Atheism is More Beneficial Than Theism

On to my reply: ===My Case and Rebuttal=== --Atheists are not more compassionate than theists-- Pro cites an editorial that agrees with his stance, I would like to point out that I believe his contention and study are false and is in fact a study of atheist own choosing. My opponent believes that if you are capable of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, you are more likely to be "morally swayed". But does this sway come from compassion or the lack of stability and determination in princibles? This boils down to what kind of person you are regardless of religion or lack thereof. My opponents leaves us thinking that to be compassionate you must be atheist and thiest do not care at all. Religionist have for thousands of years provided healthcare, food, shelter, and goodwill to the entire planet. What has atheist done for man-kind on that scale? This is all the study is need to determine which is more compassionate. Is a emotional decision a greater tool than concerned doctrine? When atheist try to invoke compassion in a specific moment, thiest are not as moved by it…they're cooperative, they're generous regardless of whether they have tried to tap into compassion — whereas people who are low on religion seem to be much more influenced by a moment of compassion from emotion being brought on. The more religious, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or repetitional concerns. It just seems like if people feel that they are religious on a day-to-day basis, their compassion seems to be a little bit more sort of ingrained all the time rather than something that comes on in a specific moment. Then my opponent wants us to believe that athiests are more bound to return money than a thiest. This is assumption and the survey shows this itself. I ask was this survey done with all athiest and thiest? Is my opponent to claim all athiest are generous and giving that no thiest are? This is what is seen in this survey. --Atheists are not more intelligent than theists-- In response to this contention, Pro argues that a hardworking, honest man is not preferred over an intelligent man. My opponent does not deny that thiest are hardworking and honest and athesit are the smart ones. But how much does a survey conclude? Not much at all. Lets look at the overall picture. So-called theist have more a urge to become better and intelligent in thier faith and not man-made knowledge. We can have surveys all day long and if I use mostly thiest in my survey it will conclude the opposite of Pro's. This means nothing. There are intelligence from both sides and any other way to look from that at way shows unintelligence. --Atheists are not healthier than theists-- This again is all assumption on a few studys. This could not and would not be factual in a valid research. Is my opponent saying that on even grounds atheist will be more healthier than theist? I provide natural logic that says both are unhealthy and both are healthy. This simply is the habits of the person not thier beliefs. Nothing more and nothing less. ===THE CASE AGAINST THEISM=== --Theism discourages conflict-- Pro negates this contention by saying that facts remain that the number of lives lost due to atheism and the belief of atheism is zero. I disagree. Many athiest countires have and do kill thiest by the millions to relieve thier country of believers in God. Albania-Russia-China for just a few have killed millions for thier belief and/or lack of belief in God. We should note that in these countries atheist are the majority. We also can see what happens in a atheist ran society(anyone who does not follow thier doctrine will die). Many leaders have done much harm to humans while using religion to back them. This does not speak at all of the real thiest who use thier religion for what it was created for. Which is charity, love, ethics, and concrete faith. My opponent should supply us with proof that theism is primarily used for conflict within societies. --Theism allows for rationalization-- I do not concede at all to my opponent. He gave us nothing to support this view or that rationalization is incorrect(my opponent has given no reason why). Just because someone gives an excuse does not mean thier philosophy is wrong. It just means that it is not viewed by others to be proper. I am not a apologetic at all so this does not apply for me. God set the rules and the guidelines to follow and I will never apologize for it. Nor will I apologize for evil men who use my faith and religion as a way to kill and control others. Theism is not for such acts and any who uses it to do such acts are not following the ethicial boundaries revealed in such religions. --Theism opposes negative social/scientific change-- My opponent concedes that theism does not oppress discovery and this is true. Though then he states that thiest oppresses freedom and the spread of information. I ask my opponent where are the facts for this claim? When are theist opposing and what are thiest opposing? He also denies the fact that science and freedom are reigning today and it is at the cause of theism. Theism does not oppress the freedom and spread of information it supports it. Regardless what my opponent has sayed, atheism does support communionist and marxist propaganda and materials and this is what is opposed. --Atheist's confidence-- My opponent seems to be confused here. I simply stated that atheism is clearly about self means and self assurance and can careless about past beliefs and tradition of others. This in itself shows the lack of compassion amoungst atheist. Feeding on freedom. The contention is that atheist prefer countries where there propaganda will be well consealed. Like today we have many atheist today and alot more than in the past. From living in america they have the best of both worlds. They live free to believe what they want to believe and then also can oppose all that built america. By doing this they come from the inside out destroying what America was built on and in result can claim this nation for themselves. --Built in sense of god-- I have experinced this myself alot. I have alot of friends that all life long claim atheism and no God. But when thier relative dies they talk about them being in heaven with God when they did not believe in God. Thier are many experiences like this. I do not need a straw-pole to verify this, anyone can. Just look at someone who is atheist and then a tragedy happens they will refer to God for help. This happens alot and it is not some wild scheme theory. I bet that many that reads this have had the same experience. ==Close== I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. This has been very good for both sides. I send it back Pro's way. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...