The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Atheism is problematic

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
kingcripple has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 104070
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




For the purposes of this debate "Atheism" will be defined in two categories:

Moral Atheism- objections to the existence of God when relating to moral issues i.e., gay rights, women's rights, all things therein related to the problem of evil

Scientific Atheism- objections to God when relating to scientific evidence.

My argument is predicated one one point with several sub points.

1. One cannot be both a moral and scientific atheist.

This is because:

A. Moral Atheism doesn't actually exist.

Moral atheists like to cast blame on God for evil in the world. "Why would a loving and just God allow evil into the world?" This question supposes that God does exist. Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Moral Atheism is therefore contradictory.

A1. The moral atheist cannot define evil

Moral Atheism supposes that morality is subjective, yet often condemns people with a different set of moral codes. In order to blame God for evil, there must be a consensus on what is defined as evil yet the moral atheist cannot adequately define evil because he cannot support his definition with an original point.

B. Scientific Atheism contradicts moral atheism

This point is far more simple. Simply put, how can you cast blame for evil on something you claim doesn't exist?

Conclusion: atheism, be it a blend of moral and scientific atheism, or either individually, is far more irrational than a belief in God

This debate is Atheism is problematic, therefore my opponent, whoever you may be, must refute every claim I made in order to win. Any argument made by my opponent claiming religion is problematic, will be considered a strawman and thus ignored.

Debate structure is as follows

R1 opening statements
R2-4 rebutts and cross exams (if my opponent thinks of any new points he may make them up to r3, after that I may ignore any new arguments and vice versa
R5 closing argument only


Hello, I accept the debate.
First of all, I would like to mention that I am an agnostic and not an atheist.
I agree with your atheism definitions, but I disagree with your concept of what you call "moral atheism", for it is not a different atheism category than the scientific. The claim that a loving being would not allow evil to exist is an argument of scientific and philosophical atheism and not a category on its own. Therefore, being an argument against God through philosophical logic, it does not contradict the belief that God does not exist. To be more exact, the fault in your statements is to say that the above claim requires God's existence to be valid as an argument. Contrary to that, it does not. It simply implies that if a loving and powerful being did exist, it would not let evil exist too, thus, since evil does exist, such a being must not exist.

Concerning ethical standards, I agree that the matter is kind of subjective, depending on what one may consider "the goal of humanity", to put it simply. Despite that, though, the ethical standards always remain pretty much the same, for humans are able to figure out what benefits them most. Having read the book "The future of an illusion" by Sigmund Freud on religion [1], I believe that the moral standards are set on a human society with the sole purposes of the settlement of the relations among the people and the proper distribution of the available goods. Religion, too, is an aggregation of moral rules that humans created and ascribed the bestowal of justice to a higher and powerful being. If you think about it, in every example of society people have come to realise that to maintain their civilisation they would need to create such regulations. This may have not been achieved yet because, just like humans, humanity itself gradually evolves. But it is apparent that, as time passes, human societies all lean towards that direction.
The atheists' argument that God is immoral is based on these standards. Evil and immoral is something that goes against these regulations in any way (on a certain scale, of course). God is not necessary for the creation of ethical principles. The evolution of humanity is the one which creates these.

As for your statement that something that does not exist cannot be labelled as immoral (I prefer the use of this term instead of "evil", for it is more accurate in our conversation), you are wrong. By saying that God is immoral one refers to the concept of the God and not to a necessarily existing God. It is just like saying that whitches, ghosts or lord Voldemort are evil and immoral.
And all these certainly do not make atheism a far more irrational belief than a religious one. If you would like to hear my opinion, though, both theism and atheism are delusional beliefs to the same point, for there is no proof or evidence to support either of these. But this is a topic to argue on in a different debate.

Conclusion: you should not rush to conclusions before your opponent presents their arguments. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
"Moral atheists like to cast blame on God for evil in the world."
Then they would not be atheist ?.. Blaming a book for creating stupidety is another thing.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
1. abcde... There is no god unless you create one... And decide what he has to do and not do.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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