Atheism is More Beneficial Than Theism

Normally I would forfeit my conduct points to my opponent; however, I’d like to point out that Con plagiarized a couple of his arguments from this source, starting from “When an atheist rejects belief in God, he…” (. http://answers.yahoo.com...). I hope my opponent will refrain from copying and pasting his arguments in the future, as it ruins the integrity of the debate. Onto the case. ===THE CASE FOR ATHEISM=== Atheists are more compassionate than theists. My opponent is incorrect in labeling my source as an “editorial” because an editorial is based on opinion, whereas the article I cite is written based on a study that includes both atheists and theists (my opponent’s source is actually an editorial). While my opponent is correct in stating that the study does not imply that theists are completely cold hearted and uncooperative, he cannot deny that the studies show a definite correlation between atheists and compassion. As I have stated in my round 1 argument, the study has used three large, systematic surveys that comprised of over 1000 atheists AND theists only to find the SAME correlation between atheism and generosity. The specific study my opponent and I reference is a study with over 1000 atheist and theist college students, in which the students were given a sum of money and told that the money was donated to them by another random student, and that the lump of money the student gave them was doubled. They were given the choice to donate a portion of their money to another random student and allow the process to continue or keep the money. The study found that atheists were more likely donate money than theists. So even though my opponent accuses the study of being an “assumption”, the fact is that at the end of the day, atheists are more likely to give than theists. Therefore my contention stands and my opponent’s rebuttal falls. Additionally, again I am not saying that all theists are cold hearted and unwilling to donate, I’m just pointing out the fact that atheists are more likely to contribute and donate more. And to answer my opponent’s question, emotional decision is a greater tool than an ingrained doctrine, ESPECIALLY when that ingrained doctrine is programmed into a theists mindset, so they don’t give because they feel empathetic to the cause, they give only because they were told to give. Atheists are more intelligent than theists. My opponent misinterprets my reply. First of all, I state that theists are not more hardworking than atheists and Con has given us no reason to believe this. Secondly, Con fails to distinguish intelligence from knowledge. Intelligence is one’s ability to recognize patterns, understand sequences, etc. Knowledge is simply how much you know. Therefore, while it is possible that theists tend to be more knowledgeable than atheists, it is proven that atheists tend to have an IQ score that is 7-13 points higher than theists. Additionally, my opponent states that “We can have surveys all day long and if I use mostly theist in my survey it will conclude the opposite of Pro's. This means nothing. ”. However, note that my opponent has not used a single study or survey to validate his contentions. In summation, I have shown you with scientific proof that atheists are more intelligent than theists, and my opponent has not provided proof that suggests theists are more hardworking or knowledgeable than atheists. Therefore, my point stands and my opponent’s point falls. Atheists are healthier than theists. My opponent attacks this point by saying that a person’s obesity and health is determined by habits and not religion, but fails to recognize that religion has a huge influence on a person’s habits. And when atheists consistently show signs of a healthier lifestyle compared to theists, it suggests that religion is playing an influential factor on these lifestyles. ===THE CASE AGAINST THEISM=== Theism encourages conflict. I will try to conserve words now. There are many flaws in my opponent’s case. Firstly, there’s no such thing as an “atheist” country. Secondly, my opponent states that in a country ran by atheists, anyone who goes against the atheist doctrine will die. This is blatantly false because the Canadian Prime minister, Stephen Harper, is an atheist and there is clearly no genocide going on in Canada. Whereas historically speaking, there have been many religiously motivated killings such as the crusades, etc. Finally, we are not speaking about the “real theist” vs the “fake theist” in this debate because there is simply no way to define what “real theism” is and what is fake. Therefore, my opponent’s points fall. Theism allows for Rationalization. Again, I’d like to remind my opponent that he cannot use “real theism” as an argument, because there is no set definition of what “real theism” is. Therefore, he cannot say that these “fake theists” who use their religious beliefs as an excuse to murder and commit brutalities do not reflect upon the religion they belong to and in turn, theism in general. Theism oppresses positive scientific and social change. First of all, I’d like to point out that communism is actually rooted in theism, so therefore all of my opponents points on “communist atrocities” are invalid [1]. Secondly, my opponent asks for facts, and since he seems to deny all logical arguments I have made so far, I will present my opponent facts. Galileo was prosecuted by the Catholic Church for presenting evidence that the earth is revolves around the sun, a commonly accepted fact today [2]. ===CONCLUSION=== Unfortunately, it seems I have run out of words. I’d like to conclude by saying that my opponent has failed to provide any sort of verification for his claims, for example he cites his contention that atheists have a built in sense of god on personal experience. I believe this contention should fall for obvious reasons. I wish my opponent good luck in this final round. ===SOURCES=== [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...