atheism is a force for good in this world and progressing the human race unlike theism

Let's look at the debate topic: "atheism [sic] is a force for good in this world . . ." How do we define "good"? A simple definition for the adjective form is "to be desired or approved of." [1] However, when using the word as a noun the Merriam-Webster dictionary puts forth the following: : morally good forces or influences : something that is right or good the good : the pleasant things that happen to people [2] We could simply say "good" is "something to be desired or approved of." So, after examining what "good" means, it would seem that Pro's claim is that atheism is a efficous means of obtaining what is desirable. We will go into more detail on this later. But even that is going a bit far. After all, what can "atheism" do? Nothing, as it is not a "thing." It is an idea (defined as "a disbelief in the existence of deity" [3]) that has no material standing. Instead, to avoid confusion we ought to clarify and substitute "those individuals who practice the belief of atheism" for "atheism." Pro's main point is that, if atheism were to dominate the globe, more "good," or desirable things would happen than if "theism" (the belief in god or God or GOD or goD or however you wish to capitalize it) were to sweep the world. In other words, the belief system of atheism is more constructive and . . . " . . . and progressing the human race unlike theism." And resulting in progress. "Progress" is also a loose term, but here Pro has helped us by clarifying in his argument. Progress here means progress in "advancing the human race technologically, scientifically, and [as] a force for world peace and ending bigotry." Which are all noble goals. Or are they? The problem is, scientific progress unchecked can lead to terrible consequences (and tons of science fiction). Which leads to my first point: Number One: Atheism is generally less capable of checking science than is theism. Here's why: Atheists generally (and I know not all atheists think this way) consider science to be our savior. This is quite logical from their worldview as, without any spiritual or transcendental ideology, all problems are necessarily natural, which means that all solutions are necessarily natural. Science is quite good at addressing the natural. So science is deemed our savior and is allowed to run unchecked. Unchecked science can lead to eugenics (a kind of human breeding attempt to create a master race), [4] cloning, the creation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes, as well as other policies I would call evil. To go in a more pertinent direction, unchecked science can actually hinder world peace as science produces bigger and bigger bombs. Nuclear holocaust was a very real possibility a few decades ago. What makes us think another Cold War is impossible? One may ask why theists would do a better job of avoiding these pitfalls. The answer is that theists consider spiritual aspects as well as natural aspects of problems. They see sin as a spiritual, rather than as a natural, problem, and feel accountable to God for their actions. I am not saying atheists are not responsible, just that the nature of their belief makes them more likely to wholeheartedly embrace every scientific advancement, which can be a dangerous thing. So, what other differences does the God v. no God ideology conflict bring up? Both theists and atheists can be good scientists, I agree on that. In fact, to win you will have to prove that theism somehow hinders a person from advancing the human race. This is not the case. Theists consider the world to be a gift from God, given for our use and preservation. Theists also (are supposed to) view others as valuable and "love thy neighbor as thyself." Atheists, on the other hand . . . Number Two: Atheists Have Nothing to Fear This title may put the reader off. Is it good to fear? Well, I would not say fear is desirable, but its effects can be beneficent. It is a simple fact that theists believe in an afterlife where some judgement is conducted while atheists believe in nothing but unconscious decomposition. Now, we all know how important speed limits are to insure traffic safety. But if you knew the federal debt had finally crushed our entire government (including, most importantly, the police department), would you be as careful to adhere to them? Does the presence of that police station on the corner slow you down a little normally? My point is that atheists quite simply have no consequences to fear if they enter a school, kill forty kids, and then kill themselves. On the other hand, Christians and Jews and Muslims know they're in big trouble with God if they do so. In fact, a believer's relationship with God will often radically transform their very character, pushing them far from the point where they would even consider doing such a thing. Now, to be clear, I am not saying that atheists normally like to kill people and then themselves. However, according to atheism, when you're dead, it's all over, which means that you really do have nothing to fear after death, so there is no logical reason NOT to kill others and then yourselves if you are an atheist, assuming you are angry at the world. Terrorism doesn't advance either world peace or anything else but death. Number Three: "Good" is subjective A Christian could define doing "good" as loving God and loving your neighbor. [5] Or, as doing unto others as you would want others to do to you, which is a major tenet of basically all global religions. What should an atheist define "good" as? Well, advancing the human race, as my atheist opponent has. That's basically it. But while this is a good goal, there is no reason for all atheists to accept it as the truth. With the absence of God and consequences we are reduced to ethical nihilism, which some of the atheists on this site actively forward. From the point of view of the average person uninterested in philosophy, atheism basically gives him free reign to define "good" as he pleases. Some may choose the noble definition, but most will go with hedonism, living for sex, food, success, money, and basically whatever will make them happy. This may point them in a good direction concerning "advancing the human race," but it may just as likely not. Is spending millions of dollars on sports, sports programming, advertisements, and TV deals really "progress"? Theists, on the other hand, have purpose. Some become scientists, where they are no worse than their atheist colleagues, and some (a larger percentage by far than atheists, for obvious reasons) turn to philanthropy, moving to Haiti to help and encourage and, sure, to spread what they see as the "good news." Theism encourages helping others, while atheism encourages helping yourself. Well, that's all for tonight. I'm sure I'll think of more later, but now I am tired and ready to turn the debate over to Pro, whom I courteously thank as well as all our viewers. [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://historynewsnetwork.org... [5] Luke 10:27-28