The Instigator
mastajake
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Stalin and Mao are insufficient examples of why an 'atheist' is unethical

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 5 votes the winner is...
mastajake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,903 times Debate No: 6098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (68)
Votes (5)

 

mastajake

Pro

First off I would like to give thanks to whom ever excepts this debate and good luck to them.

Rules: NO SEMANTICS

Prologue:
Now I have had people, more than once, use Stalin and Mao as examples of why an atheist is unethical and I am ready to put an end to this ignorant reasoning.

Definitions:

Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Dogmatic - asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

Communist - an advocate of communism.

************************************
Contentions:

1. Stalin and Mao were not only atheist -

Stalin and Mao were not only atheists but they were also dogmatic communists which is the real and true drive of the malignant acts of these two well know dictators, given thus atheism is not the reason for there unethical behavior and acts, it is their dogmatic communism. They would do what ever the means were to attain their supposed supreme position in dictatorship even if it meant to do irrational things. It is there dogmatic communism at fault here, not atheism.

2. Atheism -

There are no driving doctrines or substandards for atheism to amount to such atrocities. Atheism is a mere disbelief and nothing more. It does not uphold any malignant forces sufficing it to be unethical whatsoever.

************************************
Conclusion:

Stalin and Mao are insufficient examples of why an atheist is unethical. It is not atheism at blame for their unethical behavior, it is the driving doctrines of their dogmatic communism.

I feel my debate is sufficient, ergo I anticipate my opponents response

Thank you
~ Mastajake

Sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Logical-Master

Con

Alright, I would first like to thank my opponent, mastajake, for hosting this debate. Second, I would like to reiterate that I am playing devil's advocate here, so lets do without the typical fruitless flame wars which have a tendency of sprouting after topics like these. Though if you do feel inclined to "teach me a lesson", I'd prefer you do it entirely with substance rather than rely on style; Arguments = Fun . . . Insults = Boring. :D

Now, let us begin:

I'm going to make this round nice and simple.

==========
RE PRO's case:
==========

His case is broken into two contentions (one being that Stalin and Mao were not only atheist and the other being that there are no driving doctrines or substandard for atheism to amount to such atrocities). Although I concur with his first contention, I must point out that his second contention is his undoing when in conjunction with one of his answers to my questions which I made during cross examination (comment section).

In response to whether or not atheism could contribute to an immoral action, PRO clearly states that it cannot while suggesting that theism can as shown by the events during 911. Keep in mind that this was in response to a question where I clearly made it known that theism (the mere belief in deity and nothing more) could bring about immorality. Due to the logic (or lack of) of his response, PRO not only contradicts his own argument, but provides some ammunition for my position as well. Indeed, as these hijackers were not merely theist, but devout followers of Islam . . . just as both Stalin and Mao were not only atheist, but dogmatic communists (same applies for his crusades example).

Point: If the secondary beliefs/ideas (Islam and communism in this case) are deemed irrelevant when approaching the topic of morality, then PRO must concede to Stalin and Mao being sufficient examples of demonstrating atheism as a link to immorality.

========================================
There are societies which consider atheism as being immoral
========================================

If ethics are subjective, hence determined based on situation/society as my opponent himself has claimed during questioning, we must keep in mind that there are theistic religious societies active today (Islamic being a good example) which deem rejection of their "god" as being immoral. Based on the principles of these societies, one could be deemed unethical for merely being an atheist, hence the resolution would more than easily be negated

========
Conclusion
========

We can use either of the two above points to conclude that Stalin and Mao are sufficient examples of why an atheist is unethical. The second point is infinitely more damaging to the position of my opponent given that it's not only based on something which he acknowledged, but that there's really no way to uphold the PRO stance with moral subjectivism given that my opponent shall be having no choice but to acknowledge the cultures which have different ideas on morals.

And yeah, that's all I care to delve into at the moment. Some of these points may need clarification depending on how my opponent responds.

Alright, I threw out a few questionable elements so I'm sure there isn't a single drop of semantics above. I now await my opponent's R2. :D
Debate Round No. 1
mastajake

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his witted and diligent responses. I would also like to agree with my opponents statement in his opening paragraph of his R1 debate, Lets keep this one civil, not only in the debate (which I am sure me and L- M can handle ourselves), but also those that respond in the comments, Thank you.

I would also like to thank my opponent for formatting his debate in an organized fashion.

******************************
Debate/Rebuttals:

Rebuttal: to your "RE PRO's case:"

L-M says, "Although I concur with his first contention, I must point out that his second contention is his undoing when in conjunction with one of his answers to my questions which I made during cross examination"

-- I don't see how any of my answers would lead to the fact that those two arguments in conjunction would be 'undoing' one or the other. So if you could for me, substantiate on your claim as quoted, it would be greatly appreciated, also if you could when you do, note which question it was and my correct response as well.

L-M says, "In response to whether or not atheism could contribute to an immoral action, PRO clearly states that it cannot while suggesting that theism can as shown by the events during 911."

-- The key to my reasoning as so is because you specifically noted 'could contribute'. Atheism, the (as defined) lack of belief, couldn't have contributed, it is merely lack of belief. Many people have a lack of belief in many things such as fairys, abominable snow man ect., how can 'the lack of' contribute to something that is irrelevant to the lack of belief, it can't. Ethics in this case are irrelevant to 'the lack of belief in a deity' otherwise known as atheism. Theism on the other hand can contribute to immoral actions. Theism, the (as defined) belief in god, can and has contributed to an immoral decision/action. Example; The 9/11 hijackers particular theism contributed to their decision in committing an atrocity. Again, clarified the hijackers committed an atrocity deemed immoral by many, and the belief in a god contributed to this unethical act.

"known that theism (the mere belief in deity and nothing more) could bring about immorality."
-- ahh but you said 'contribute'

L-M asked me "I'd like to know whether or not someone could be considered unethical merely for being a theist"
-- My specific answer to this was "No", so in terms of me contradicting myself ( as L-M noted I was doing), well it is simply untrue, as you can see by my answers. I suggest that you ( the reader ) evaluate my responses to L-M's questions for yourself to determine this though.

L-M states "Point: If the secondary beliefs/ideas (Islam and communism in this case) are deemed irrelevant when approaching the topic of morality, then PRO must concede to Stalin and Mao being sufficient examples of demonstrating atheism as a link to immorality."

-- Here is the thing, atheism isn't contributing to their communism, ruling only communism at fault, not atheism. Now for example, theism and the Islamic world views BOTH contributed to that immoral act, making this an entirely different type of claim than the one I made about Stalins and Maos 'not only are they atheism, but also communism' argument, because only one of these two attributes are at fault here and that would be the communism. In the example I have provided about 9/11 both of the attributes (theism & Islamic extremism) were at some fault because they both contributed.

Rebuttal: To your "There are societies which consider atheism as being immoral"

I would like to first note that, I agreed that ethics/morals are subjective, which they undoubtedly are, but this doesn't make someone Else's ethical standards absolute truth. There is really no way this argument can suffice my argument as moot nor negate it because you are pining objective moral standards against subjective moral standards, which are opposite.

"there's really no way to uphold the PRO stance with moral subjectivism given that my opponent shall be having no choice but to acknowledge the cultures which have different ideas on morals."

-- Yes two different ideas, sufficing morals to be subjective clearly by that statement, but, one of the ideas is objective which can otherwise be regarded as moot as far as I am concerned. There is no way to really determine who is right in terms of ethics sufficing this logic as useless.

*****************************
Conclusion:

My arguments are yet to be disproved as I have Exemplified in this round of debate. My logic is still affirmed as in my first round. My parable of communism and atheism in Stalin and Maos case is still at large. As well is my second contention is, atheism is the mere lack of belief; no driving doctrines or substandards, which supports my stance on the resolution. I would like for the readers to note that my opponents good conduct is affirmed by conforming to my 'no semantics rule' as well as he did.

I feel my debate/rebuttals are sufficient and I excitedly await my opponents response.
Logical-Master

Con

Logical-Master forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mastajake

Pro

mastajake forfeited this round.
Logical-Master

Con

Logical-Master forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
68 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
lol yeah i am not sure as to why i have so many votes :P
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
ROFTL josh. I don't think mastajake needed your help collecting any votes. ;)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Hmph. It would appear I'm out of time. Oh well. Vote PRO.

I may as well tell you what I had intended to argue though:

1) First, I was going to 'prove' that all actions are unethical based on potentially bad results if we look at past moral standards. I would demonstrate this through discussing how seemingly unethical actions had the potential to provide positive results (such as murder or stealing).

2) I was going to clarify on my subjective morality argument by pointing out that you agreeing that I didn't prove an absolute truth is irrelevant given that the goal of the debate is to determine if the statement made in the resolution is true (or as you imply, absolute). CON is free to object by claiming that there is no way to prove the topic.

At any rate, a topic too tough to provide an argument that's persuasive. Night.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
My power was down the night was going to respond, but further more I am sure I proved my point in the debate.

VOTE: PRO
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Acually, I'll see if I can get some coffee brewing. If I don't return within 5 minutes though, my R2 is a guarenteed forfeit.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Wow, to be honest, I thought I had 12 more hours to do this for some reason. I'm too tired to type anything more than this sentence and I'm about to pass out even as we speak so it looks my R2 is going to be forfeited. Still, I won't bring up anything new in my R3. Apologies.

PS: I've GOT to stop procrastinating on this site. :(
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
ok thank you
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
No semantics. Though in case you do think of anything I use as semantics, feel free to call it out and I shall promise to dismiss it in the following rounds.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
I beg you do not use semantics
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Eh, I think I'll just roll some dice to determine what I wanna do.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by xylosma 8 years ago
xylosma
mastajakeLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by jess_ily 8 years ago
jess_ily
mastajakeLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
mastajakeLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
mastajakeLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
mastajakeLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50