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

Religion is true freedom, not atheism

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 57065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I am arguing that, theism, from my perspective as a theist, gives freedom, not atheism.
To do this, i look at what the bible says and the real world
Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the surface of the ground, except that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob," declares the Lord.-amos, 9:8
now, we also find quotes that suggest loyalty
Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.-romans, 13:7
While the bible encourages loyalty, if a government is corrupt, or sinful, they should not be tolerated
now the real world. lets compare theocracy's, and atheistic dictatorships.
the atheism we see today, is a result of the ussr. It (atheism)*was created with the sole purpose of controlling the people. the governments destroyed roman catholic and eastern orthodox churchs. the people there never revolted. nor in china,where the bible is illegal, or north korea. however, the soviet governments control lessened, when the pope pushed religion back into the country. Now lets compare that to the muslim theocracy of Iran. Twice Iran has rebelled. i would also like to argue that, religion brings true free thinking, not atheism. for one simple fact; an atheists opinions come from an extremely biased media, questionable sources on say,the internet. i am catholic, while my church has dogma, i am able to interpret what the dogma means.why its there. And, my opinions come from my god, and pope Francis. the atheism in Europe and america, has been influenced by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawkings,etc All of whom, have written books. i would argue, there attacks on theism have a lot to do with this, publicity. While, as we know, the pope makes a measly 20000, and lives in a small apartment with no cable.and while former popes lived in a palace, it was built several hundred years ago,and the popes still made, 20000

* i do not argue atheists are communists, it has just been used by communist society's



I'm arguing against the resolution that "Religion is (true) freedom and not atheism".
First I will define some words.

the power to determine action without restraint. [1]

He mentions theism a couple of time, but he is talking specifically about religion.
A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. [2]

I'm not going to define atheism here. I'm going to challenge Pro's definition in my arguments.

Lastly I want to remind everyone that the BoP is on Pro and he has to prove that Religion gives freedom and Atheism doesn't. I only have to disprove his arguments to win.


I'm going to divide my rebuttals in 4 parts so it's easier to understand. These 4 parts represent the arguments of Pro.

Part 1: Religion gives freedom.

Here pro quote the bible a couple of times related to fairness.
Then Pro mentions that a corrupt government should not be tolerated, but he doesn't quote the bible this time.

His main argument is related to governments. He gives an example of Iran and how they rebelled twice. Pro claims that the reason they rebelled was because of religion.
This is a non sequitur.

The example Pro is giving has too many issues. [3]
First, the reasons of the rebellions are most of the time attributed to international pressure.
Other reasons are cultural and religious traditions that are UNIQUE to them. This is important because this means that these traditions didn't help because they were religious.
Other issue is that this theocracy, that Pro claims that gives freedom to the people, is as unpopular as the dictatorship before the revolutions. [3]

My last rebuttal on this part would be that religion an atheism are not exclusive. Religions like some forms of Buddhism are non theistic. Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, and others that are "ok" with atheism.

Part 2: Atheism doesn't give freedom.

In this part, Pro mentions some tyrannical governments and claims that it was atheism the reason of these, and the reason on there were no rebellions like in his example of Iran.

This is another non sequitur.
There is no reason to think that atheism is the reason of the dictatorships, the reason people didn't rebel or that they were able to control the people.

One common counter example of a non sequitur for this issue is that maybe their evil nature is caused by their evil mustaches.

Look at those evil mustaches.

Pro then tries to avoid the non sequitur claiming that atheism "is a result of the ussr" and that it was created "with the sole purpose of the controlling the people. Here Pro didn't give any source, but it doesn't matter. He is completely wrong and here is why:

The ussr was established in 1992 [4]
The first time the word "atheism" was used in 1546 [5]
Atheistic ideas are older than the bible. The 5th century BCE philosopher Diagoras is known as "the first atheist". [6]

Part 3: Religion brings free thinking.

Here Pro claims that religion brings free thinking because:

Everyone is able to interpret what the dogma means.
Opinions of the people come from God and the Pope.

Here Pro clearly contradict himself. He is not able to think freely if the opinions come from clear source. Even if he is interpreting the dogma, it is still a dogma. If is not obeying that dogma, then he is not able to know, in the case of god, his word, and in the case of the pope, his opinions.

Part 4: Atheism doesn't let you think freely.

Opinions of the people come from biased source (not god) like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking.

Here Pro is showing an argument similar to the reason religion brings free thinking.
What he doesn't understand is that atheism is not related to what those human beings have to say. They are atheist sure, but they have their opinions that may be different to the opinions of other atheists, because there is no dogma.
There is no need for interpretation of what others say.

Atheism exist as a response of theism. Anti religious may be popular now, but it is not against free thinking either. Avoiding dogma and start thinking freely is part of what this "biased media" stands for.

Thank for the debate. Vote Con.


6. Plato's theology (1942). Solmsen Friedrich
Debate Round No. 1


thomaspelletier96 forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


thomaspelletier96 forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
Well, at least you have a new opportunity. Please answer to this one lol.
Posted by thomaspelletier96 2 years ago
yes, i responded to that, for whatever reason the response didnt go through
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
Dude, are you there?
I already had a debate with you about a similar topic and you forfeited all the rounds.
I don't want this to happen again. PLZ.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 2/3 rounds and couldnt refute Con's arguments
Vote Placed by phantom 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF