The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

It's time for Chridtianity to become militant against Atheism

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: 7/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 94095
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




It's time for Christianity to become militant against Atheism. Why? Atheism is destroying the West. Christianity gave it an inch politely, and now Atheists have decided to become militant against Christianity, thus it is time to snuff it out of society completely and by force if neccessary.


Definition: Militant - combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.

Pro thinks that Christians ought to become militant, as in take violent action against atheists. This is illegal and if taken to the political realm unconstitutional. Killing people based on their beliefs is immoral, and if my opponent believes his religion is a religion of peace, it is anti-thetical to his religion. Pro seeks to copy the tactics of ISIS by violently wiping out criticism.

Pro claims Atheism is destroying the West, given that most secular western countries are the most powerful cultural bloc in the world I find that hard to believe. Western civilization has been on the upswing since the Enlightenment. If my opponent thinks reason and science were politely allowed to exist he is calling for a rejection of such things and wishes to go back to the dark ages where the church had political authority. He wants his religion to dominate regardless of merit. It should be noted that atheists only make up 3.1% of the US population [1] so if my opponent is going to argue that we are the cause of Western decline he's going to have to account for how such a small minority could bring down the most powerful nations on earth which are majority populated by Christians.

He says atheists are militant against Christians, influential atheists are not calling for violence against theists. When it comes to matters of the law, again we live in a secular society. The separation of church and state is held up by 2 centuries of legal precedent. Atheists merely seek to hold Christian politicians - who would ignore the Constitution in favor of Christian supremacy - accountable for their actions. I guarantee my opponent will mistake a lack of Christian favoritism as oppression.

In conclusion, what Pro calls for is immoral, illegal, and hypocritical. With Bronto as an example of Christianity, why would we want more of his ignorant beliefs to control society?

Debate Round No. 1


"Pro thinks that Christians ought to become militant, as in take violent action against atheists."

Nope. Just arrest them and put them in cages. B-)

"This is illegal and if taken to the political realm unconstitutional"

Not once we take over.


As recently as 1990, the U.S. was 86% Christian. Today it is teetering on going into the 60's percentagewise because of the New Atheist Movement and militant atheism in the 2000's.

In 1990, we barely knew what terrorism was. Now? It's a new terror attack every week in the West. Why? Militant Atheists were so hellbent on opposing Christianity that they became tollerant of anything non-Christian, meaning? Islam.

Daily headlines prove that Europe is bursting at the seams with Islamists attempting to establish Sharia law and homegrown terror plots. France is swarming with radicals, ISIS threatens they will send Spain back to the times of the Ottoman Empire, and Britain is much too concerned with appeasing Muslims that they are doing away with their own citizens’ free speech.

And...they wanted Christians to step out of their way and shut up while they pandered to Islam in the name of multiculturism and diversity. Well, it happened, and it caused Europe to freefall into mass chaos via an "immigration crisis". Forget common sense or Islamic theology, as long as Christianity is the one snubbed.


So...As Christianity is in decline in the West, suicide is through the roof. Multitudes of people have and are killing themselves because they see no point, purpose, meaning, or hope via Atheism being indoctrinated into their minds, polluting their psychological health and well being.

Notice, Christianity went into a serious decline as militant atheism took root in the early 2000's.

Deaths from suicide have increased 24 percent from 1999 to 2014, according to an analysis of Americans aged 5 and up conducted by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But why? In psychology we have a "hierarchy of needs". There are certain conditions that must be met for good mental health, things like purpose, meaning, etc. Atheism provides little, if anything, in this regard.


Even Richard Dawkins, the king of Militant Atheism, who told Atheists to attack Christians' beliefs at every chance, can now see his irreligion's fatal flaw. Now Atheists, homosexuals, and Christians are being slaughtered like animals in the West by Islamic jihadists. As Christianity is about to disappear completely from the Middle East via genocide and the burning down of churches, Islam was welcomed with open arms from the more and more Atheistic West, and it's completely mindless.

Richard Dawkins begrudgingly admitted that Christianity is actually our best defense against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world.

In a rare moment of candor, Dawkins reluctantly accepted that the teachings of Jesus Christ do not lead to a world of terror, whereas followers of radical Islam perpetrate the very atrocities that he laments.

Because of this realization, Dawkins wondered aloud whether Christianity might indeed offer an antidote to protect western civilization against jihad.

“I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,” he said.

But now it's too late. Christianity is going to vanish. And a Christian free West who is not allowed to even exist in the Middle East is becoming overrun with Muslims. Survival of the fittest? Guess who will be left standing.

Destroy Christianity= No Christians

Atheism= try to intermix with Islam.

Islam=don't let nonMuslims exist in our region and go on the offensive against nonMuslims in their region. And...outbreed the less than 2 children households of the West.

DC + A + I = Islam will own the Middle East and the West.

Thus, if Christianity is to survive, it must become militant against Atheism and rid itself of one plague to be allowed to resist the other plague.



Pro admits his violent intent. Arresting people and putting them in cages, especially when no law has been broken, is an act of violence. Pro admits his plan is unconstitutional, but "Not once we take over". Justification post intellectual genocide is not a reasonable justification.

My opponent claims because Atheists let Muslims in, and a minority of Muslims commit violent crime, Atheists ought to be eliminated. Muslims are not Atheists FYI. Again I point out atheists only make up 3% of the US population, and politically speaking compared to Christians, Atheists hold no power. It wasn't Atheists in Congress writing the legislation that would allow Muslim immigration, it was Christians who hold the majority of political power in the US. The decline of Christianity is not the fault of Atheists and completely ignores the growth of other religions.

Any criticism Pro has for Islam proves his hypocrisy. He's against ISIS yet is arguing to be just like them. My opponent is an unabashed hypocrite and is very ignorant of European culture in response to the mass immigration of Muslims. Many laws have been passed in European nations to preserve their culture and maintain secular authority. Yes there have been attacks, but a mismanagement of immigration is not the fault of Atheists. In fact, it was Christians who have argued that Muslims ought to be let in [2].

As for suicide and Atheism, my opponent's claim is purely speculative, correlation doesn't equal causation. And on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, God isn't on the list.

Pro doesn't care about the Atheists and homosexuals slaughtered by Muslims. The point of this debate is that he wants HIS religion to be the doing the slaughtering. He misrepresents Dawkins, he in no way advocates for religion, merely he acknowledges that some religions are worse than others, that the secular but ignorant are preferable to the militant but ignorant. But Pro doesn't care that Atheists like Dawkins would agree with limiting Muslim immigration, he wants to blame atheists for Muslim immigration! While at the same time wanting Dawkins to be thrown in jail and worse. Dawkins says he doesn't know of violent Christian terrorists, well they exist [3]. A few examples beings in 1996 Eric Rudolf bombed the Centennial Olympic Park killing 1 and injuring 111 and in 1998 he bombed an abortion clinic. In 2012 6 people were murder by a Christian at a Sikh Temple. Any argument Pro has to ban Muslims based on terrorism is an argument to ban Christianity as well.

Pro says Atheists must be purged from society, yet his entire argument is based on Muslims. Pro has not provided a cohesive argument as to why Atheists are the problem he says they are.

Debate Round No. 2


"Justification post intellectual genocide is not a reasonable justification."

No one said it was reasonable. It's just what has to be done. Bombing Japan wasn't reasonable, but if it hadn't been done, we'd all be Nazis right now. Extreme times call for extreme measures. Atheism has become a negative variable in this equation, thus it must be destroyed if we are to survive.

In the UK,(who is becoming more and more Atheist), they have suppressed free speech? Why? To pander against hate speech against Muslims.

So look at it. It was okay to attack Christianity. Anything went and still does. But if you say something negative about Islam, you go to jail for hate speech. Atheism has actually attacked Christianity while petting Islam. And this led to London now having a Muslim mayor in a now vastly Muslim-British city(Sadiq Kahn). "Let our extermination begin!" say the atheists. Seeing you wanna go down with the ship, at least let us jump off first.


"The decline of Christianity is not the fault of Atheists."

I must have imagined the "New Atheist Movement". We don't call it "militant atheism because it is sitting peacefully and neutrally in the corner. We call it this because its objective is to kill Christianity.

Here is a quote from an article written by an Atheist-

"Dawkins and Dennett do not want to ally with liberal Christians; they want to convert them to atheism. They believe that continued criticism of religion will swell the ranks of atheists to create an eventual majority."

"But it is up to moderate atheists like me, and hopefully you, to bring about the second wave of social change."

When someone declares war on you, you have one option, eliminate them. Essentially it's us or them, so in order for us to continue, we must destroy the one who has declared war on us. We actually have no choice.


"Killing people based on their beliefs is immoral."

This is a false dichotomy. Why?

1)Con is an atheist trying to define objective morality, which does not exist in a "lack of belief"

2)We killed Nazis because of their beliefs. It wasn't immoral. It was survival. Atheists are trying to get us killed, thus they must be tossed in prisons where we will hold them until we destroy ISIS and radical Islam.

We will feed you nicely and keep you warm and cool as is applicable.


"and if my opponent believes his religion is a religion of peace.."

We were very peaceful and polite to atheism overall. It in turn tried to destroy us from multiple fronts. We have the right to defend ourselves.


"Western civilization has been on the upswing since the Enlightenment."

Was. Now Europe is on the brink of civil war and chaos. America looks to be next. And the common variable in this "enlightenment" was Christianity. Atheists might not want to hear it, but that's reality.


"If my opponent thinks reason and science were politely allowed to exist."

Atheist biologist, David Berlinski, and others have referred to Darwinian theory as a pipedream being used to support atheism. He claims anyone opposed to any theory that supports atheism is ridiculed and usually fired, even if they have proof of their claims. He cites concepts like creatures that are hundreds of millions of years old trapped in amber that look exactly like they do today. He also cites the assumed traits of "intermediaries" that are put on the illustrations we see but are never on the actual skeleton or fossil finds. That's not reason. That's ideological politics.


"where the church had political authority."

It's either the church or militant atheistic priests. Darwinian thinking has caused the holocaust, the mass murders in China, and Stalin's genocide of tens of millions of people. It has also led inadvertantly to the scurge of Islam upon the West.


"should be noted that atheists only make up 3.1% of the US population"

And we need it to stay there. Why?

1)In Sweden and Denmark, where they have turned to secularism, they are in complete chaos, have an immigration crisis gone mad, are about to become the minority in their own countries, and are labeled the "rape capitals of the world".


"Pro doesn't care about the Atheists and homosexuals slaughtered."

As is demonstrated in this debate that I had, I can prove Con's attack as false. I cherrish life, thus see the strong need to eradicate beliefs that preach no hope, meaning, or purpose OR that preach to kill and dominate the rest of us. This isn't a decision based on hate, but common sense, survival, and love of America and its children.


"Terrorism...ban Christianity as well."

This is another false dichotomy by ommission. Con points out a terrorist in 1998. 18 years ago...

In 2015, there were 452 suicide bombings. Guess how many were Islamic...Apparently no other demographic is ideologically steered towards this practice. Why?

-Atheists and Christians have no Quran to give them the automatic reward of paradise if they kill infidels or are killed by infidels. There is a reason why if you hear bombing or shooting your brain automatically assumes it was the religion of special needs and jihad at work.

The point? Atheism, which claims "reason" has forsaken it when picking enemies and allies. It has militantly attacked Christianity while giving Islam a plethera of excuses for their deadly and violent behavior. Without Christianity, Atheism would have no safe haven. It has bitten the hand that fed it and put that hand in danger, thus, it must logically be manhandled and subdued in order to keep America from becoming the next victim of European-like destruction, chaos, and submission to Islam. Atheists are hellbent on bowing to the ideology that will have female Atheists and Christians forced to wear hijabs and burkas, and the full implementation of Sharia Law. Sadly, for this cause, Atheism must be rounded up and subdued for our sake and theirs.


I know it’s late in the debate but here are some definitions that will help inform my opponent of what he’s actually talking about:

Sharia Law - God’s Law

Atheist - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. There is no inherent political attachment left or right.

Liberal - A person on the political left. There is no inherent atheistic attachment to political ideology.

Atheist and Sharia Law are mutually exclusive, a liberal can be a theist and an Atheist can have conservative values. But Pro doesn’t care, I repeat he’s arguing that Christians ought to commit acts of violence against Atheists “by force if necessary” he says. It’s clear Pro has no respect for the First Amendment, but if he thinks if Atheists are going to allow themselves to be jailed by a theocratic regime Pro must have no respect for the Second Amendment.

For the purpose of ending this asinine debate sooner I’m going to make my argument in this Round, I don’t think Pro will be able to come up with anything new beyond ‘Atheists are guilty for the crimes of Muslims’.

Pro cites Richard Dawkins saying Islam is WORSE than Christianity yet says Atheists are targeting Christianity to implement (Islamic) Sharia Law! But when Atheists stand up against (Christian) Sharia Law Pro argues Atheists are the terrorists. I was hoping Pro could muster an argument for Fascism that didn’t involve nonsense contradictions and I’m disappointed.

The first linked video is of another famous Atheist, Sam Harris, having a conversation that encompasses much of what we’re talking about here. Harris says early on “I am a very vocal critic of Islam, as a set of doctrines and ideas …” – then there’s some banter about bigotry, but skip to the 5 min mark, Harris is the speaker on the left. My point being that there are famous well spoken atheists directly targeting Islam saying it’s different than other religions. Pro’s claim that Atheism is somehow enabling terrorism is a conflation of interchangeable use between the terms Atheist and Liberal, forgetting that not all Christian are fundamentalists like Pro Christians are the majority population who supported Muslim immigration. Angela Merkel, the Prime Minister of Germany and the one most held accountable for allowing such an influx of Muslims into Germany and the rest of the EU is a member of the – wait for it … - Christian Democratic Union Party! I repeat again it’s not Atheists as a group, or even as an ideology that is in favor of expanding Islam – but it is Christians who have majority power in both North America and Europe that are allowing Muslims in. Obama is Christian yet from 2009 to 2013 nearly 700,000 green cards were issued to Muslim refugees [5]. Justin Trudeau PM of Canada is Christian as well – Roman Catholic to be precise - and plans to ‘fast track’ 50,000 Muslim refugees by the end of 2016 [6]. The Crimes of Muslims cannot be blamed on Atheists when it's Christians who are doing the real door opening.

My opponent has thrown out a gish gallop of arguments I’ll briefly address their irrelevancy. The arguments are:

  1. “Con is an atheist trying to define objective morality, which does not exist in a ‘lack of belief’”

I never said my morality was objective - but simply because I don’t believe my morality is objective doesn’t mean I can’t make moral claims relative to our world. Pro is arguing for Christians to be just like the Nazis and ISIS in violently attacking atheists, it’s simple hypocrisy, not even morality. He says Atheists should be punished for the crimes of Muslims as an excuse to be just as cruel as they are to eliminate an ideology that debunks Christian mythos far better than violent Islam does.

  1. “No one said it was reasonable. It's just what has to be done. Bombing Japan wasn't reasonable, but if it hadn't been done, we'd all be Nazis right now. Extreme times call for extreme measures. We killed Nazis because of their beliefs …

Justification post genocide is nonsense. Pro is also ignorant of US history. Nazi Germany surrendered months BEFORE the US nuked Japan so the 2 events aren’t related. Also there were many good reason to use the nuke, but that’s for another debate. But I’m sure my opponent would have approved of the Japanese internment that happened because of Pearl Harbor. A barbaric act that later President Ronald Reagan officially apologized to Japanese Americans for in 1988 giving reparations.

  1. “We were very peaceful and polite to atheism overall. It in turn tried to destroy us from multiple fronts. We have the right to defend ourselves.”

I would love to know how peaceful Christians have been. Atheists provide scrutiny, not violence, if your religion can’t survive non-violent scrutiny of words and ideas then your ideas should perish.

  1. “Now Europe is on the brink of civil war and chaos. America looks to be next. And the common variable in this "enlightenment" was Christianity. Atheists might not want to hear it, but that's reality.”

Not that Europe is actually on the brink of civil war, but if it was like I already pointed out it’s the fault of Liberal Christians, not Atheists.

  1. Atheists Against Evolution.

This is irrelevant. Pro already wants to jail the biologist he cites and only cites him to distract from his own logical fallicies.

  1. Atheists like Mao and Stalin killed people.

Hitler wasn’t an atheist, and if you’re going to blame all atheists for the action of others it’s only fair to blame Christianity for all its crimes like colonialism, genocide and the Crusades. Also there are some more modern examples of Christian terrorist groups that Pro would approve, like the Lord’s Resistance Army who uses child soldiers, or the Phineas Priesthood, a Christian white supremacy group “On November 28, 2014, Phineas Priesthood member Larry Steven McQuilliams went on a violent rampage in Austin, Texas—where he fired over 100 rounds at various targets (including a federal courthouse, the local Mexican Consulate building and a police station) before being shot and killed by police.” [8]

  1. “This is another false dichotomy by ommission. Con points out a terrorist in 1998. 18 years ago …”

Pro omits that I also mentioned an attack on Sikhs in 2012 killing 6. When we hear of an abortion clinic bombing, which religion do we think of?

  1. In 2015, there were 452 suicide bombings.

There were far fewer attacks than in 2014. But where did all of these bombings happen in 2015? Pro doesn’t say but I will. Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria combined are 223, that’s Muslims killing Muslims in the Middle East where atheism is often illegal. Africa also takes a large portion “In 2015, 96 suicide attacks took place in Nigeria, 13 in Cameroon, eight in Chad and five in Niger.” [7] Africa isn’t known for being and atheist hub. And we can forget about Christian performing non-suicide bombings.

In conclusion, my opponent’s argument for religious fascism falls flat on its face, and he is resorting to throwing out any argument he can to blame Atheism for all the evil in the world. It’s the Muslims fault for terrorism so Christians need to kill atheists – why not just argue to kill Muslims then? It is especially foolish when shown that it is Christians who mismanaged the refugees and let them in.

If the voter values Freedom of thought and the Constutition over the violent barbarism Pro desires then Vote Con!

As bonus material Richard Dawkins having a non-militant discussion with a Muslim about religion. []


[4] Sam Harris Brilliantly Decimates a Muslim Apologist (





Debate Round No. 3


Con: "(Christian) Sharia Law Pro argues Atheists are the terrorists"

This is an ignorant statement. There is no "Christian Sharia Law" nor anything in Christianity similar to Sharia Law. Con is making my point. Atheist's have mindlessly lumped their allies in with their enemies and chosen to not discern which is which, allowing anyone and everyone in assuming all religions are alike, and they are as alike as atheism and Islam, which would be not at all.

If space aliens began attacking Earth, we wouldn't look for aliens to spare. We'd defend against all of them logically. Sharia and democracy are not compatable, thus democracy doesn't owe totalitarian ideologies anything per common sense.

"It's Christians who are doing the real door opening."

Anyone with a brainstem knows this is crap. The heavily Christianright has been opposing Islamic immigration like mad. This is why Donald Trump leads Hillary in the polls. And this is why most Atheists support Clinton who is ready to throw us under the Sharia bus with a smile as Saudi Arabia lines her pockets. This is why atheism must now be confronted, to get its head out of its butt and help us protect our country.


"What the West needs to understand about Islam is that Jihad is very systematic. If Muslims have the upper hand, then Jihad is waged by force. If Muslims do not have the upper hand, then Jihad is waged through financial and political means. Since Muslims do not have the upper hand in most of the West, they talk about peace in front of you while supporting terrorists in the back room. The whole idea of Islam being a peaceful religion emanates from that silent stage of Jihad." Although the word Jihad standing by itself means “struggle,” what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed’s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler." ---Walid Shoebat, ex-Muslim


Excerpt from article-

"During the 2016 New Year's Eve celebrations, hundreds of sexual assaults, rape, groping, and numerous thefts were reported in Germany, mainly in Cologne city centre."

"All of the incidents involved women being surrounded and assaulted by groups of men on the street. There are more than 1,900 victims – 1,200 of whom were sexually assaulted – and police stated that at least 2,000 men were involved, acting in groups." "Police reported that the perpetrators were men of "Arab or North African appearance" and said that Germany had never experienced such mass sexual assaults.



FDR implemented a full roundup of anyone Japanese during WWII. Why? We were under attack, and something had to be done. And it worked to.

And let me remind you, this is the same man who said: "If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace."

Which is a lovely and noble sentiment...until a group declares war on your entire culture as Islam has done. When we were under attack he put those words to the side to protect America.



According to pew polls' findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God and ovverides any body of law developed by men. That's a bit problematic for democracy, which is a "body of law developed my men."


Sweden took on the liberal concept of allowing in anyone under the guise of multiculturism, tollerance, and "doing the right thing". Now, they are the ones not being "tollerated" in their own country and are soon expected to be the minority in their own country. Sweden has now been labled the "Rape Capital of the West".

There is a 1/4 change of being raped as a woman in Sweden. Blonde women are now dying their hair black to not be identified as Swedish, many actually wearing hijabs as disguises, and only going out with men to protect them.

Islam has become so problematic in Europe that the pice have labeled thousands of areas as "no go zones". Meaning areas where police find it too dangerous to enter or where ambulances have to be escorted to and from by heavy law enforcement. These zones have also been labeled "Sharia Zones", meaning they are ruled by Sharia courts, have literal "morality police" or "Sharia Patrols" in whence Sharia Law is enforced in a blatant ignoring of the laws of the home country. Hungary has officially declared that their are at least 900 "no go zones" in the EU.


And ISIS has revealed areas of Europe that it plans on controlling fully by 2020. Allowing Muslims in the West has given rise to unsermounmountable chaos, rape, and terrorism. Atheists, in a self righteous anti-theism have decided to lump Christianity and Islam into the same basket despite having almost nothing in common with one another. This is why atheism must be resisted. It refuses to educate itself and has become a threat to our(the West's) existance thusly.

If Atheists like Con do not wake up and help us, we won't have a country left to defend.


My opponent doesn't want to admit Liberal Christians are responsible but he didn't refute it. There are no atheist leaders effecting policy like Christians are. But to say there's no such thing as Christian Sharia is a fantasy lived by Pro. Remember those laws about banning abortion, education of evolution (scopes monkey trial), and gay marrige? Who supported those laws? Christians! Abortion and Gay marriaege bans were found UnConstitutional of course.

Again Pro blames the Crimes of Muslims on Atheists who are also against Islam as demonstrated by Pro and I. He has nothing more to say. That Hitler quote doesn't even mention Atheism. Pro accuses Atheism of lumping Islam together but it appears Pro isdoing the lumping of non-chritians vs christians. Its pathetic fear mongering.

Saying Japanese Interment worked makes no sense, how does he defne "workd"? It stripped American citizens of the proterty, freedom and dignighty, there was no evidence they were spies. That's why the Government officially apologised to amend wrongs, justification post injustice is not justification!

I extend all of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


"Pro omits that I also mentioned an attack on Sikhs in 2012 killing 6. When we hear of an abortion clinic bombing, which religion do we think of?"

And they happen oh so often. Run for your lives...

-"In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort;Seven murders occurred in the 1990s."


What Con has tried to do is create a strawman. "If I can just prove that one Christian ever in history blew himself up then I can justify all 452 Islamic suicide bombings in 2015." It's a b.s. assessment. Con likes comparing a rock to a mountain as his strawman to detract from reality and the debate.


"But to say there's no such thing as Christian Sharia is a fantasy lived by Pro. Remember those laws about banning abortion, education of evolution (scopes monkey trial), and gay marrige? Who supported those laws?"

It seems to have zipped over Con's head that none of those things are a physical threat to anyone. Sharia Law commands execution of homsexuals, beatings for "immoral behavior" like drinking, holding hands and kissing in public, and eating a pork sandwich, stoning women accused of adultery by a man, and beheadings for minor offenses. (Crickets chirp...chirp...chirp...)


"That Hitler quote doesn't even mention Atheism."

Really? That's because the quote is an example of pandering to Islam being dangerous and mindless. Hitler quoted the Quran, referenced Islam, and Islamic concepts like a mantra because Naziism and Islamic theology are essentially conjoined twins. If one were to quickly describe Christ's teaching it would be love, sacrifice, and the greater good. On the other hand Muhammed's teaching can be summed up as kill non-Muslims, conquer the world, and jihad.


"Saying Japanese Interment worked makes no sense."

Sure it does. It saved our country and won the war. Apologies by a Nazi like Obama do not constitute anything. American forefathers didn't apologize because war calls for extreme measures, and we won the war by extreme measures.


"My opponent doesn't want to admit Liberal Christians are responsible."

Most Republicans are Christians. Most Atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians are Democrats. This is common knowledge.


Con has demonstrated my point. Con tries to comare:

Sharia Law-(The law of Islam)
-Executions of homosexuals
-Stoning for minor offenses
-Cutting off hands, fingers, legs, etc


Some unknown, unnamed, undoctrinal and theoretical law of Christians-
-Wanting abortion illegal
-Against teaching evolution
-Con on Gay marriage

While completely ignoring that Sharia Law is a physical, life threatening, Islamic fundamental and doctrinal part of the ideology. And ignoring that some theoretical and nonexisting law of Christian opinions is not any physical threat to anyone.

And this is the ignorance that threatens the security of America, thus we must become militant against it.

Vote bronto.

(Bronto theme music plays as he leaves the debate)


"Most Republicans are Christians. Most Atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians are Democrats. This is common knowledge."

And yet roughly 3 out of 4 Democrats believe in God [9]. Again I repeat, Atheists only make up 3% of the US population, it is Liberal Christians who pass the legislation that allows for mismanaged Muslim immigration and crime. Atheists have nothing to do with it, we don't support Islam either - even Pro has cited Dawkins proving this.

What Con has tried to do is create a straw man. "If I can just prove that one Christian ever in history blew himself up then I can justify all 452 Islamic suicide bombings in 2015."

This isn't a quote from me and is misleading, I already addressed this point. Muslim killing Muslims in the Middle East and Muslims killing Christians in Africa has nothing to do with Atheism or the decline of Western Society as Pro fear mongering claims.

It seems to have zipped over Con's head that none of those things [laws about banning abortion, education of evolution (scopes monkey trial), and gay marriage] are a physical threat to anyone.

It seems to have zipped over Pro's head that he is arguing for Christians to become violent against non-Christians ie a physical threat. Pro's ignorance is baffling, the scopes monkey trial was about putting a teacher in jail against his will and for no good reason other than Christian supremacy; that's violence! Pro is trying to argue that because Christians aren't as bad as ISIS their militancy against non-Christians should be forgiven - BUT THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS DEBATE IS FOR CHRISTIANS TO BECOME MILITANT LIKE ISIS KILLING ATHEISTS AND ANYONE DEEMED UNDESERIABLE BY HIS "CHRISTIAN" STANDARDS. By Pro’s brain dead logic ISIS is only so extreme becuase of how extreme Christians are. Bush jr. is Christian and his wars have killed millions of Muslims. But I digress, those laws are example of terrible reason Christians can point to treat others as lesser. Thank goodness the Secular Nature of the Constitution, for both the First Amendment to call BS on wack job Christians like Pro and the Second Amendment for when Christians try to establish a Fascist Theocracy.

"Sure it does. It saved our country and won the war. Apologies by a Nazi like Obama do not constitute anything. American forefathers didn't apologize because war calls for extreme measures, and we won the war by extreme measures."

Pro tried to say I was using objective morality, yet here he is believing in an all loving Christian God saying genocide is acceptable. Did our Founders have to wipe out the Indians and enslave Africans? Extreme measures are what Pro would say. I thought Christians were supposed to condemn such atrocities, only if they are committed by a Muslim is Pro's position. Calling Obama a Nazi shows your position has nothing to do with degrees of militancy, Pro is the most extreme form just like ISIS and Hitler. He feigns civility just like the Muslims he wants gassed alongside atheists. Pro is a hypocrite.

Not all Christians are bad people, but Bronto sure is. Vote Con!



Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 5 months ago
1. A tip for PRO is that if you make a debate, you should define key terms
2. This would practically be terrorism - it is just as bad as the Muslim attacks you so clearly condem
3. It was called the dark ages - the DARK ages were named appropriately
4. Going against atheists is not going to stop Islamic terror - the war on terror appears to be somewhat rapping up
5. Terrorist attacks are statistically unlikely - you should fear driving to go to work or get groceries more (I know it is unnecessary death - but you must acknowledge that Christianity has had its fair share of this stuff i.e. which trials, -aforementioned dark ages, KKK...)
6. There is no clear demonstration of a correlation between atheism and trrrorist attacks

I could go on

I would say religious is what plagues society - taking a pro or con on either side of that argument is really hard.
Posted by Bennett91 9 months ago
omg 3 minutes
Posted by brontoraptor 9 months ago
Bennett is too far behind for spelling on one word to matter.
Posted by Bennett91 9 months ago
But given the Title of this debate has a spelling error I'm not too worried.
Posted by Bennett91 9 months ago
Oh wow the auto-correct didn't actually correct the spelling errors .. my bad.
Posted by Bennett91 10 months ago
@educated person
Forming a modern Crusader army has nothing to do jailing/killing atheists which is suppose to e the topic of the debate besides Pro's Muslim bashing.
Posted by Educated_Person 10 months ago
I think that this is a very touchy subject, but I agree with pro, in SOME ways. I do believe that perhaps the Vatican and other orthodoxas should form an all Christian army to SPECIFICALLY combat terrorism, but I believe it should be done so that this army isn't just a ragtag trigger-happy militia, but an organized army. All soldiers should have background checks and psychiatric checks every 6 months, to make sure we don't become as bad as them. I DO NOT mean that we should go around killing innocent Muslims, or blow up mosques, but target known Islam EXTREMIST areas. But remember, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
male lions tend to kill the male cubs in the pack to maintain leadership
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
you can start by killing yourself, it can work
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
kill all atheists today, just make every muslim leave religion
No votes have been placed for this debate.