The Instigator
WesleyBucher1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Taylur
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Taylur
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 46393
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

WesleyBucher1

Pro

My position is that the effects of atheism is worse than the effects of christianity. My opponent will debate this. First round for acceptance
Taylur

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
WesleyBucher1

Pro

My first argument is this: look at the facts. Yes, Christians have perpatrated many horrors, like the crusades and the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition. But all together, these do not add up to around more than a couple 100,000 people at most. Lets be generous and say even a couple million deaths have been committed by the actions of Christians, and thus Christianity. Now, for the other side, look at 3 figures. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Ze Dong. These were all atheist and vehemently anti-christian. Together, they murdered around 100 million people. And that is not even counting all the smaller atheistic dictators. Pol Pot, for instance, killed a larger part of his country than Mao, and Mao killed 70 million. Even more interesting then those is this: Christianity has been around for 2 millenium, while atheism has only been popular for the last 2 hundred or so years. It kinda shows that atheism has worse consequences than Christianity.
Taylur

Con

Refuting your points:

Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did not identify as atheist [1]. Hitler even referred to himself as Christian:
  • "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 [1]
Christianity has indeed been around for a long time, but you are wrong in believing that atheism is something new. There are thousands of religions in the world and many religions that are predate Christianity (Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, Babylonians etc.) -- atheism is the oldest mindset in human history, considering the first human society would inevitably have no religion until someone decided to create it.

Christianity promotes intolerance and gets in the way of progress. Christians are forced to believe the Bible is accurate; they are not permitted to use their own minds to come to conclusions on issues such as homosexuality. A logical atheist has the ability to realise that homosexuality does not affect anybody; being disgusted by something is not a viable reason to hate it, and nor is it acceptable to blame your prejudices on a book. "God said it's wrong, so it is wrong" must be the most ignorant mentality anyone could have.

I am only discriminated against by religious people. Atheists are amongst the most tolerant, loving and forward-thinking people I have ever met.
Debate Round No. 2
WesleyBucher1

Pro

Hitler can not be identified as a christian. That was a speech to the masses, where all he did was lie to them. Here are some more of his quotes: ""The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew." - 11th-12th July, 1941, and ""Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it's the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back 15 centuries." Neither sound like something that a christian would ever say. As to Stalin, here is a quote from him: "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" Moscow 1940. Mao Ze Dong? He killed Christians for being christian and tried to eradicate it. I understand that atheism is not new, I was taking about modern atheism, which did start around the time of Darwin. Also, the first human society would have had a religion because they would have known about the God that created them. Also, christians that are intolerant against gays have no biblical support. We are called to love our neighbors, and thus we should love everyone. We are disgusted by it because it is against the laws of God, and saddened because it will lead them to Hell. Not because it is a worse sin than any other sin, but because any practicing homosexual is clearly not a Christian, as he is consistently defying the commands of God with full knowledge and no repentance. Also, have you heard Richard Dawkins? He is not tolerant or loving.
Taylur

Con

The fact that you're trying to claim that atheism is worse than Christianity due to a couple of extreme dictators holds no ground. By saying this, you are claiming that you yourself are only a nice person because of the Bible -- without Christianity, you would feel no wrong in murdering somebody? I hope not.

I think we can agree that there are many crazed and psychotic atheists as well as Christians (and people from every faith). You may claim that anybody who commits atrocious crimes are "not Christian", but that's unfair, because I cannot claim that bad atheists are "not atheist". You have the ability to claim that no 'true' Christian is bad because you reject anyone who commits a crime -- the same cannot be said for atheism, making the links between the two null and void.

You claim that you are saddened about homosexuality because the Bible says it's wrong. Do you not realise that this is a fundamental flaw in the progress of humanity, and you as a moral person? You understand that it does not harm anybody, and yet you are obliged to feel disgusted by it because you are told to.

I am a tolerant and loving person without Christianity. I have nobody telling me what to believe and I have the ability to think for myself and make my own decisions in every situation. I do not fear 'hell' -- I know it does not exist. At any rate, I know I have done nothing wrong by being gay.

Debate Round No. 3
WesleyBucher1

Pro

What you can't see is that those extreme dictators is a direct result of atheism. In Christianity, the presence of God is the reason for morality. Morality cannot be explained without God. A twisted form of it, reciprocal or kin altruism can be because you are nice because a) they can return the favor or b) they are in your direct gene pool. However, it cannot explain pure altruism. If you see a man drowning, you have two options, to help save him or to not help save him. Most people would choose to help save him. But why though? He is no kinship of you, and he is highly unlikely to be able to help you later. In fact, you are in danger as you try to save him. But you would still do it. This cannot be explained without a presence of a moral law in the universe, something innate within you that urges you to save the man despite the risks. With that would also come the presence of a God. However, when you take away God, when a person's worldview is truly that of God not existing, then they would not have any trouble leaving that person to drown. They would have no problem killing if there was more economic benefit than cost. However, the reason you say that nobody would is a result of a nation that had been christian. It is rapidly leaving its christian roots, but the country has been instilled with moral codes that come from christianity and so your morality is even a product of christianity. Also, I would not reject anyone who claimed to be a Christian. i might say that their actions are contrary to that which a christian would do, and that puts their faith in doubt, but still can not condemn them as christian or non christian. That is for God to do. Finally, homosexuality hurts people, because when you get rid of the marriage that God intended and replace it with a mockery, you also remove the morals that came from the original marriage. To see this, look at LGBT communities. The moral codes are dissolved, and with them restrictions. Murder, drugs, AIDS, smoking, alcoholism, rape, infidelity, shortened marriage spans, all are much larger than any other community. It does harm people because you are slowly removing the ties to Christian morality, and with those the prohibitions to do bad things. I did not say that one cannot be loving and tolerant without Christianity. It can happen. It does happen. However, when you remove christianity, and God, and thus morality, you have given yourself license to do whatever you feel like with no consequences as long as you get away with it. Imagine a country like that. It wouldn't last very long.
Taylur

Con

I disagree completely, I'm afraid.

Extreme dictators are not a direct result of atheism. I live in the UK. Most people are 'atheist' here; we do not even claim to be atheist most of the time, because it is so common here to not worship God that it seems pointless to talk about it. The UK has legalised gay marriage and has a lower crime rate than the USA. What does that tell you about society? A modern society does not need Christianity, or any religion, to function well. Extreme dictators are very few and far between and atheism cannot be blamed for their dispicable crimes against humanity.

Your point about morals being innate is partially true. Morals are also taught to us by our society. Does that mean God must exist? Not at all. Morals are partially innate because we are social beings with large brains that need to have basic a basic concept of right and wrong to survive. You will find similar morals exhibited in other social animals; certain moneys, for example, share food with other monkeys for no other reason than the sake of sharing. [1] Some people argue that humans evolved a sense of morality and fairness in order to keep large societies running smoothly for the greater good of everyone.

I do not believe in God whatsoever, but I would not let a man drown if I knew that I could save them. I have good moral character because I was raised by good, loving parents that accepted me for who I am.

Your perceptions of the LGBT community are very mistaken. Please do some research.

You claim: Murder, drugs, AIDS, smoking, alcoholism, rape, infidelity, shortened marriage spans, all are much larger than any other community.

Murder, drugs, smoking, alcoholism, rape and infidelity are not at all higher in the LGBT community. Women raping women and men raping men is actually an extremely rare occurrence. Drugs, smoking and alcohol are consumed by all subgroups in society. Infidelity is a perposterous claim; cheating on your partner is always wrong, regardless of your sexuality -- gay people do not cheat more than heterosexuals.

HIV is indeed higher in the LGBT community, but it can be tackled with safe sex practices. Also, HIV is very difficult to pass on without having unprotected intimate relations with someone who is infected. Finally, the life expectency for someone living with HIV in 2014 is exactly the same as someone living with HIV, so in the unfortunate case that someone catches HIV, it can be treated adequately.

[1] - www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePgC91kcmN0
Debate Round No. 4
WesleyBucher1

Pro

I did not say that every atheist will become a dictator and kill people. However, they can and should be held responsible for their crimes, and if they had been religious, that most definitely would have been cited as proof that religion is violent. So you cannot dismiss them as not being able to contribute for the amount of crimes that atheism has caused. Also, the UK had been the strongest and longest center of Christendom. The removing of it from your culture won't happen fast. It will still be ingrained in your society. However, it is going to go away. It won't last forever. Also, if you take away the three top cities in America (all of whom have had gays legalized and who gave up christianity a long time ago) America is down at the bottom of the list. Also, those monkeys would be under the category of reciprocal altruism. They do it so that they will get a favor back some time in the future. Why would large societies need to run smoothly? All that would need to work smoothly is your gene pool so that your genes will survive. That's whats supposed to happen in Evolution. Survival of the Fittest. I did some research, and I am verified. To look at the rape, go to snow.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/NRC_LGBTDVStatistics.pdf. It shows that rape is higher. Also, sexual promiscuity is substantially larger if you research it, as is drug abuse and depression and alcoholism
Taylur

Con

Christianity is not the cause of morality. Please look at other cultures around the world; you will find that there are many societies that have never had widespread Christianity running perfectly well. Buddhism is a very peaceful and moral religion, without any mention of a supreme creator.

You claim: "Also, if you take away the three top cities in America (all of whom have had gays legalized and who gave up christianity a long time ago) America is down at the bottom of the list."

Let's look at these figures...

Highest crime rates in the USA by state: [1]

1. Tennessee - Same-sex marriage not allowed [2]
2. Nevada - Same-sex marriage not allowed; state constitution bans same-sex marriage [2]
3. Alaska - Same-sex marriage not allowed [2]

Human morality is a much larger debate. Many people argue that fairness evolved so that we would be rewarded in the future, and also to help society run smoothly; your view of evolution is very limited -- evolution brings out the best traits to help an organism to survive, for humans, being in a large group helps us to survive, and having instinctive morals can help the society to run smoothly and consequently pass on genes. I can't get into too much detail because it really is a whole different debate.

I'm going to leave the LGBT rape etc. out of this -- do you even know how difficult it is for someone to rape their own gender? It's not impossible, but it's far from easy. Rape crimes are predominantly carried out by men; the victims are predominantly women. I have no energy to argue this fact any further.

[1] - http://www.usatoday.com...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Pro will have to do better than using the same old tired disproved attack on Atheism by false association.
Hitler was a Catholic, in his speech he also vowed to rid Germany of Atheists. Hitler thought he was God's chosen one, after he survive the bunker bomb attempt on his life.
Stalin was just a psychopath, who even assassinated his fellow Atheists, psychopathy creates monsters on both sides of the religious fence, such as Charles Manson, Pope Innocent III, etc...

Pol Pot and Mao were both just power driven, possibly suffering Megalomania and driven by Anger as well, not Atheism, which towers above personal beliefs, just as many Christian leaders massacred many for power, Such as a Christian president in a so called Christian nation dropping an Atomic Bomb. Now That's Christian?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
WesleyBucher1TaylurTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were circular and based on long defeated myths which points to the fact that Pro has been seriously sucked in by Fundamentalist propaganda. Pro did not provide any sources that back up his untenable position. Con presented genuine concepts and evidence for those concepts. Pro needed to use the spell checker.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
WesleyBucher1TaylurTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made several grammar and spelling mistakes, and claimed that because three people that might have been atheists were bad, atheism is bad.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
WesleyBucher1TaylurTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I kind of feel both debaters got way off the resolution and did not address it prudently. Con did have better sources which is the only thing I could award points for.