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

Atheism is better than religon

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,040 times Debate No: 51929
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I saw on a poll Charlie made that he said the the thinks Athiesm is better than religion so I want to see his reasons to that.


OK good to know my post got attention! Well I'll be as brief as possible to begin. First of all it is the most logical position, the position being no religion has proven itself with any actual evidence. Why should I say something is true if it cannot justify with evidence? (keep in mind atheism is not "I believe there is no god god" it is "I do not believe in a god nor have a religion") hopefully you know this already. So I can say on a logical basis this is why I would say being atheistic is batter than be religious.

After that a lot of it comes down to morality. Being so relativistic and sadomasochistic as religion demands with the only moral truths being what you can derive from a holy book rather than reason and empathy to be humanist never could be a sound idea in ethical terms. Other than that you can simply compare what harm atheism has done to the world to that of religion. What has atheism done wrong....well... actually I might not know. There is not one war or mass slaughter or genocide or oppressive regime that has come about because of it so... I am short of what not having a religion really does.

Religion however cannot dare to make this claim. Other than crusades/jihads lets get into the modern world. All of South West Asia and much of Africa suffers from its people (particularly women) being oppressed by religious laws made by religious regimes. To go back not even a century you find fascism in Europe taking hold and being supported by the Pope along with other denominational leaders. Hitler himself was either deeply defensive of Christianity proclaiming to be one, the whole antisemitic NAZI movement was Christian, the man even hunted down atheist groups, obviously did not like secularism. Lets go to Stalin a man who used the Russian Church (that he made official in 1955) to support much of his horrific crimes. Pol-Pot a complete Theravada Buddhist, Mao a man who had "heaven's mandate" keeping him in charge. The Japanese Emperor during WWII proclaimed himself to be a god. And in modern times again, North Korea's leader is a man who is dead but is said to be a god, Kim Jon Un is only head of state his ancestor is the god leader. To top it off you have Vladimir Putin who persecutes homosexuals and other religious groups for his religion.

To finish yes religions do have charities and have done good things, HAMAS has social services and the KKK does charity and the Catholic Church along with Muslims, Jews have built hospitals but so has everyone else. Those hospitals would be there with or without them. And even if religion does good like has been mentioned it does not change the fact atheism is better based on all I have said.

I think this is a good start. To give you a fair warning I WILL LEAVE if you repeat things or use arguments that have already been explained to you in the above paragraph, I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME repeating something that has already been done, again I will leave if you repeat a fallacy which has already been explained, too many people do this and it annoys me.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting.

You mentioned that Mosted Christians are the cause of war and death in the world, But Kim Jong II who killed over over a 4 million fellow Korean's. Mussolini was a member of the Facist Party and was the Dictator of Italy during the Second World War. He supported Hilter's cause and used posion gas to take over parts of Africa. You state that the Nazi Movement was Christian but Stalin and Mussolini were both Athiest.


Yes always good to debate!

Ok well I actually did not blame most of the deaths on Christians although many of my examples were. And you forgot I did include the Korean massacres with the more religious regimes. Again in Korea their old leader actually is a god and is the religion of the state. Also there is nothing to say Mussolini and Stalin actually were atheists. They may have been in private and sources vary, some say they were, others say they were not. The thing you need to pay attention to is what they did or what their actions were. The Catholic Church is well known to have supported fascism as an ideology and its leaders (Hitler/Mussolini). Both the German and Italian fascist parties had a treaty with the Vatican which was in no way being forced at gun point, both Popes in this period openly and privately agreed with this and went out of their way to end resistance towards it. And remember that these movements actively persecuted atheists. As for Stalin again maybe he was an atheist but he also left the preparations to be a priest before his career began and made the Russian Orthodoxy the official church in 1955. The majority of the followers of these dictators were religious and acted on their beliefs and it showed in their movements. Also lets not forget that even though communism ideally has no religion, this was obviously never achieved and never had a dictator to head that true form of communism. As for anyone else I mentioned or other events those are clearly religious based problems. To insist any of this had to do with atheism is as Christopher Hitchens put it in one of his debates "A filthy lie, undeserving of you".

I want to make it clear that I am not blaming everything on religion I am just making the point that there never has been a mass murdering, warring, genocidal, oppressive atheist movement or regime. Religion obviously cannot make this claim. Which is one of my arguments.

But this is not the only thing to address. I also gave an argument about why atheism is a more logical choice which has nothing to do with this and more to do with reason and evidence based thought. I only bring up the violence as a point but even if atheism also had violence you would be doing nothing to dispute if atheism was or was not better than religion in a whole sense.

Also this is not a debate about whether a god(s) exists or not which only gets you to Deism.
You want religion or Theism, which is the opposite of Atheism=no religion.

Now there is no conclusive evidence for any religion. As believers are often only to proud to say it takes faith. But is that logical or reasonable? My side would say no. If you cannot prove something you cannot just say it is true and use it to derive morals, laws, ways of life or even personal decisions from (of course you have the right to make personal decisions from it I am just saying it isn't logical).

It seems far more likely all religions are equal in the sense that they are all man made inventions that served as explanations for questions we didn't have answers to. Today there are still things we do not have answers to but using a Bible or the Vedas to find the answer by plugging in the gaps is not logical. We have science and philosophy and other areas to use evidence and reason to look for the answers to the big questions. We do not need to keep ourselves on the dark by insisting something is true based on faith, let's find out on our own. Lets discover what we do not know not look it up in a holy book.

Since I brought up science I might as well make the point that religion has managed to block science even to this day. Imagine the progress humanity would have made if people who discovered that the earth went around the sun didn't have to worry about getting killed. If the library at Alexandria had never been raided and if stem cell research could go unimpeded and priests would quit preaching against condoms in aids infected Africa.

Without religion we would in no doubt be further ahead than we are now and wouldn't have a population so scientifically illiterate that they believed global warming was a hoax or that evolution was a lie or that the big bang was just CGI on discovery channel.

Not having a religion is the best way to go not just because there never would have been support for the mass murdering despots of history but because thought would always have been unrestricted and free, science could flourish in every population and moral decisions would always have been based on empathy and reasoning and the natural altruism in all of us. Not on the relativistic, what ever gods said in their , slavery ridden, rape promoting, genocidal versus.

That is why it is better to not have religion, be atheistic

I think this gets the ball rolling the right way, looking forward to hearing back from you!
Debate Round No. 2


bettabreeder forfeited this round.


I'll just wait for the next one then.
Debate Round No. 3


bettabreeder forfeited this round.


Well umm ok I guess
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SNP1 7 years ago
Migrating_Hacker: That is under the assumption that a God exists and that that God has created sins.
Posted by Migrating_Hacker 7 years ago
Atheism supports sinful acts that God almighty detest
Posted by bettabreeder 7 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by aburk903 6 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to uphold his obligation to actively participate in a debate which he instigated. Additionally, Con's only presented argument against atheism was to reference the beliefs of two dictators from the mid-20th century...not exactly wide enough of an attack to damage Pro's argument which covered a much larger scale.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.