It's time for Chridtianity to become militant against Atheism

I know it’s late in the debate but here are some definitions that will help inform my opponent of what he’s actually talking about: Sharia Law - God’s Law Atheist - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. There is no inherent political attachment left or right. Liberal - A person on the political left. There is no inherent atheistic attachment to political ideology. Atheist and Sharia Law are mutually exclusive, a liberal can be a theist and an Atheist can have conservative values. But Pro doesn’t care, I repeat he’s arguing that Christians ought to commit acts of violence against Atheists “by force if necessary” he says. It’s clear Pro has no respect for the First Amendment, but if he thinks if Atheists are going to allow themselves to be jailed by a theocratic regime Pro must have no respect for the Second Amendment. For the purpose of ending this asinine debate sooner I’m going to make my argument in this Round, I don’t think Pro will be able to come up with anything new beyond ‘Atheists are guilty for the crimes of Muslims’. Pro cites Richard Dawkins saying Islam is WORSE than Christianity yet says Atheists are targeting Christianity to implement (Islamic) Sharia Law! But when Atheists stand up against (Christian) Sharia Law Pro argues Atheists are the terrorists. I was hoping Pro could muster an argument for Fascism that didn’t involve nonsense contradictions and I’m disappointed. The first linked video is of another famous Atheist, Sam Harris, having a conversation that encompasses much of what we’re talking about here. Harris says early on “I am a very vocal critic of Islam, as a set of doctrines and ideas …” – then there’s some banter about bigotry, but skip to the 5 min mark, Harris is the speaker on the left. My point being that there are famous well spoken atheists directly targeting Islam saying it’s different than other religions. Pro’s claim that Atheism is somehow enabling terrorism is a conflation of interchangeable use between the terms Atheist and Liberal, forgetting that not all Christian are fundamentalists like Pro Christians are the majority population who supported Muslim immigration. Angela Merkel, the Prime Minister of Germany and the one most held accountable for allowing such an influx of Muslims into Germany and the rest of the EU is a member of the – wait for it … - Christian Democratic Union Party! I repeat again it’s not Atheists as a group, or even as an ideology that is in favor of expanding Islam – but it is Christians who have majority power in both North America and Europe that are allowing Muslims in. Obama is Christian yet from 2009 to 2013 nearly 700,000 green cards were issued to Muslim refugees [5]. Justin Trudeau PM of Canada is Christian as well – Roman Catholic to be precise - and plans to ‘fast track’ 50,000 Muslim refugees by the end of 2016 [6]. The Crimes of Muslims cannot be blamed on Atheists when it's Christians who are doing the real door opening. My opponent has thrown out a gish gallop of arguments I’ll briefly address their irrelevancy. The arguments are: “Con is an atheist trying to define objective morality, which does not exist in a ‘lack of belief’” I never said my morality was objective - but simply because I don’t believe my morality is objective doesn’t mean I can’t make moral claims relative to our world. Pro is arguing for Christians to be just like the Nazis and ISIS in violently attacking atheists, it’s simple hypocrisy, not even morality. He says Atheists should be punished for the crimes of Muslims as an excuse to be just as cruel as they are to eliminate an ideology that debunks Christian mythos far better than violent Islam does. “No one said it was reasonable. It's just what has to be done. Bombing Japan wasn't reasonable, but if it hadn't been done, we'd all be Nazis right now. Extreme times call for extreme measures. We killed Nazis because of their beliefs … Justification post genocide is nonsense. Pro is also ignorant of US history. Nazi Germany surrendered months BEFORE the US nuked Japan so the 2 events aren’t related. Also there were many good reason to use the nuke, but that’s for another debate. But I’m sure my opponent would have approved of the Japanese internment that happened because of Pearl Harbor. A barbaric act that later President Ronald Reagan officially apologized to Japanese Americans for in 1988 giving reparations. “We were very peaceful and polite to atheism overall. It in turn tried to destroy us from multiple fronts. We have the right to defend ourselves.” I would love to know how peaceful Christians have been. Atheists provide scrutiny, not violence, if your religion can’t survive non-violent scrutiny of words and ideas then your ideas should perish. “Now Europe is on the brink of civil war and chaos. America looks to be next. And the common variable in this "enlightenment" was Christianity. Atheists might not want to hear it, but that's reality.” Not that Europe is actually on the brink of civil war, but if it was like I already pointed out it’s the fault of Liberal Christians, not Atheists. Atheists Against Evolution. This is irrelevant. Pro already wants to jail the biologist he cites and only cites him to distract from his own logical fallicies. Atheists like Mao and Stalin killed people. Hitler wasn’t an atheist, and if you’re going to blame all atheists for the action of others it’s only fair to blame Christianity for all its crimes like colonialism, genocide and the Crusades. Also there are some more modern examples of Christian terrorist groups that Pro would approve, like the Lord’s Resistance Army who uses child soldiers, or the Phineas Priesthood, a Christian white supremacy group “On November 28, 2014, Phineas Priesthood member Larry Steven McQuilliams went on a violent rampage in Austin, Texas—where he fired over 100 rounds at various targets (including a federal courthouse, the local Mexican Consulate building and a police station) before being shot and killed by police.” [8] “This is another false dichotomy by ommission. Con points out a terrorist in 1998. 18 years ago …” Pro omits that I also mentioned an attack on Sikhs in 2012 killing 6. When we hear of an abortion clinic bombing, which religion do we think of? In 2015, there were 452 suicide bombings. There were far fewer attacks than in 2014. But where did all of these bombings happen in 2015? Pro doesn’t say but I will. Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria combined are 223, that’s Muslims killing Muslims in the Middle East where atheism is often illegal. Africa also takes a large portion “In 2015, 96 suicide attacks took place in Nigeria, 13 in Cameroon, eight in Chad and five in Niger.” [7] Africa isn’t known for being and atheist hub. And we can forget about Christian performing non-suicide bombings. In conclusion, my opponent’s argument for religious fascism falls flat on its face, and he is resorting to throwing out any argument he can to blame Atheism for all the evil in the world. It’s the Muslims fault for terrorism so Christians need to kill atheists – why not just argue to kill Muslims then? It is especially foolish when shown that it is Christians who mismanaged the refugees and let them in. If the voter values Freedom of thought and the Constutition over the violent barbarism Pro desires then Vote Con! As bonus material Richard Dawkins having a non-militant discussion with a Muslim about religion. [] Sources: [4] Sam Harris Brilliantly Decimates a Muslim Apologist (YouTube.com) http://www.youtube.com... [5] http://www.wnd.com... [6] http://www.wnd.com... [7] http://www.timesofisrael.com... [8] http://www.salon.com...