Should Atheist argue against theism?
Debate Round Forfeited
JHill213 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||2 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||156 times||Debate No:||94128|
Debate Rounds (3)
Atheists have an obligation to educate those of theism in order to create a more rational community for all to live in.
I would like to talk about the preamble my opponent made before their assertion. I too have seen the television pictures, online media and paper based commentary that I image powers my opponent into a position of "standing up and being counted". It is certainly an undesirable state of affairs. You may think I am understating things by using the word undesirable however, this, I will justify at the end of the debate or sooner if necessary.
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)Irreligion: (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence, indifference, rejection of, or hostility towards religion. When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it encompasses atheism, agnosticism, religious dissidence, and secular humanism.
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.
"Atheists have an obligation to educate those of theism in order to create a more rational community for all to live in. " - the argument
"Atheists have an obligation " - from the argument
Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious world-view than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism. Parsimonious in this case also refers to Occam's razor: The principle can be interpreted as stating 'Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'.
Therefore there is no obligation imposed by atheism.
The answer to the question "Should Atheist argue against theism?" is NO from many practising atheists.
Having established there is no imposed obligation, there is no longer any "Should Atheist" in the question.
That leaves "argue against theism?" - from the question.
On what ground have we left to argue from. The only ground left belongs to theism, so this requires the understanding of theism itself before constructive argument can be made. Non-constructive argument is very dangerous as it is often perceived as plain and straight forward arguing.
I think from a religious point of view atheist"s believe in the absence/non-existence of their deities. Christianity is arguably diminishing in western culture due in part to its prolonged coexistence with allegedly more rational communities.
"educate those of theism" - from the argument
What education are you referring to? The fact that you mentioned theism clearly implies that the eduction would take place at a religious level. An atheist has only one statement that applies at a religious level and that is denial of the fundamental foundation of Theism. It is unlikely that this denial would be received as educational.
Why not leave the remaining religious communities prolong coexistence with allegedly more rational communities? They may just fade away as all thing must in time.
"in order to create a more rational community for all to live in" - from the argument
We no longer need "in order to" it is not necessary with the beginning of the sentence chopped off.
Which leaves "create a more rational community for all to live in", this is a good credo to live by but is no longer a supporting argument.
Having noticed the common practice of your argumentative style allow me to re-adjust how I would normally rationally argue as a courtesy and to avoid a hefty degree of monotony.
Surely while my sentences are in half they can be negated as not sentences at all and then be ignored all together as irrational, but this argument is not working towards 'what I meant to say' that is quite clear, instead I might recommend that you focus on a laps in the morality (if any exist) within my statements. That out of the way please allow me to rebuttal.
As my words "Educate those of theism" may apply, I quite literally mean - to teach them what they did not previously know. Rationally I do feel comfortable with the claim that those who do believe in a god are unaware of their own inconsistencies in the natural universe works physically. This being said surely it would be beneficial to teach those who are willing to learn about how this universe works.
Indeed constructive criticism will be used, it would be ridiculous to think something as flawed as an ad-hominem attack would generate as I clearly said that goal to be a world in which people can depend on rational thinking.
I can only say of your argument that when you said "Many atheists hold that"..."The answer to the question "Should Atheist argue against theism?" is NO from many practising atheists.". has no actually weight because of what is called the bandwagon logical fallacy. To summarize it is that more than one person may be incorrect at any given moment.
To your proposition of leaving them alone I can confidently say that this is a problematic solution. They have been left alone for a large majority of history with a lot of power to minimize the harms of what their religion can do to society, this is true. I needlessly will mention the crusades of Jerusalem, or the massive accumulation of wealth possessed by the pope coming from people who are barely able to feed themselves, these things are direct results of religious influence and they have only ever hampered society. Now we are faced with another holy war where those of faith and not of faith are being decapitated in the name of faith. It does seem like a fair assumption that without religion, the world would be a safer place currently.
This in mind should we be expected to and is it morally correct to stand by when the answer to the gaping question "How can we end all of this suffering" is as easy as a conversation?
My largest concern is that religion steps on people autonomy - ones ability to make their own rational decisions - by treating people as though they ought to be afraid of the big man in the sky. It is not right to tell people that they should not live their lives as they as humans desire, of course under the implications of rational and just laws granted, but with a brain full of science and real knowledge rather than fear and abuse.
I say it is still our duty to educate those of theism because if we do not, they are a danger to us all.
Pro - This is a debate, not a platform for personal views.
Readers / Voters: So far there has been a complete lack of substantiated argument Pro. A debate is characterised by the very fact it contains substantiated argument.
Pro - I have looked at your profile and realised you are also a new member, a student and while you do not say your gender, you are happy to tell me you are interested in Women (A very masculine response).
Readers / Voters: Rather than bore you or myself continuing a debate against lazy un-substantiated rhetoric, I would like to leave a thought.
If every person worked to increase the "good" around them instead of working for money would we all starve?
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.