The Instigator
Hunter695
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Jzyehoshua
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should athiests be exterminated? (Genocide be commited)

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...
Jzyehoshua
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,447 times Debate No: 63645
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

Hunter695

Con

You are talking about genocide here!! How can you think that genocide would ever be okay ever?!?! Atheists are not bad people. We really are just misunderstood. we are not against god, because you can't be against something that you don't believe is real!
Jzyehoshua

Pro

I argue that "athiests" should be exterminated from the English language because it is a misspelling of "atheists" and for purposes of an orderly debate site we should focus strictly on appropriate, proper vocabulary and grammar.

Concerning the seemingly unrelated contention regarding the appropriately spelled "atheists" being good people, I would observe that atheists have perpetrated murder themselves, genocide of hundreds of millions of people, by killing those they disagree with. Just to give some examples:

-Atheists have killed 200 million female children in Asia resulting in a mass gender disparity caused by sex-selective abortion.[1]

-Atheists under Stalin murdered 20 million in the Soviet Union.[2]

-Hitler's atheistic government resulted in 55 to 136 million people dying.[3] While atheists prefer to dispute that Hitler's government was atheist, the German word for Nazis, 'Nationalsozialismus', literally translates as "national socialist party" or "national socialism," and is based around the concept of social darwinism.[4] Furthermore, the Nazis were actively anti-religious, arresting 800 German pastors and martyring some like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.[5] Christians who harbored Jews were killed or persecuted, e.g. Andres Trocme, Geertruida Wijsmuller-Meijer, Cornelia ten Boom, Sister Anna Borkowska, Clement Sheptytsky, Ona "imaitė, the Skobtsova family, Irena Sendler, J"zef and Wiktoria Ulma, and Maria Kotarba. Germany was the hub of secular atheistic thought attacking Christianity even before Hitler, see Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst Haeckel, Karl Marx, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Julius Welhausen, Hermann Gunkel, Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Wilhelm Wundt.

-Mao Zhedong killed 18-45 million in China's Great Leap Forward.[6]

-North Korea has killed 5 million under Kim Jong Il and continues executing Christians for their faith even today.[7]

-Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge killed 2 million in the Cambodian Genocide.[8]

Furthermore, atheists argue against basic ethics and morality, claiming that without a higher power there is no ultimate moral law to the universe. As pointed out by Ravi Zacharias, without a moral Lawgiver there can be no moral law to the universe, i.e. no true good and evil.[9] Thus one will regularly see atheists argue in favor of moral relativism, that morality is simply specific to cultures and ultimately nothing is wrong in and of itself as they must ultimately condone even the greatest of evils like Hitler's genocide as simply the culture doing what was right for them. However, in doing so by denying the absolute existence of evil, they negate any right to claim the existence of evil in the world disproves a Creator.

What it all comes down to is that atheists are trying to deny away the concept of evil because they prefer evil to good, and to justify their own immoral actions they must deny away the implications of a Creator to whom one owes moral responsibilities. One can thus often see them actively attacking the very concept of morality as an objective reality itself, as they try to deny that right (and especially wrong) exists.

Now, would I argue for "genocide" of atheists? No, simply for destruction of "athiests" since it is a vocabulary mistake. While I personally see atheists as an ultimate force for evil in the world, and the primary opponents of morality in the universe, to commit genocide against them as they do against others would make one no better than them. To seek to remove their inalienable rights would destroy the ideals of the founding fathers, and will ultimately spiral to destruction of rights for all.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
http://news.discovery.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://xwalk.ca...
Debate Round No. 1
Hunter695

Con

Hunter695 forfeited this round.
Jzyehoshua

Pro

Jzyehoshua forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Hunter695

Con

Hunter695 forfeited this round.
Jzyehoshua

Pro

Jzyehoshua forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Hunter695

Con

Hunter695 forfeited this round.
Jzyehoshua

Pro

Jzyehoshua forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Hunter695

Con

Hunter695 forfeited this round.
Jzyehoshua

Pro

Jzyehoshua forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Scoff all you want, it's your view that's indefensible from examining the evidence.
Posted by SweetLiberty 2 years ago
SweetLiberty
A Christian stating, " I don't think Roman Catholicism is Christian" - priceless! Boy will they be surprised when the get to hell!
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Ultimately, atheists have killed far more people over the past century than all other religions combined have. Trying to claim that it wasn't in the name of atheism is a cop-out. Whether it was in the name of atheism is irrelevant to the fact that atheists themselves have killed hundreds of millions of people in just the past one hundred years. Furthermore, that clearly shows that religion is not the cause of violence, for there is even more violence without religion.

As Benjamin Franklin once said to Thomas Paine, "If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?"
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
And the Inquisition like the Crusades actually persecuted Protestants specifically, a fact that often gets conveniently overlooked by atheists in these discussions. Protestant groups such as the Cathars and Waldenses were the main reason the Inquisition started, Catholicism wanted to destroy Christians just as Rome originally did in the first few centuries of Christianity's existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rome just pretended to adopt Christianity under Constantine in the 4th century to preserve Roman paganism and justify its slaughter of Christians whose popular appeal had continued despite Rome's best efforts to kill them off. At any rate, my point is that what you're mentioning was actually a slaughter by Roman pagans known as Catholics of Christian protestants. Rather than a killing of irreligious by religious, it was a slaughter of Christians specifically, something Rome (which the book of Revelation identifies as Satan's headquarters, i.e. Babylon) has always been guilty of.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Well now we agree on the Crusades. :) I don't think they were committed by people acting on behalf of Christianity because I don't think Roman Catholicism is Christian. In fact, if you look at one of the early Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, it specifically targeted Protestant Christian pacifists known as the Albigenses, as well as other groups such as the Cathar and Bogamils.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There were a long lineage of groups persecuted by Catholicism long before the Crusades however which to me appear to have been the real Christians, not Catholicism. This is best seen in the chart by J.M. Carroll known as the Trail of Blood (although I don't necessarily agree with Carroll that it indicates Baptist successionism specifically, just protestants in general).

http://mbcmckinney.com...

As much as I dislike Catholicism however, the Crusades were not the "persecution of poor Muslims" war that they are made out to be though. Actually Islam had been invading Europe for centuries in what is known as the Muslim Conquests. They had even sacked Rome in A.D. 846. Both Catholicism and Islam committed their share of war crimes in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As for Catholics and Protestants, depends on which group of protestants. Some protestants were violent like the Lutherans and actually persecuted peaceful protestants such as the anabaptists and mennonites. Some like the presbyterians affiliate more closely with Catholic traditions, while others like the Quakers were the earliest freedom fighters against slavery. My point is, it differs by denomination what the history involved is.
Posted by SweetLiberty 2 years ago
SweetLiberty
@ Jzyehoshua... You are right. I foolishly failed to scrutinize whether the wrongdoers were in fact Christian, or acting on behalf of Christianity... like in the case of the crusades. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the popes who ordered those crusades probably weren't really Christian, and those following the papal mandates were not acting in the name of Christianity. Certainly there's no record of pagans or Jews being killed in the name of Christianity . And you're right - torturing and burning to death witches just because a few foolish non-Christians decided to follow the bible literally is not a fair example. We can safely ignore the European witch-trials (especially in Germany) and focus only on that one nutty single town of Salem. Neither the Protestants nor Catholics ever murdered each other in the name of Christianity (and if they did, well, they weren't "real" Christians). Furthermore, the Spanish, Mexican, Peruvian, and Portuguese Inquisitions should really be examined to determine if these were carried out by Christians or leprechauns.

And it is mere quibbling to say that one group (Christians) was killing in the name of their religion, and the other one (atheists) was not. Just because Christianity actually IS a religion and atheism is NOT shouldn't enter into the equation. I'm sure you personally have taken many actions you can attribute to the fact that you have a lack of belief in Odin, Zeus, Vishnu, etc. Atheists should also realize that all their actions are driven by a lack of belief in Odin, Zeus, Vishnu, oh, and add Yahweh, etc.

And human rights violations in China and North Korea are indeed committed in the name of not believing in Thor, and not some socialist ideology that fears the threat of any rival religious or political power threatening their monopoly. Certainly no one in North Korea ever viewed Kim Jong-Il as a god who could control the weather based on his mood.

Your point has been cleverly proven.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Ultimately atheists have killed in the name of both Marx's and Darwin's writings. Stalin killed numerous people based on what Marx wrote. Joseph Mengele and other Nazi scientists were influenced by Ernst Haeckel and Darwinism. Communist countries like China and North Korea that are based off Marx's writings slaughter thousands of people even today.

It seems like quibbling to say that one group (Christians) was killing in the name of their religion, and the other one (atheists) was not.

You bring up the Salem witch trials which involved what, 20 executions, mainly in one single nutty town (Salem)? I realize you'll this quantitative not qualitative, but it seems ironic that you want to write off the killing of hundreds of millions by atheistic governments while focusing on the execution of 20 people in Massachusetts.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
SweetLiberty, I cannot help but notice that it is taken for granted by critics of Christianity that anything wrong done by someone who calls themselves a Christian is done "in the name of Christianity." There appears little concern for, or scrutiny, as to whether the wrongdoer was in fact a Christian, or whether they were acting on behalf of Christianity.

However, when addressing wrongs done by atheist government, now suddenly it is being argued by atheists that the wrongs weren't done "in the name of atheism" even when the governments in question were openly atheist and killing those of other religions (which by the way still openly occurs today in countries like China and North Korea which are blatantly atheist).

To me this seems a double standard, if there is a burden of proof as to whether an atheist is doing wrong in the name of atheism, then the same standard must be applied to a Christian also.
Posted by SweetLiberty 3 years ago
SweetLiberty
@Atmas... Not to create a mutual admiration society here, but when you say, "Morals are subjective and dependent on circumstances, it is the collective agreement of subjective moral decisions that make morals appear objective," I think you're absolutely spot on.
Posted by Atmas 3 years ago
Atmas
Nicely put Liberty. I find it hilarious that Atheism is thought of as a belief system, lack of belief is not belief. So when people see atheists commit crimes it's because their beliefs doesn't give them any morals, yet when a religious person commits a crime in the name of their religious morals, that person is just crazy and insane. There doesn't have to be a universal moral code for morals and ethics to exist and work. Morals are subjective and dependent on circumstances, it is the collective agreement of subjective moral decisions that make morals appear objective. If we have to rely on you being faithful to a book to not go out and murder everyone you see, why wouldn't we call you crazy?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hawkeye117 2 years ago
Hawkeye117
Hunter695JzyehoshuaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Really this was a bad debate only pro gave a lagitament argument but is also supporting genocide which is something no one should ever agree to.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Hunter695JzyehoshuaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro completely beats out con.