Atheism is More Beneficial Than Theism

Onto my arguments. ===THE CASE FOR ATHEISM===Atheists are more compassionate than theists. While Pro cites an editorial that disagrees with my study, I would like to point out two things that I believe validate both my contention and the study. First of all, empathy precedes compassion, and empathy is by definition “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another” [1]. I believe that if you are capable of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, (say a beggar on the street); you are more likely to be “morally swayed”. Since even my opponent admits that atheists “are more easily morally swayed”, it enforces the idea that atheists are more empathetic, and since compassion is built on empathy, atheists are more likely to be compassionate. Secondly, one of the studies involved a similar demographic in which both atheists and theists were given money by a stranger and asked to pass on a portion of the money they were given. The bottom line that the research found was that atheists were more likely to return this random act of kindness and theists were more likely to keep the money to themselves. I would like side con to explain why this does not show that atheists are more generous and compassionate than theists before questioning the validity of my contention. Atheists are more intelligent than theists. In response to this contention, Con essentially argues that a hardworking, honest man is preferred over an intelligent man. However, he has not provided evidence that theists are more hardworking and honest than atheists. Therefore we can only conclude that Con concedes this contention, and accepts the fact that atheists get the benefit of a higher intelligence. Atheists are healthier than theists. Again, Con responses by saying that happiness takes priority over healthiness, but this is essentially a straw man argument because Con has not provided evidence that theists are happier than atheists and also does not challenge the contention itself, instead he says that there are other priorities. Therefore, we again conclude that Con concedes this contention and accepts the fact that atheists receive the benefit of staying healthier. ===THE CASE AGAINST THEISM===Theism encourages conflict. Con attempts to negate this contention by saying that historical examples are skewed due to the higher ratio of theists. While there are more theists than atheists, however, the fact remains that the number of lives lost due to atheism and the belief of atheism is zero, whereas the number of lives lost due to religious reasons is over 890 billion. The reason for this is simply because theistic gods mandate their followers to impose their ideas upon other people and crush the people that disagree for their “incorrect” views. Theism allows for rationalization. My opponent has chosen to concede this point till further notice. Theism oppresses positive social/scientific change. My opponent states that theism does not oppress discovery and while this is true, theism does oppress the freedom and spread of information that is considered blasphemous. An example of this, as stated earlier, is how scientists who believed that the earth was not flat were executed on accusations of heresy before it became a commonly accepted fact. Theists HAVE oppressed the spread of knowledge and theories. Additionally, my opponent attacks atheism by accusing atheists of creating dictators such as Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao. The problem with his argument is that though Stalin and Mao did commit atrocities and were atheist, there are many more dictators that have committed atrocities and were religious. Additionally, Pol Pot was actually a theist. He was a buddhist, and the idea of him being atheist is a common misconception. Also, I’d like to point out that Communism isn’t inherently atheistic, regardless of what Pro would like you to believe. ===REBUTTALS===Atheist’s confidence. My opponent has made a confusing contention and while he states in his argument that atheists require faith too and put their confidence in science and other beliefs, he does not explain why this is explicitly bad. Additionally, an atheist does not necessarily have to believe in science. According to the definition, an atheist is anyone who doesn’t believe in god. It doesn’t specify that atheists have to believe in science. Feeding on freedom. This again, was a confusing contention, because even though Con uses a statistic to support his claim that the majority of atheists live in developed, first world countries, he does not explain why this is explicitly bad. Built in sense of god. Con has not sourced his argument or provided statistics about how “even the most hardcore atheist is quick to fall to prayers during difficult times”. I would like him to back up his source with a statistic. I have to dismiss the next two of my opponents arguments as irrelevant because they concern whether god exists, which is a separate debate altogether. For this debate, I would like my opponent to refrain from making such arguments and stick to the resolution (argue based on positive and negative effects of atheism/theism). I would also to point out that Con abuses the term “Strawman”. The true definition of a strawman argument is a rebuttal that does not address the true contention of the opponent [2]. As I have not made any rebuttals during the first round, I could not have made the strawman arguments that my opponent accuses me of making. ===SOURCES===[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...