The Instigator
What50
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Kongerskov
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

We should murder everyone who believes in a god/gods

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/16/2018 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,608 times Debate No: 116597
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

What50

Pro

Hello everyone, I am What50 and it has been a while since I debated. I propose to you a very controversial idea, but I guarantee you that this can solve a plethora of problems.

1: First off we can end all religious conflict. There is a huge increase of Religious conflict throughout the world. Primarily it is the Religion of Islam that is having the highest religious conflict compared to other religion. We have to ask, we can end all this uneeded terroist attacks from the past and just end it all with one single clean swipe of the whole world.

2: It doesn't matter anyways. Yes we will killing a whole bunch of humans but at the end of the day will it matter? If Christians were right, than 2.2 billion of them will go to heaven which for them is objectively better than Earth. While the rest of them will go to hell. Same goes for the other religion at the end of the day, there can only be one right answer, and the rest of us will be damned to whatever they see deem fit.

3: We can be solving so much of the worlds problems. For instance we can remove the threat of terroist attacks, due to many of them, are doing it for religious purposes. We will wasting less food, have more resources to benefit, we can stop the human overpopulation, less carbon build up due to less humans, more jobs will be avaible reducing the homelessness rate, less criminals due to 10.4% of them having no religious preference that means the other prisoners who are religious will die, having less criminals. We will be reducing waste, and total garbage pileup, and we will have less pollution despicably the carbon build up.

Look at these benefits if we just kill every religious figure in the world. So much of the world problems can be solved, and we can keep the human race going with less violence.
Citation:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk...
https://www.statista.com...
Kongerskov

Con

Why does it make a difference what space dust do to space dust?
Please stay consistent with your worldview.
Debate Round No. 1
What50

Pro

I don't really understood cons argument. My argument still stands, that if we kill everyone who believes in a god, we can survive longer, with these problems on better control.
Kongerskov

Con

1) If the atheistic worldview consists of nothing but valueless space dust, then nothing has more value than any other thing.
2) The atheist worldview does only consist of space dust.
3) Therefore, nothing has more value than any other thing.

You desiring to kill all believers of God proves that you're inconsistent with your atheistic worldview.
According to your worldview, no action is more meaningful than any other action, you're space dust correct?
So what does it matter that some space dust chemically fizz religion apart from fizzing non-religion?
Debate Round No. 2
What50

Pro

1): 1) I"f the atheistic worldview consists of nothing but valueless space dust, then nothing has more value than any other thing"

The atheistic worldview has nothing to do with the value of space dust. The world view is that things have to be proved scientifically to be called right.

"2) The atheist worldview does only consist of space dust.
3) Therefore, nothing has more value than any other thing."
This argument falls flat because it makes an assumption that all atheist want nothing. This is false, not all atheist are nihilistic. This nihilism argument falls flat because Con hasn't proved that they are all nihilistic. Thus making his whole argument not beating out mine.

"You desiring to kill all believers of God proves that you're inconsistent with your atheistic worldview.
According to your worldview, no action is more meaningful than any other action, you're space dust correct?
So what does it matter that some space dust chemically fizz religion apart from fizzing non-religion?"

Again he tries to argue that we follow a nihilistic philosophy, which is untrue. Yes, there are some nihilistic atheist but there are also different ones. You haven't proved that we are all nihilistic.

My arguments still stand from round 1 that stays unrefuted. Con is essentially ignoring what I said about the positives, and is arguing over atheism itself, which is irrelevant to this debate. We are arguing whether it is okay to kill every person on Earth if they believe in a god, not if Atheism is a nihilistic world view.
Kongerskov

Con

"This argument falls flat because it makes an assumption that all atheist want nothing."

Strawman, my argument point out that atheists has no justification for why religion is bad since atheists ultimately cannot account for good or bad. Atheists believe they're nothing but evolved space dust, so what!? Who cares what space dust do to space dust? It's absurd that you who believes you're nothing but space dust claim the world will be better if religious people are killed, because nothing is better or worse in the worldview of space dust, because absolute values such as good and bad, cannot be account for, neither can atheists account for truth, morality, logic or any other absolute universal value, yet atheists will appeal to values such as good and bad but doesn't understand that betray their non-theistic worldview. Atheists borrow values from theism such as morality, but then foolishly reject God which is the precondition for morality, and thus the atheists commit epistemic suicide.
Debate Round No. 3
What50

Pro

You still haven't countered any of my arguments in the first round. My justification is all my arguments in round 1 which YOU have unrefuted nor countered in any way. I claim that it is better due to my arguments in round 1. All your argument basically essentials to a rant about atheism as wrong. Plus I have never actually claimed to be a atheist, you draw assumptions.
Kongerskov

Con

If you're not an atheist, then your statement makes no sense against religion and religious people, it's just utter absurdity then. Your whole position has been neutralized since your worldview is based upon space dust, but the thing is you're not consistent with your valueless space dust worldview, you're appealing to absolute values such as morality and logic etc. which your space dust worldview cannot account for to begin with, so your whole argument has no epistemic foundation to begin with, it's just absurd that space dust is appealing to non-material values such as logic in a debate and claims religion is harmful. On what basis can space dust claim such things? It cannot, therefore your entire position has no validity epistemically and therefore can be refused with two words, are you ready? So what!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
---Vote---

Con doesn't refute any points made by Pro.
Con makes a gross oversimplification regarding Atheistic views, such as his space dust comment.

Con does not touch upon religious conflicts.
Con does not touch upon dead Christians going to heaven anyway.
Con does not touch upon the economical benefits.
Therefore Pros arguments were left unchallenged.

Con then proceeds to suggest the understanding of good and bad are exclusive to religious people, which is untrue, as having to be being told what is good and what is bad by a book, suggests you have no moral compass, therefore religious people don't actually have a sense of good or bad, rather, they trust through faith that a book is correct.

Con falsely assume Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism.
Posted by What50 3 years ago
What50
Your whole argument boils down to a what if question of making the claim that I am atheist. Your whole argument is essentially So What? My arguments can help save the Earth and preserve it, even without morality, preserving the earth, and keeping the Human Race alive is most important instinct and idea to have.
Posted by greatstuff 3 years ago
greatstuff
people with 0 empathy will still be born. cultivating empathy good start
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
all indians are lebsians
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
What50Kongerskov
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS
Vote Placed by dumbocrat 3 years ago
dumbocrat
What50Kongerskov
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuses to refute Con's argument that atheism does not have accountability or any form of values. Atheism and nihilism accommodate each others' lack of intangible beliefs. If atheism is a lack of faith in any omnipotent power then any morals are illogical. Without a form of higher power, morality is ultimately a matter of instinct rather than a reasonable action. Atheism, therefore, cannot be logical and moral. It must either be illogical or lack morals. To commit genocide on monotheistic religions would be logical under atheism, but immoral. A world without morality is only dust. Nothing can have any purpose beyond physical properties without some form of a nonphysical power.

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