what you mean about life being stressful at home, I had to deal with that stuff too.
Posted by Brendan21 1 year ago
Brendan21
Hehe, no I was not pissed at the end ,though I was a bit annoyed at all the assumptions. Sorry if my tone sounds like I am more angry than I am, like I said I've had I hard past couple days xD. Anyway, good luck and great job so far.
Posted by MaxLamperouge 1 year ago
MaxLamperouge
Very good!
I could tell from your tone you were a little pissed in the end though.
Nice job bro.
Ill have my rebuttals in soon.
Posted by MaxLamperouge 1 year ago
MaxLamperouge
Your good man, I know that feeling. My house gets pretty crazy sometimes too.
I have exams today. Things are crazy for me too.
Dont worry about it, your good.
Posted by Brendan21 1 year ago
Brendan21
Things have been somewhat crazy in my household, I will post my argument tomorrow or the next depending on how long it takes me.
Posted by MaxLamperouge 1 year ago
MaxLamperouge
Interesting arguments bro.. nice job.
I'll respond soon, I was on a trip since Friday and I had no internet.
Max
No votes have been placed for this debate.