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

There is value for people and/or the world in atheism being promoted

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 73439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I argue probably not although happy to be proven wrong. Promoting a view that only offers an absence of belief in God is not likely to do much good especially when the stereotype of the unthinking, brainwashed religious person set free with atheism to become a reasonable person is not accurate. It is also not accurate to argue the world would be a significantly better place without religion because the majority of problems in the world are not caused by religion.

Round 1: Arguments.
Round 2: Rebuttals/ more arguments.
Round 3: Closing statements.


As anyone with any life experience or sense of history knows religious people are more than capable of committing sins and crimes, and non religious people are more than capable of being moral and trustworthy citizens and friends.

To promote only one view of anything will do more harm than good. For example, to promote that Christianity is the one true religion could cause retaliation from radicalized terrorist groups. I will agree with you that the this world would've been a better place if it had not been for the atheistic regimes of the 20th century. However, with that being said, in the 21st century, we have seen religious individuals commit awful acts of violence. I would say even more so than individuals who are non religious.

People in general know right from wrong. There are certain cultures like the Taliban who are clearly wrong about almost everything of interest. We are talking about a society in which women and girls are treated like property, forced to live in clothed bags, not educated(12% literacy rate among women in Afghanistan). When some girls do get defiant or led out of this captivity because of the influence of the west, you have men who do want to kill or throw acid in their face for the crime to trying to learn to read. You get this whole complex of sadistic and misguided form of morality which many people are slow to judge in the west. I am making a claim that this is wrong and it is objectively wrong because it is objectively true to say that throwing acid in the face of a little girl for the crime to learning how to read is leading nowhere worth going in the space of possible experience. This is leaning to unnecessary human misery, for everyone(This is because of religious dogma). If we know anything about human well being or if we will ever know anything about human well being we are in a position to look at this economically, sociologically, physiologically, this is worthless.

We see in Japan where the majority of people aren't religious that are caring, and loving...

I'm a Christian so it is hard for me to have a response. I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Sorry. Haha

Looking forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting the challenge.

I agree with you that the non-religious are just as capable of being good and moral than the religious and you gave a great example with Japan. One of the lowest murder rates in the world despite the fact the majority of people don't associate with an organized religion. Promoting only one view of anything will do more harm than good but that argument does not mean atheism has to be promoted. It could mean different strains of Christianity should be promoted or other religions to counter Christianity.

If the argument is that promoting atheism is good because it will mean more atheists and thus more good in the world then I respectfully disagree. The big problems in the world would will still be there, poverty, disease, acne, car crashes, serial killers, most wars and even child abuse. That heinous crime exists outside of the walls of the church as well. The level of certain suffering would go up because religious people tend to give more to charity and volunteer. That is if the atheistic movement did not put in place the infrastructure to foster giving and volunteerism like the church has done. The existence of the faith community is cited as one of the many reasons the Seventh-Day Adventists tend to live longer in California than others and so without religion what would happen.

Some of the issues in Africa and the Middle-East are more caused by historical reasons. For example, Muslims and Christians in some parts of the world do genital mutilation. Muslims and Christians in other parts of the world tend not to do it. It seems to be more about the history of the place than the religions. Pew Research found a high number of Muslims supported killing people for leaving the faith and suicide bombing but only in a small number of places like Afghanistan and Palestinian territories. I think that is very significant.

It seems to show it is not so much the religion that is making people hard-line bombers but more the context of where they are. Is it any wonder that there would be a lot of hardliners in a country like Afghanistan that was run and is still run in many places by hardliners. Is it any wonder that there is support for bombings in war zones. So promoting atheism is not really the solution or the only solution to some of the contextual issues. The Southern Poverty Law Centre also notes all of the terrorism or attempted terrorism committed by right-wing nuts in America and they don't seem to usually be religious-driven. There is a lot driven by anti-government people and racists.

Becoming an atheist does not automatically mean that one is going to be pro-reason in all aspects of life. One can still hold misconceptions, other ideologies, having personal experiences cloud judgement and politicians supporting ineffective policies despite evidence showing that the policies are not good ones. There will still be people making irrational decisions like doing something they know is bad for them or being scared to fly but okay with driving even though the latter is more unsafe.


Im confused. I believe there to be objective moral truths. With that being said, God has to exist. I don't know how to respond...I'm a Christian, I probably should not have excepted the debate. I will wait for your response.
Debate Round No. 2


You believe in objective morality which comes from God. So if you believe the argument that objective morality is a good thing and can only exist with a God then promoting atheism is presumably not viewed as a good thing. I believe you can be moral and believe in things like absolute truth without there being a God so I would not use that argument. I still don't see however a huge benefit in promoting atheism not because of any anti-atheistic view point but what is the point. Would it make people more/less moral? Would it make the world a better place or worse place? Not really. {Bar a few specific examples in the world the world would pretty much be the same as now. So it brings me back to my original point about is there value in promoting atheism {compared to just being one}.

Thanks for the debate.
All the best.


I will agree with you promoting atheism is not good per si..
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by David12N 1 year ago
Hello GainWisdom,

Thanks for the debate and thanks for the kind words.
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
I meant Con. Haha
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
Good job Pro. Haha.. I don't want to win this debate for the simple reason I don't want to promote atheism. Good luck in your future debates. :)
Posted by David12N 1 year ago
Hi Zarroette,
I thought it would be better to limit it to 2k characters so it would make us more concise and is quicker to read but I have lifted it to 4000 words.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
2k characters? Debaters will need to tinyurl their arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that atheism was not bad, but did not provide arguments that it should be promoted. The resolution was not affirmed by Pro, and the last two rounds were devoid of arguments.