Atheism has debased morality

FRAMEWORKThis debate has gotten out of hand, so I would like to clarify some theoretical aspects. We are not talking about Christianity in relation to atheism, or even religion in relation to atheism. We are talking about atheism, and atheism alone. We are also talking about how atheism, as a significant intellectual movement, has debased morality (or as I have to prove, not). We are NOT talking about evolution, or rights, or "bad things" done by atheists, but rather, the intellectual effects of atheism. Moreover, I would like to clarify: we are talking about a debasing. Debasing involves the reduction in quality or value of something. Hence, Pro has to prove that atheism has destroyed morality by any means possible. If this proof is not filled, then it becomes a Con ballot. My baseline throughout this debate, which I have failed to mention in the first round, is that albeit atheism may attempt to reinterpret morality, it does in no way devalue morality as many atheists still value morality. Atheism should be defined as a rejection of God in general. But since we are talking about atheism as an intellectual force, atheism must also be expanded to include the atheist philosophers as representatives of what "normal" atheists think (this is a very unrealistic assumption, but it has been made and shall be sustained throughout the debate). The BoP is shared, although Pro has a larger burden, as he is attempting to convict a philosophy which does not say anything about morality.DEFENSESa.) Debasing vs. Interpreting Morality Perhaps I should've been clear here. In this argument, I attempt to argue something twofold. Firstly, I attempt to argue that morality has not been debased by atheist and atheistic philosophers, but rather reinterpreted. Secondly, I attempt to argue that Christian philsophers, such as half-theologian Kiekengraad, has taken part in this reinterpretation. Because of this, a reinterpretation of morality amounts, not to the debasing of morality, but rather, to a reinterpretation of it. With this said, I would like to respond to Pro's argument. Firstly, on the case of Nietzsche (not Niche). Pro argues here that Nietzsche "argued that there is no right or wrong," and since he is an atheist philosopher, then atheism has participated in the debasing of morality. This would be correct if Nietzsche attempted to argue for the destruction of the concept of right and wrong. However, Nietzsche did no such thing. He criticized some morality, but not all. Nietzsche's oeuvre is filled with such examples. For example, in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche launches an implicit attack on the concept of life-denying morality. He argues that one must "put aside entirely the blundering psychology of former times...[and teach] man the future of humanity as his WILL, as depending on human will." In fact, Nietzsche does in no way attack morality. Nietzsche argues that "only one kind of human morality...[the] "I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!" [1] In his more meta-ethical work, Genealogy of Morals, he argues against herd morality. He argues that Christian morality (or European morality) is slave morality. Accordingly to Nietzsche, “the people have won – or “the slaves”, the “plebeians”, “the herd”, or whatever you want to call them. This victory causes the "reversal of the evaluating glance." [2] Nietzsche here has done nothing to devaluate morality. In fact, Nietzsche is a fan of morality. He, however, attacks the notion of "slave" or "herd" morality, which he blames for the degeneration of the European.Secondly, on Kiekengraad: I will not get into a theological debate with Pro. It seems that he has contented in saying that Kiekengraad is himself a partaker of this moral revolution within our times. Moreover, a slight note on Hume: his attacks on morality were descriptive attacks on the concept of morality. Hume attacked the concept that morality comes from reason, as reason is neutral. He in no ways attacked the concept of the value of morality-which is the debate today, that atheism has contributed in the devaluing of morality. Hence, to conclude and make things crystal clear: I do not argue that atheism has made "morality "illogical"," or in anyway deny morality whatsoever. I argued that atheist and atheist philosophers have merely introduced a notion that maybe morality deserves to be reinterpreted, but not in anyway devalued. REBUTTALSa.) "Evolutionism" and GenocidesIn this rebuttal, I would like to show that belief in Social Darwinism is (1.) not evolutionary, (2.) not the only reason for genocides, and (3.) does not in anyway show that atheists debase morality. However, I would like to make something very clear: I do not in anyway claim Hitler was not a racist. I just claim that the Holocaust had many other factors, and that Hitler's racism is false.Firstly, social darwinism and the theory of evolution itself has very weak links. This is contra's to Pro's claim that "[Hitler believed] that Jews were in some way a different species somehow. All this was based on evolutionism." The first proponent of this theory was, more or less, Herbert Spencer. I shall like to say something crucial: social Darwinism was a thing before Darwin's theory of evolution was. Spencer, in his Social Statics, first advocated this idea. It was printed in 1851. Darwin's book was printed in 1859. I shall not analyse Herbert Spencer's theoretical inclinations so much as so to refute Hitler's social darwinism. Nazism argues that the Nordics were the purest of the Aryan race and also the original and least corrupt. [3] There once was evidence for this, and surprisingly, that did not come from the field of biology or evolution at all. It came from the field of linguistics. The "first" Aryans are widely assented to have spoken a language called Proto-Indo-European (or PIE). From a reconstructed words, there was the word Lok, which linguists thought to have meant salmon. And since salmon did not exist anywhere else but in the Baltic states, then, the Nordics are the purest. However, there is new evidence that this word actually described a trout-like fish. [4] Moreover, evolution talks about compeitition between species with a genotype difference, rather than a phenotype difference, whilst Hitler's theory talks about competition between phenotypes, which is wholly incorrect and unevolutionary. Moreover, there were other contingencies around the Holocaust that influenced the events. For example, regional hatred for Jews, as well as political factors such as the November 1918 Revolution. This is not new-a genocide, although driven by ideology, is actually a combination of political and social factors. Lastly, even if this argument is to stand and "evolutionism" (which doesn't exist) would be accepted, it still ignores one crucial thing: that Christians who believe in the word of Jesus and Darwinism exist on a large scale. A survey by the NCSE suggests that as large as 89% of the Christian Churches in the United States support evolution education. [5]b.) Rights and HumansPro has done nothing to refute this case at all. Pro asserts that "all they have to do is dehumanize someone." But how do you dehumanize a human? To say that "he is less evolved than me" does in no way refute the fact that human rights are not God given, but rather, inherent without our nature and our consciousness. Hence, Pro fails to refute this case and henceforth, his own case that rights are "God given" cannot stand whatsoever.TO CONCLUDE: Pro's misunderstanding of my first case, as well as futile defenses of his case, amounts to the resolution being NEGATED!CITATIONS[1] https://www.marxists.org...[2] http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl...[3] http://holocaust.umd.umich.edu...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://ncse.com...