Spreading atheism brings more benefit to an individual or to a society than not spreading it.
Debate Rounds (4)
This my very first debate. This topic was something me & my friend had, so we try to bring it here.
R1 : Acceptance
R2: Main arguments. Rebuttals from Pro
Statements which are agreed before debate:
1) Atheism may or may not be true.
2) There is no afterlife. Example: benefits of getting into heaven cannot be proposed. Only the benefits we can receive in this life can be argued here.
This is my very first debate too and i decided why not take up the challenge :)
i do apologize in advance if my style of debate seems amateurish, so here goes.
Before i begin, i would like to affirm the motion stated above that i do believe that spreading atheism definitely brings more benefit to an individual or to a society than not spreading it.
The idea of spreading knowledge
Atheism like many other forms of philosophy is a valid form of knowledge in its own way and like any other theories, can be true or false. And knowledge by itself is important, the more educated or the more exposed a man is to a specific issue or topic. His/Her mind broadens, gaining new perspectives. We flourish through education and understanding, as long as there is chance for the statement to be true.
Take for example the model of the atom, a long time ago people discovered the existence of atoms and the concept of it. therefore the first atom model was created = only one ball. and people who lived in that era, perceived it as knowledge! a form of truth.
but guess what? later on a new form of particle called electron is discovered within the atom! so the model was updated and people from that era perceived the 2nd model to be the "truth"
What i am trying to get at here is the idea that even though the first atomic model was far from the model we have today (which possibly even completely accurate yet) but because of that 1st model. The 1st step in understanding the subject was made and it would flourish from there. we know it was just a theory (could be true or false) but the important thing is that there was a chance for it to be true, even the slightest.
People grow from knowledge, we evolve, we think, we are curious in nature. The major reason in the past few decades (or possibly centuries in different regions of the world) science, philosophy, technology has advanced so much is because of education! we inform people of theories, concepts, ideas of different sorts.
And of course, this in turn benefits us! With more education, we understand what we initially could not grasp, we exceed the limits we were told impossible and this is all because : We are informed.
To be informed is so important, i cannot even stress it with my own words. Atheism should be spread as a form of information/knowledge like many other concepts of beliefs and it will be up to the people themselves to decide themselves as to what is true and what is false. Knowledge should always be provided as it gives room for nourishment and growth, people should question themselves and decide themselves as to what they think is right or wrong. This character of human nature is what makes us so unique today, deciding ourselves as to what is right or wrong, making us unique individuals.
I would like to also mention that Atheism is healthy in a way that it creates doubt. Doubt is always good in life, one can never be too sure about anything. Ironically, atheism actually helps religion in a way and allow me to explain.
You see, religion is based on faith. unconditional trust in a way if i may say. If the idea of atheism is spread, people would actually understand that there is in fact a possibility that there is no god/deities/higher power, etc.
This in turn causes a room for doubt and it is important that a believer in religion should/must have no doubt in his/her own religion. If a believer is informed and understands the idea of atheism (not necessarily accepting it) and stills have complete faith in his/her own religion, that shows a great sense of commitment and will be much more beneficial for the believer and the religion. The important question here to note is that what is the point of having faith in something that a part of you don't believe in? In this sense, atheism actually strengthens and separate true believers and those that are not.
With the spread of atheism, people can define their own personality and beliefs much better. People deserved to be informed of different sorts of ideas and knowledge.
I hereby rest my case and would like to again apologize if the argument seems sloppy or amateurish as no research was done and this is just a piece of my mind. Constructive criticisms will be highly appreciated and noted.
Thank you for taking your time to read my side of the argument
It is a minor issue perhaps, but I think I should mention it. Round 1 was for you to accept the debate, but you seem to want to start off immediately. Fine with me, but try to follow the rules next time. =)
This leads to minor changes. You have to conclude first, which is in Round 3. I will conclude second which is in round 4. After my conclusion the debate will end, which means you should stay quiet for Round 4. But we'll see. It's not a competition, but I would like to experience a real debate. And please remind me also, if I did anything wrong.
I'll start with my arguments before my rebuttals.
I am going to support the statement that, spreading atheism benefits less than not spreading it. First, I will point out the danger in spreading atheism. Secondly, I will point out the benefits of not spreading atheism.
1)Increased crime rate
A society benefits from a low crime-rate. Take a society, which consists of mostly Christians, for an example. According to their religion, they will be judged after their deaths . They will go to either hell or heaven, judging from how good or bad they were while they live. This not only plants fear which prevents them from doing evil, but also encourages them to do good deeds. Spreading atheism to this community will destroy their faiths, and increase the likelihood that they will commit crime. High crime rate dangers a society. Therefore, spreading atheism to a society dangers it, not benefitting it.
2)Waste of time and resources.
Now, I would like to point out the benefits of not spreading atheism. Using time and resource in an unwasteful manner benefits the society. Like Pro agreed in Round 1, we are not arguing whether atheism is the truth or not. The fact, that no one can yet prove that god exist or that god do not exist shows already that spreading atheism is a waste of time and resource. Why take your time to spread things, which haven"t been proven yet? I totally agree with researches to prove whether god exists. But spreading it before reaching the conclusion? I find this act not only wasteful but shows that they aren"t aware of real problems such as, racism, global financial crisis, poverty and global warming. Thus, not spreading atheism gives more benefit to that society.
Now, for my rebuttals:
Rebuttals against Pro's points
1)"And knowledge by itself is important"
By definition, knowledge is facts, information and skills acquired through experience or education.
Since accepting this debate forces Pro to agree that atheism may or may not be true (see Round 1), and statements which may be true are NOT facts, which allows me to say for this debate that, atheism is NOT a form of knowledge.
I agree the use of the word "theory", which Pro did use in a couple of occasions. But using the word "knowledge" would only confuse the readers.
2)First atom model leads to second model.
While I agree that, spreading a false theory could have its benefit, which can be seen in Pro's example of the first atom model, but it does not mean that the spreading of every false theory would bring benefit. And the situation is totally different. The first atom model was proven to be true (at that time) and later on rejected because new experiments proved otherwise. Whereas atheism has never being proven to be true and thus does not deserve to be spread.
It is an irresponsible thing to spread false theory, only to hope that by doing so it will lead to the truth. In the process, society will suffer high crime-rates and waste of resource like I argued earlier. The costs are too high for a theory which might or might not give benefit in the future.
3)"To be informed is so important" and "Atheism should be spread as a form of information/knowledge"
Again, Atheism cannot be considered a knowledge, not yet and not in this debate. Thus, it is not important to be informed with something that may or may not be true.
4)"With the spread of atheism, people can define their own personality and beliefs much better"
Some personalities are better left undefined. For an example, a pedophile individual might be better of being left religious. So I'm not accepting this as a benefit unless Pro can give other examples which clearly shows that it benefits an individual or society.
So I conclude that, spreading atheism does not give more benefit to an individual or a society, than not spreading it, because it leads to higher crime rates and it wastes time and resources.
Pro's arguments, in my opinion, fail to prove that spreading atheism gives more benefit to an individual or society than not spreading it.
Thank you. Now is Pro turn to rebut my argument.
Rebuttals against Con's main argument
A1. Con argued that in a society which consists of Christians, crime rate would be lower than it is without due to the point that according to their religion, judgement would be made and fear prevents evil deeds since at the end of the day they will be entering hell or heaven based on their deeds on earth.
The first point brought up by Con is highly ignorant thus making it incorrect and i would explain why. Con being the party that instigated the debate has laid the ground rules. (please refer to statements agreed no 2, round 1)
With the statement kept in mind, Con has defeated his/her own argument and DID NOT follow his/her own rules as afterlife cannot be proposed and benefits of heaven and hell are invalid.
On top of that, take a look mankind history and we can all see that some wars, disputes, early imperialism and other negative events are tied to religion. Malaysia, was once invaded by the Dutch and British empire during the Colonist-era and one of the reasons used was to spread religion. So much killing was involved for those who were trying defend and colonize the country. And do keep in mind that Malaysia was not the only country exploited during the Colonist-era.
Have we forgotten that part of the reason certain countries are in tensed relations are also due to the religion? Suicide bombers? Hate crimes in the name of religion?Even with the fact that Con has breached his/her own rules which I agreed upon, Con's argument does not stand for itself and is of a weak one. If that is your idea of "low crime rates" Con, please rethink your argument.
A2. Con suggested that since no one can prove Atheism is true or false, spreading it is a waste of time and resources.
Con stated in his/her argument that Con totally agrees with researches to prove whether god exists. This statement is completely denied as same as the Con, I can argue that no one can prove the existence of god THUS making it a WASTE of time and resources to spread it. Your argument is highly opinionated and maybe even personal, causing it to be unfitting for it to stand by itself as a point. Again, Con's argument has defeated itself and has shown weakness.
And to top things up, Con believes that if something cannot be proved yet it is a waste of time and resources.
Ladies and Gentlemen, is spreading unproved fiction/fact a waste of time and resources?
- Research made to prove inter-galactic life form. Movies, books, fictions, comics, etc about Aliens. No one has seem to completely prove the existence of Aliens yet the spread of the idea seems worldwide and so dominant. So is it a waste of time and resources to spread the idea of an outer life form? Doesn't seem like the trend and even I do not believe so.
- Religion. Can you prove it? That's one of the ultimate questions and there is a reason why it is remained till this very day, A QUESTION. Then again, the world seems pretty hyped about the idea of religion and I have nothing against it but can u say that an unproven fact should not be spread because it is a waste of time and resources? Nope.
Now, I would like to defend my own arguments and show that Con's rebuttals are invalid.
B1. Con used Oxford Dictionaries to prove that since Atheism is not a fact, it cannot be a form of knowledge.
While I could waste my time searching from another reliable source to argue, I choose not to as Con has done something IGNORANT AGAIN. Read carefully as to the FULL definition.
- "the THEORETICAL or practical understanding of a subject"
Never have I stated that Atheism is a complete fact and IT IS a THEORY. and according to the definition given by CON, a theoretical understanding of a subject CAN be a form of knowledge.
B2. "The costs are too high for a theory which might or might not give benefit"
Since i already proven that Atheism is in fact a form of knowledge, and i have rebutted and proven as to why fact/fiction spread is NOT a waste of time or resources (refer to rebuttals 2). Your argument just became invalid.
B3. Con suggests that Atheism is not a form of knowledge therefore is unimportant to spread it.
Again refer to B1, I have already shown that Atheism IS in fact a form of knowledge thus making your argument invalid.
B4. It is not for Con to decide whether personalities are better left undefined and by doing so, Con is on the edge of breaching our constitutional rights. The right to voice out, choose and be who we want to be. The benefit I stated was the extra OPTION, to be who you choose to be.
Cons argument is highly flawed and ignorant and in turn fail to prove his/her motion.
Through disproving Con's points and rebuttals, Con's argument is flimsy and my motion will stand firm.
First, I would like to defend my own arguments
A1.1 "Con has defeated his/her own argument and DID NOT follow his/her own rules as afterlife cannot be proposed"
I would like to show that I wasn"t breaking any rules. Statement 2 round 1, clearly says that both sides must agree for this debate"s sake that there is no afterlife. However, one is still allowed to use the term as long as the existence of it does not help either house"s argument. I did not claim that in my argument that Day of Judgment really do exist. Instead, I stated that Christians believe that they do.
I can say to a friend of mine, "My son believes in Santa Claus". But it doesn"t mean that Santa Claus exists, or that I believe that he exists.
Those are two different things and I hope voters are aware of this false accusation. And I beg Pro to read the rules carefully. It"s already the second time now.
A1.2 "we can all see that some wars, disputes, early imperialism and other negative events are tied to religion"
Now, Pro shows that he doesn"t really understand the topic of the debate. I am not arguing that a religious community is better than an atheist community. I am arguing whether SPREADING atheism would benefit a society.
In my first argument in Round 2, I said spreading atheism to a Christian community would increase crime-rate. The acquiring of a new-found freedom of a religious person will increase the likelihood of a person to do crime. New-found freedom here means the freedom from the need to obey God.
Your argument shows only how bad a religion is, while the topic is about the change of state from a religious to a non-religious society. Let me make it clear, your job was to prove that the attempt of change of a religious society to non-religious one would benefit that society.
A1.3 "part of the reason certain countries are in tensed relations are also due to the religion? Suicide bombers? Hate crimes in the name of religion?"
My argument stands. Spreading of atheism is being done as we speak. Yet we still have hate crimes and tensed relations due to religion. Thus, this statement only shows that spreading atheism isn"t helping the situation.
A2.1 "This statement is completely denied as same as the Con, I can argue that no one can prove the existence of god THUS making it a WASTE of time and resources to spread it."
I didn"t argue that it would be beneficial to spread the theory that God do exist. Arguing about that won"t even help my case. I am only against spreading atheism, not for spreading religion. This is a straw man fallacy from Pro and I hope voters ignore this statement.
A2.2 "No one has seemed to completely prove the existence of Aliens yet the spread of the idea seems worldwide and so dominant."
Here Pro fails to show the benefit of spreading atheism. Pro even fails to show the benefit of research to prove inter-galactic life forms. Though, proving even that won"t support his case.
We are arguing whether spreading atheism benefits society more than not spreading it. I won"t and don"t need to defend religion in order for me to win this debate.
Next, I will defend my own argument.
B1.1" Read carefully as to the FULL definition.
- the THEORETICAL or practical understanding of a subject"
Finally, a mistake from my side, which Pro is so eager to point out. I admit this mistake of not properly defining the word "knowledge". The term that I was looking for was actually "unproved knowledge". Thank you Pro for correcting me, but it doesn"t change a thing.
Before, I said that knowledge and theory is different because the latter is unproved. It seems knowledge can also be unproved. Thus, I maintain my argument by just adding "unproved" to the word "knowledge".
B2.1 "i have rebutted and proven as to why fact/fiction spread is NOT a waste of time or resources"
If Pro is referring to the research of inter-galactic life forms, then I argue that, Pro has not showed the benefits from those researches. And since Pro didn"t show those benefit, I have no need to argue against something he didn"t propose.
B3.1 ", I have already shown that Atheism IS in fact a form of knowledge thus making your argument invalid."
Yes. Atheism is a form of knowledge, but not a proved one. Thus my argument stands.
B4.1 "Con is on the edge of breaching our constitutional rights."
This is another false accusation. I am merely stating my opinion that, spreading atheism brings harm to the society. I have the right to state my opinion. Here, Pro fails to counter my example of letting pedophile keeps their religion. Worse, Pro ignores my statement that, he has insufficient examples of benefits to support his stand.
Pro has more rebuts against my argument than arguments to support his own stand. Pro"s arguments and rebuttals are weak. Some are off-topic. On the other hand, my arguments still stand. But, I am looking forward for Pro"s conclusion. Thank you for reading.
A1.1 Con claimed that he did not break any of his own rules and justifies it poorly.
this is statement 2 agreed before debate :
"2) There is no afterlife. Example: benefits of getting into heaven cannot be proposed. Only the benefits we can receive in this life can be argued here." I qoute here, word by word from Con.
It clearly states there that : "Benefits of getting into heaven cannot be proposed." and Con mentioned in Round 3 that :
"one is still allowed to use the term as long as the existence of it does not help either house"s argument"
According to Con's primary argument in Round 2, he stated that Christians will do more good and will be afraid of conducting evil DUE TO BEING JUDGED AFTER THEIR DEATHS hence with the existence of religion, crime rate is reduced and the spread of atheism denies that.
How is Con not breaking his own rules? Con used the event of "Last Judgement" (afterlife) in order to proof his point.
I hope everyone is aware that this is NOT a false accusation.
A1.2 Con believes that I misunderstood the topic but Con did not pay attention to my argument.
Here, I quote Con word by word again - "I am not arguing that a religious community is better than an atheist community."
As you can see, Con is not arguing that a religious community is better and from this statement we can at least deduct that con DOESN'T disagree that an atheist community IS better.
Moving on, Con argued that spreading atheism to a Christian community would increase crime rate. 2 major things to be noted.
1 - Con, in order to prove such a statement, you need EVIDENCE not just pure deduction from your opinion. and the only reason i mentioned that religion can be dangerous too was to prove that your point CAN be invalid.
2 - Con, you are sorely mistaken. My job as the Pro is NOT to prove that attempt to change a religious society to non-religious would benefit the society but to prove that SPREADING atheism brings benefit.
example : If Atheism is spread, people become more exposed and informed, people learn more from the theory regardless REJECTING or ACCEPTING it but to LEARN from it. It is a choice that we are all entitled to.
A1.3 I did not say that spreading atheism would help decrease crime rate or increase bad things from happening, i merely pointed out that you using religion as a way to prove your point is not valid by showing real life examples.
A2 Con has completely mistaken my point and believes that i failed to support my case.
I qoute Con "I totally agree with researches to prove whether god exists."
Indeed, and I agree with your statement BUT part of proving and understanding whether god exists or not is through the education of Atheism. Which shows that Atheism does bring benefit as again as i mentioned, it exposes people to a different kind of theory, one of which they deserve to know of.
When i used the examples of Aliens and Gods in Round2, I was merely proving that spreading unproved knowledge (which includes atheism) IS NOT a waste of time and resources which Con so heavily believes that it is.
And by proving so, it DOES support my case as I am arguing that since Atheism is a form of knowledge and a field waiting to be explored even more, it is NOT a waste of time and resources to spread atheism as it is beneficial for the masses to know more.
B1.1 Con updated his stand from Atheism not being a form of knowledge to "Unproved Knowledge"
Here we can finally see that Con realizes that Atheism is in fact a form of knowledge (and a very interesting one)
Con merely suggests that Atheism is unproved which i completely AGREE! I've stated in my primary argument that as long as there is chance for certain knowledge to be true, we as humans can learn and nourish from it.
Example : Atheism finally proved to be untrue. Now we finally reached to the LONG AWAITED FINAL CONCLUSION that God does exists! Yay!
BUT WAIT. how do we achieve that? Through spreading Atheism of course! We should always inform people of new forms of knowledge and this is what makes us humans so unique - Knowledge.
B2.1 I've already shown that Con mistaken my point of argument in A2 and I have already shown that it is beneficial to spread Knowledge as long as there is a chance for it to be true.
B3.1 Con : "Yes. Atheism is a form of knowledge, but not a proved one."
Again! Con suggests that as long as Atheism is unproved, his argument stands. I have already shown the my primary argument in round 1 that unproved knowledge still DESERVES to be spread and heard (plus refer to B1.1)
B4.1 My argument stands on the basic fact that I believe people should be informed of all forms of knowledge to develop their own choices and personality. and while con said :"Some personalities are better left undefined". I urge the audience to understand : Who is Con to think so?
Thank you very much and may the best win.
For my conclusion, i would like to categorize, what was argued, in two parts. The reason for this is due to Pro not fully understanding the topic. He should be searching for benefits of SPREADING atheism NOT advantages of atheism over religious society. Pro should be looking for the benefits of the transition from a religious to non-religious society, not observing two different society statically. The first part is, "Arguments which involved SPREADING of atheism", and the second part is "Unrelated argument
1) Arguments which involved spreading of atheism. (from me)
1a)I argue spreading atheism increase crime rate. I'm NOT saying atheist societies have higher crime rates. I believe the contrary. But spreading atheism to an already religious society can cause the members of the society to commit crime due to the newly found freedom.
Here Pro argue, that i did not follow the rules. I did and i explained it. WE as DEBATERS should agree that afterlife does not exist. In my main argument, I only said the CHRISTIANS believed in the Day of Judgement. The Christians mentioned are NOT the debaters, thus THEM believing in afterlife does not makes ME a rule-breaker. The rules mean, i can't argue "Spreading atheism would cause the Christians to lose faith to go to hell". I can't argue that since afterlife does not exist. Ladies and Gentlemen, please understand this difference.
1b)Spreading atheism wastes time and resource. (from me)
Since atheism is unproved and would worsen an ALREADY religious society, spreading it would only waste resources. This point became much stronger, since Pro unable to give any benefits of spreading atheism.
Pro argue that, if the research of intergalactic form benefits, spreading atheism would also benefit. I said in reply, the benefits of those researches doesn't benefit spreading atheism.
1c)Knowledge should be expose (from Pro)
Pro argues that atheism should be spread because knowledge should be exposed. In other words, Pro is stating, Atheism should be spread because Atheism( a knowledge) should be spread. Again, there is no benefit attached to it.
Pro gives an example, the first atom model, to show that knowledge is worth spreading even though it is false. But i argued, a benefit in spreading one false knowledge does not mean every false knowledge should be exposed.
These arguments should be ignored because it does NOT builds up my or his case.
2a) Historic wars caused by religion. Suicide bombing. (from Pro)
Here Pro is simply stating the bad things religious society do. I am not defending religious society. Pro is attacking no one with this statement.
2b) Spreading knowledge about the existence of God is also a waste of resource. (from Pro)
Again. Pro is attacking no one. But Pro put it in a way, that is sounds like he is attacking me. I hope voters are not easily fooled.
My conclusion is Pro's defenses are weak, his attacks weaker, each i have sufficiently rebutted. I have two points which still stands. Two points against none should make me a clear winner. Pro has better words than me, that i have to admit. But when it comes down to it, the one who has the better argument wins.
Ladies and Gentleman, thank you for reading.
Pro, may the best man wins.
Although i cannot speak much for Con but i am at least sure that we both hoped the audience enjoyed the debate and provide us with constructive criticisms as this happens to be both our very first debate here :)
The debate has ended as the both of us had 3 turns each. Part of this is due to me not paying full attention to the rules (instead of round 1 acceptance only, i jumped right straight into arguing. Sorry, I was too excited lol.)
On a personal note, I truly appreciate Con's argument very much but personally I still strongly believe that the spread of Atheism is highly important.
Please note : None of the information above should be taken into consideration when judging.
Thank you and have a nice day :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate