Atheism has debased morality

FRAMEWORKThis debate talks about reducing the value of morality in causation with Atheism. To this, I would like to argue that to say that atheism reduced the value of morality (debasing morality) is simply flawed, as morality simply has been revised under the post-modernist memes that one lives in. ARGUMENTa.) Post-Modern MoralityIn this argument, I shall argue that atheism does not in anyway debase (redue in the value) of morality, but rather, it creates a new way of interpreting morality. The debate on morality has gone on since the earliest of times. However, the current ways of interpreting morality often arise from David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume's philosophy basically states that since reason is neutral, then it cannot put value into things. The neutrality of reason henceforth creates the mere moral vacuum, as morality is basically a valuing or devaluing of certain acts. [1] Although it would be sufficient to add that Hume was an atheist, his philosophy actually derives from a rich tradition of theists. For example, Hume's philosophical grandparent, John Locke, was a theist. To go on with the history of the post-modern interpretation of morality, morality was also discussed in the works of Soren Kiekengraad. Kiekengraad was a Danish philosopher, most famous for his book Either/Or. Kiekengraad was a devout Christian, whose theology was to profoundly effect the way theology worked. Kiekengraad saw God's command as supreme to morality. An example, not necessarily used by Kiekengraad himself, was Abraham attempt at killing his son for God. Kiekengraad, of course, argued that this was morally unjustified. Yet, as God was in no way below morality, then God's commands are supreme. The effects of this on the interpretation of morality is interesting. Christians are now presented with another way of interpreting the Gospels: they are God's command, rather than moral precepts. Some of them may have some relations to moral precepts, but since they are from God, one does not violate this. Now, we come to Nietzsche. Nietzsche was an atheist, undoubtedly, but he also hated Christian morality. Christian morality limited the "will to live," to use Nietszsche's words. He also saw Christian morality as a slave revolt against the strong, the prideful etc. But, in the realm of the interpretation of morality, he also introduced perspectivism-the belief that all we believe in is a perspective. [2] This rudimentary and rushed history shall be enough to conclude many things. Firstly, no one of these three philosophers in anyway reduced the value of morality. In fact they all proclaimed it is key to living life. They merely reinterpreted morality-and this is crucial. To debase morality is to say morality has no more importance in our life-virtue is dead, and that this is good. However, the three post-modern philosophers here argued differently: morality needs to be debated, but virtue is not dead, and it shall live on, albeit differently. Hence, to conclude, atheism has in no way debased morality. Quite the opposite, many atheist philospher has proclamed morality to be fundamental to life, and shall be kept that way.REBUTTALSb.) Evolutionism and Mass MurderThere is no connection between evolutionism and mass murder whatsoever. This is because "evolutionism" is in every way a descriptive doctrine, and is not supposed to be prescriptive. Moreover, only misinterpretations of this doctrine has justified mass murder. Firstly, it is a well-known fact that Hitler did not kill based on his unflinching belief on Social Darwinism. Although he did believe in it, he also had many nationalist factors. The Jews, according to Hitler, had robbed Germany. They organised the 1918 November Coup, and betrayed the millions of soldiers who were fighting for their Volk. Without this, and without other sentiments to incite it, it would have been hard for Hitler to have justified his fight. Moreover, Hitler and other scientific racists based their doctrines on a flawed notion. This is the notion of the Indo-European Urheimat. Hitler's scientific racist friends purported to have definite proof of his race being the "original" speakers of the Indo-European languages, and henceforth being the original "White" people. This proof was to come in the form of the Indo-European word for called salmon. But since then, this proof has come under attack from large amounts of linguistics, and it is often suggested that the word does not necessarily means salmon, but rather a "trout-like" fish.Secondly, this argument assumes that every who believes in Evolution is immoral. This includes Christian. Christians, like the current Pope and the many current scientists, under Pro's test, shall be included as immoral for no apparent reason but that evolution's misinterpretation has been used, unfairly, to justify "mass murder."c.) Rights and AtheismThis notion is the most flawed in Pro's argument. To use a slogan from one document, which has no relevance on the other side of the world, to prove that atheists do not believe in human rights, is as funny as to speak English to tigers. I would like to explain rights using natural law. We humans, once we come into society, are separate from every human being forever. And hence, our rights cannot come from them. But our rights cannot come from something outside us too-that would mean our rights are arbritarily decided, and can be taken away at any time (or that it is not known, for we can not know something that is outside us for sure). Yet, we know our rights, and we know that it is unalienable. Our rights, in actuality, come from our being a human. Humans are special-we have cognition and consciousness. Yet, with speciality comes responsibility, but of course, privileges. These privileges do not come from anything else but our humanity.Hence, the resolution remains negated!CITATIONS:[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...