The Instigator
xxx200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rodmaster
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

atheism is better than theism

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 6 votes the winner is...
rodmaster
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 21113
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

xxx200

Pro

atheism= belief that god does not exist

theism= belief that god exists

better= more advantageous.

i will argue that atheism is better than theism. con will argue that theism is better than atheism.

round 1= acceptance

round 2= argument

round 3= argument

round 4= rebuttal

round 5= rebuttal
rodmaster

Con

Seems like an interesting debate
Debate Round No. 1
xxx200

Pro

in order to understand the benefit of atheism we must understand the similarities and dissimilarities of atheism and theism.

i will discuss the following points here:

1.scientific outlook, 2. conversion, 3.type of value system

1. scientific outlook

theists don't believe in science. they believe in meaningless rituals and completely ignore science. thus there life is nothing but fantasy.

atheists have scientific outlook. most atheists are scientists. they made big inventions and improve our lives.

so atheism is a lot better than theism.

2. conversion

theists eager to convert others to their belief system. they use any methods at their disposal. often they use deception, betrayal and take undue advantage over others.

atheists did not convert anybody nor use any kind of deceptive technique.

so atheism is a lot better than theism.


3. type of value system

theists have unnatural abnormal value system. for example jews, muslims do circumssion. they cut the skin which nature provides us.

christians use flogging. hindus worship idols, dead men, practice celibasy etc.

all these things are abnormal because they have no reason.

while atheists have scientific belief: belief that has a reason behind it. they don't do abnormal things. they say yes to life.

so atheism is a lot better than theism.

rodmaster

Con

Theism as my opponent stated is,"Belief in the existence of a god or gods", which is rather different that religion. Somebody believing that the universe is too complex and beautiful to be created by chance does not mean it changes their opinion on abortions, gay rights or circumcision. Simply put the different between a theist and an atheist is purely intellectual and plays little effect on other areas of life.

Being an atheist as oppose to a theist offers no intellectuall merit. There is no evidence to support either side of the argument. Remember atheism is not agnosticism, it is no more open minded than theism. It is a belief that there is no deity but rather than there is one. It is just as intolerant and sure as theism.

There is no reason to assume that atheists have any better of a scientific outlook as a theist. Most people have a natural curiosity to learn more about the world, as the more we learn the better evolved are views become. Yet again believing that the universe was created by a deity rather than being randomly created is nothing but philosophical it has no effect on social issues or willingness to try and expand human knowledge. The fact of the matter is that Copernicus, Pascal, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin and Einstein were all religious(1), didn't seem to affect their wish to expand science.

The attempts to press religious beliefs on to others varies person to person. The founding fathers of the united states of America were essentially exclusively religious(2). Though many hated the idea of religion they were all theists. They clearly attempted to press their religious beliefs more than the USSR did with atheism. "Marxism–Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and eventual elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed."(3) I can post a link of how theists are on the whole happier than atheists(4), but that would be of little importance as I'm sure there are many atheists which are happier than many theists so it does not define either. Simply put whilst there may be many stupid, intolerant theists that is equally applicable to atheism.

Neither one is better than the other as there is no evidence to call one right and to say those who follow it are superior.

(1) http://www.godandscience.org...
(2) http://www.adherents.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
xxx200

Pro

religious(theist) people caused many problems. they waged crusades, world wars and many other wars. i have never heard an atheist wages a single war.


religious people often use combined hatred against atheists. atheists are expelled from boy scout,humiliated at school, in the US army.atheists never do this to religious people.
http://www.alternet.org...

religious people even harm their own sons and daughters when they turned atheist.there are many cases of disinheritence of an atheist son by his religious father you can search on internet.


so religious people are intolerant. in any civilised society, intolerance is not welcome.

thats why atheists are better than theists.

copernicus, galileo, newton ware never religious people. in their lifetime they invent something that damages religious belief of their time and they refuse to give up their ideas. so these scientist are not religious people. they were atheist people that made our world better.

thats why atheists are better than theists.
rodmaster

Con

religious(theist) people caused many problems. they waged crusades, world wars and many other wars. I have never heard an atheist wages a single war.
1. You've never heard of Stalin the atheist who invaded Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania? Or Mussolini the atheist who invaded France, East Africa, North Africa and Greece, Yugoslavia and southern Russia? What about secular countries such as the USA or France? It is also worth noting that neither WW1 or WW2 had anything to do with religion. Human nature results in the segregation of people of different beliefs and deaths of millions, not religion.

so religious people are intolerant. in any civilised society, intolerance is not welcome.
2. Yet again you cannot ague that Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh or Stalin were not intolerant. As I stated in my last point "Marxism€"Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and eventual elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed." Whether or not you believe there is a god does not have any relevance on whether or not you are tolerant. Some theists are tolerant some atheists are not.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton ware never religious people.
3. Isaac Newton himself stated, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily," unless you can prove he rejected the existence of God he falls in the theist camp. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schoenberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. Galileo remained a devout Catholic throughout his life. I'd be interested in evidence to show any of these 3 as atheists.
Debate Round No. 3
xxx200

Pro

theism is based on existance of an entity called god. the very existance of this entity cannot be proved either by science or by common sense. some may argue that if there is a complex universe, somebody might have designed it. so god exists. but when there is trouble in the world and nobody is there to protect the believers, the existance of god can be challanged by both men of science and common sense.

since nobody is able to prove god, therefore i seriously doubt if god really exists or not. we should not devote our time to worship or even think of such dubious entity. "god will solve our problem and protect us" this kind of thinking is dangerous to all members of the society.

so in order to protect our society from an illusory character called god, we must resort to atheism which says there is no god but science which can solve man's problem. and in reality science DO SOLVE man's problems. therefore atheism might be right.

so therefore atheism is better than theism.
rodmaster

Con

theism is based on existence of an entity called god. the very existence of this entity cannot be proved either by science or by common sense.
1. I believe you are assuming atheism to be more of a negative than it actually is. Atheism vs theism answers a very simple question- Was the Universe designed or did it happen by chance? Atheists are just as strong in their convictions as theists. The idea that the universe was created randomly cannot be proved by science either.

since nobody is able to prove god, therefore I seriously doubt if god really exists or not.
2. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Where's the evidence the universe was created randomly? The point is yet again that there is no evidence on either side so it is impossible to make an informed decision, which is why I'm an agnostic.

which can solve man's problem. and in reality science DO SOLVE man's problems. therefore atheism might be right.
3. Unless you can claim otherwise Copernicus, Pascal, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin and Einstein were all religious it can proved throughout history that a belief in a god has not stopped people from pursuing improvements in science. You have not addressed on a fundamental level why believing in no God will make you be more scientific.

"god will solve our problem and protect us" this kind of thinking is dangerous to all members of the society.
4. You're becoming more specific than what theism actually is. It is simply the the idea that there is a god/gods. Deism is part of theism and believes that although the universe was created by god ,the creator has not effect on the universe. There are people who are dystheists or maltheists who believe that god is not wholly good. Yes some theists may believe god will come to save them but others will not and it is not appropriate to dump them all in the same category. Being a theists as oppose to an atheist will not have any relevance to how willing you are to tackle life's problems. I could say that theists will see opposition as being from god as something they have to overcome whilst atheists crumble at the "randomness" of life.
Debate Round No. 4
xxx200

Pro

do you want to say that in middle ages when theocracy and theism prevails, our world was a better place to live?

in middle ages when science was prevented from entering into man's life and enlightening the life, superstitions choked man to live a peculiar and horrible kind of life.

hundreds of thousands of women who were eminent harbalist, philosophers, were tagged witch and burned at stake.

yes, communists who are atheists also did torture people in china and russia but torturing people has no relation with atheism. they torture for their personal reason and not for the sake of atheism.

but torturing the sinner is an integral part of theism. we hindus also torture those who don't follow hindu laws. these torture by theists are an integral part of their belief system.

thats why atheism is better than theism.

atheism brings science into life which in turn enlighten life. but theism brings untested belief system that ultimately ruin life.

thats why atheism is better than theism.

vote for pro.

rodmaster

Con

do you want to say that in middle ages when theocracy and theism prevails, our world was a better place to live?
1. You're confusing corellation and causation. The average northern European was 5ft7(1) in the middle age as oppose to 5ft10 now(2). In my opinion this is the best time in history to be alive due to icreases in living standards and science. As proved in my previous points most of this scientific innovation was due to theits as the majority of scientists were theists. We still have a huge amount of people in the modern world who are theists. In a 2008 poll of 35,000 American 92% stated they believed in god(3). Even the majority of Europeans still believe in god(4).

but torturing the sinner is an integral part of theism
2. Theism is a belief that there is a god. On the most basic question of theism vs atheism torture has nothing to do with it. There is no logical conclusion for why believing there is a god would lead to you condoning torture, let alone it being an integral part of it.

At the end of the day theism vs atheism is simply an interlectural debate on whether or not there is atleast one deity in the universe. Pro has not proved why believing in god would lead to a lack of common sense or rationaliy. Christianity is much more specifc than theism and thus does not really play a role in this debate which simply is over whether the universe was created by god or by chance. If people such as Francis Collins (who headed the project to find the human genome), John Lennox (head of mathematics at Oxford university) and Obama are all theists it cannot be an interlecutarly weak argument. Yet again pro has not proved theism to have any more externalities than atheism, or for atheism to be a stronger interlectural arguement. Neither one is better than the other.

(1) http://www.sarahwoodbury.com...
(2) http://wiki.answers.com...
(3) http://www.icr.org...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Exactly my thinking.
Posted by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
Pro's arguments are apalling I would love to debate the issue if I didnt think that his ignorance would get in the way.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
xxx200rodmasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments. Made crushing refutations throughout the debate. He used sources and capitalized his letters...
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
xxx200rodmasterTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did an awesome job of refuting Pro's arguments. Pro kept rehashing the same thing never backing it up. Con had better sources, and actually CAPITALIZED....
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
xxx200rodmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I like easy debates to judge. Con defended his side and rebutted the pro side. Pro never defended his side and never really attacked the con with anything substantial. I give conduct to con off of the pro's ignorance and behavior. Grammar is obvious vote to con, same with sources.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
xxx200rodmasterTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con rebutted very well in round three. Pro used very bad grammar and did not capitalize. Con also had many reliable sources.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
xxx200rodmasterTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Pro shifts debate in round 5 to an inaccurate interpretation of the resolution. S/G- Pro didn't capitalize Args- Pro never answered the argument that some flaws (like theists killing people) were not inherent and Pro had no offense because he didn't defend himself from refutations. He also didn't address con's arguments at all. Easy win for con.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
xxx200rodmasterTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, with experience and practice you will become a better debater, but for this one Con did fantastic in refuting your claims using sources and proper spelling and grammar. For advice, try citing your statements and rereading your argument before posting for linguistic errors such as spelling and punctuation.