CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Atheist are more peaceful than religious people
Which are more peacful, religious followers/practicioners or Atheist? People of religious faith promote peace and Atheist have never started a war. Which path should humanity follow?
By the doctrine of one religion telling someone that other people who commit this deed need to be put to death, then yes it's going to cause a war between people of varying beliefs.
But the majority generally do have religious beliefs.
And the Islamic belief in reward after death by bombing people; it's not like terrorists would do it without the belief of that reward. Religion is also another big reason people get offended and butthurt over. Think about the conflict between Jews and Muslims.
Fact: People caused wars in the name of religion all over the world.
Fact: Indifference due to religion caused wars.
Fact: Power hunger in the name of religion caused wars.
Open your eyes and see the truth, that truth is not pretty but the fact remains that religions have cause more wars then any other reason across the planet, religion is the worlds oldest weapon of mass destruction.
FACT: Before "religion" was established by our ancestors, humans fought each other, naturally, for land, comfort/shelter, water, ect.
FACT: The truth is what it is, neither pretty nor ugly. Nuclear bombs are ugly, and if I'm not mistaken, nukes have been the greatest weapon mankind has ever built and used. AND it was used to stop a war that was not based upon religion. You really think WW2 was about christianity? Nah, WW2 was about some crazy guy named Hitler, who the fuck cares if he was catholic or whatever, he didn't like a people, not because of religion but because he was fucking power hungry.
Human error is the oldest weapon of mass destruction.
It's odd that you'd tell me to get my fundamentals correct, after saying that yourself.
What about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and the Crusades? The Holocaust? These are but a few I could name off of the top of my head. Every single one of those was a war, or a one-sided conflict on purely religious reasons, or, would not have occurred without religion.
People have caused wars!
It's hard to see a war starting without any people involved.
Indifference has caused wars!
I am not sure how that's possible. War is a struggle, brought about by differences. How many wars were started because, on a particular issue, a political leader said; "On that subject, my country isn't terribly bothered. TO ARMS, MEN!"
*Meant to say "Indifference of good men has caused wars!"...whoops.
All those wars you speak of were created by men who use the name of religiousness in a way to get what they want (as it's been since the beginning of us humans).
Religion is not the reason why wars are brought upon people. Wars are brought upon due to the human error.
Wars happened and happen and will happen because people have "faith" in whichever X, Y, Z god(s), entities, whatever.
Therefore, religion is not the issue, it's the human beings consciousness choosing to act violent against whatever.
I really believe there is a difference between the two.
I don't think there is a difference. That's the same thing as giving a mental hospital full of psychopaths an assault rifle, and then saying;
"It's not the guns that are the problem."
I'd say that taking the guns away would solve the problem, and this analogy translates across to religion. If it weren't here, there wouldn't be any more religious war (obviously).
Guns and religion are not the same. Guns are meant to attack and defend a person.
Religion is meant to find X, Y, Z whatever, or simply to have the desire to believe in something that is not in front of our eyes; helping the need of humans, in a genuine way.
Guns are used poorly by humans.
Religion is used poorly by humans, I'll give you this.
However, I strongly believe the belief/spirituality of believing in a god(s), or even enlightenment, are more complex than giving a human a gun and seeing what happens.
Think of weaponry in these wars, from stones, to swords, to guns, to nuclear power (power of the sun)? That's fucking ridiculous.
Guns (weaponry) are the invention of mankind to attack and defend themselves.
Religion, or the belief in any god(s), is and should be, weaponry for the heart, no violence involved.
Obviously, humans use both guns and religion in poor manners.
Oh I'm getting pissed off with this whole " _____ didn't cause _____ people did" YES WELL PEOPLE CREATED ALL THESE BAD THINGS, AND BECAUSE OF THESE BAD THINGS, CONSEQUENTLY OTHER BAD THINGS HAPPEN. The fact is, if there was no religion, there would be NO RELIGIOUS WARS!
Before "religion" began, even on the smallest level, our species was killing each other off (wars and battles, violence) for food, shelter, intimidation, ect; because that's what humans do.
Our ancestors from the past even gave each other flowers, and sung songs for each other (non-violence).
FACT: There has always been a constant battle between peace and violence, regardless of religion or non religion.
Definition of religion: Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
The only thing that can define atheism is a lack of belief in a god/deity (or two+) - there is no uniting belief system, nor culture system, nor world view that atheists share besides the disbelief in a god/s. And atheism (in and of itself) does not have a proposed morality theory (I am not saying that atheism is immortal, here), so no, atheism isn't a religion.
Atheism is not a form or religion, it never was. A dictionary would clarify this point to you, Sir. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or deity. Not a belief that they are fictional, not a belief in any number of scientific theories, merely, that an Atheist does not believe in a God.
You try to dismiss the past as being irrelevant, at least to some degree, and to that I would object. If a killer is reading peacefully in his cell, did he therefore not butcher a man? Nay, the Church is no longer the force of war it once was, but it is yet the force of evil it always has been.
So are you therefore saying that because I was once a baby, I am always going to be a baby? Because I was once a girl scout I will always be a girlscout? Because I was once 4 years old, I will always be 4 years old? People change. Things change. Just because the Churches once were involved in bloodshed that does not mean that the Church will always relish in bloodshed and that it will always be evil. The Churches changed for the better and now all arguments on the Crusades being proof are null. Void.
No, I am not susceptible of such ghastly fallacies as those you ask of me.
So rather than saying what happens in the past stays in the past, you're saying "What happened in the past never happened at all."
My point was that these blemishes, while in times passed, are in sharp contrast with the unblemished path of atheism. Partly because, atheists are not an organisation and therefore cannot postulate a common agenda. The rogues are rogues, but atheism as a creed remains virgin, while the Church has always committed evil, and is in doing so, filthy.
And, is the harbouring and protection of paedophiles not 'evil', in as many meanings as we may ascribe to the word? That exists today.
Yes you have a point that religious wars would`t exist, but in time, if atheists become powerful. They will also succumb to division just as what happened to Christianity or another belief would stand up against it and there would also be another war. Upon difference in beliefs, war is most likely.
There would be no war over "differing beliefs" like in Christianity, as the belief would be common. I'm not saying that there would be no war - perhaps politics would become the motivator - but certainly, there would be no religious war. None at all. Atheists don't differ in 'belief'.
In history division leads to conflict and conflict leads to war. It just so happened that Christianity was just divided and no war between them happened. But if they became powerful, surely war may occur.
As for Atheists, yes it is the same. But some of their philosophies differ. An example is how they disprove our creator. Thus from these difference in beliefs, division will occur, then conflict, then war. Man is war freak in nature.
Wait, I'm sorry, what I just said made no sense at all, lol. based upon what we have seen (history), who is more violent? I assert that religious peoples are more violent than Atheist because they has an innate history of violence. Too many killings and bombings and wars have been caused by religion. Not only governments, nations and empires, but individual people have gone and killed senselessly due to their religious beliefs. Would they have done these things if they were not followers of a religion? I do not consider myself a religious person, nor do I consider myself an Atheist, but this answer is plain to me.
If you're willing to admit that a whole host of social issues and human emotions are responsible for the violence in this world, why not religion? If "expansion" can be blamed for any violence throughout history, religion certainly can.
Admittedly people do kill people, and people do bring wars, and people are the problem, but history would be very boring if it went something like, "Some people fought some people because people." We need to examine more than just that.
Religion itself is not an emotion, it's not anger, frustration or happiness. It's a means to "find, or do" these things in "X, Y, Z guidelines/and or liberties within X, Y, Z religion and religious thoughts"..persay.
There are knives all around me, guns all around me, however I do not choose to stab myself or a person, nor do I wish to be stabbed by another person.
Knives are also used to cut carrots or a rope or other non-violent things.
A fresh cup of coffee may say "do not drink, it is hot". So if the subject doesn't read, or can't and takes a drink, they'll burn the shit out of their mouths; with only themselves to blame, learn and live.
Again, human beings being error prone are what the issue is. Not that a human being is religious or non-religious.
We've still got choice, do we not?
PS - The "expansion" I spoke of was namely the power hungry aspects of "need more land, more food, more this, more that..." And not because X, Y, Z god says so, but because humans are needy, greedy, hungry, for many things other than potatoes and broccoli.
I guess my point is you can either examine the factors that drive people to do the horrendous things they sometimes do (like expansion) or you can't and you just blame it on people. If we can examine factors, religion is a perfectly acceptable factor to examine. If we can't examine religion, we have no reason to examine "expansion" or "greed," either, and we should just blame everything on humanity as a whole.
I agree, let us blame the choices humans make, whether violence or not, religious, non religious.
To name religion as "the, if not THE, main source of violence and wars (in the world) are religion and the religious." is incorrect, religion is not the cause, it isn't even the effect, of the human life. People are naturally curious in general, therefore most people have searched for answers in areas other than what's in front of their faces and ears. So with this said, the more people that are alive, the more chances of them having some sort of faith, religion, or spirituality. Further, the actions of human beings are based upon many variables and circumstances. And so, to blame it on religion to be more violent and what not is believe is incorrect. People believe in many things and aspects in this life, have many desires. Blame the negative aspects about the way people believe in X, Y, Z, fine, however, do not blame the entirety of it on religion or the religious. That's not the truth.
If there was no religion, and no belief over a God that people take offence from if someone insulted their God, there would be no disputes/wars in religion, therefore religion is the sole cause of religious wars.
This is a point to which you cling mostly dearly, but it is of no worth - religion can only exist in human minds, which are fallible, so saying that the problems are caused in human minds is obvious, but, where else can religion exist?
Religion has caused wars. Furthermore, Sharia law does in fact permit the killing of various infidel groups, and thus religion in itself causes war. The rest of the time, yes, the humans themselves err in the name of religion, but can it not be said that without religion, these wars would never have happened?
How can it be achieved by flawed ancient myths and ideologies? In the bible, God demands people to be stoned to death for the littlest things like swearing, there are also countless verses about human/animal sacrifices. Not to mention speaking donkeys, bushes and snakes.
If everyone followed the bible literally, it would be an Occult.
But people are not dumb, because we can think for ourselves that what part of God's word is too mental to be believed. It's annoying how the religious fight against religion with their trash religious scriptures.
No, whats fucking annoying are when people like you bash a particular religion, that of christianity and of the bible. What about the others? Or do you have a particular heat against christianity.
Religion is not going anywhere.
Not all religions are occultist.
Not all religions are bad for people.
Not all religions are ran by corrupt mother fuckers.
How can other religions some how make Christianity okay to be fucked up? And don't fucking call me "people like you".
Christianity is the most followed religion on Earth- so it is a religion of all religions. Competing religions such as Islam and Judaism are clearly no different/worse in their fallacies to Christianity.
Not all religions are occultist.
Not all religions are bad for people.
Not all religions are ran by corrupt mother fuckers.
I know, but in general facts to the most followed religions in the world, they are quite shitty.
Would a christian still be a christian if their god came before them and prooved it's existance? Or a buddhist a buddhist if they achieve enlightenment?
Any more a paranormal researcher, who discovers ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.
Would a christian still be a christian if their god came before them and prooved it's existance? Or a buddhist a buddhist if they achieve enlightenment?
Are you saying that you have seen your God come up and prove their existence?
Any more a paranormal researcher, who discovers ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.
You're a paranormal researcher now? Do you even know how to research, other than use an Ouija board (a recent invention) and some candles (also a recent invention comprised of wax, which people find especially "magical" for some reason.)
Yes, magical spells, candles, herbs, crystals; all involved in witchcraft. Are you forgetting your previous statement about how you only followed things that had "proof". How is this the acception?
Well you're definitely not following how Wicca was meant to be. You're supposed to be using magic crystals, casting spells and crap! It's illogical that you don't follow these things. It's like a Christian ignoring the existence of Jesus.
Yes, atheists are more peaceful than theists are. The main reason is :
Unlike theists, atheists have no hope after their death. So, they think in their minds "we will have nothing to do after our death; why should we engage in strife..." So, "When a wicked man dies, his hope perishes; all he expected from his power comes to nothing." (Prov 11:7)
On the other hand the theists think in their minds "God is so gracious to us that, He has been forgiving our sins. So, let's us sin..." thus sinning becomes a habit of theists when they see the mercy of God with them. So, Paul's (inspired by God) statement comes to true : "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Rom 5:20). But the theists forget that, God doesn't want us remain in sin for mercy. "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"(Rom 6:1)
I mentioned about most of the Christians i.e. so called. I know that a real servant of the Lord is not comparable with worldly people. I am sorry if you thought I intended all Christians. Really it was so-called Christians. A real child of Jesus is, by no doubt, extremely peaceful which the world can not describe. Thanks.
History has shown that religion, not all but some, has caused much violence through out the world. Countless people have died in the name of it. Even now the worlds worst villains kill in the name of their god. So atheist are winning the "non violent fight".
I agree. Both sides are capable and have done acts of extreme violence. But the question is who is More violent. And in the past and present religious has been more violent.
But there is more or less. Who is more violent in fact, as you said, is the topic of the debate. This debate is about that exact thing. What the debate is not about, is the capability of being violent. So hop on off of that fence why don't cha lol
No, this topic is attempting to ask "Are atheists more peaceful than religious people", not "Are all people capable of peace and non violence".
I am speaking on the latter; humans are capable of both, and from what I've seen and researched, there are as much violence in the world as there are non violence.
So, to say religion has cause more violence/atheists are more peaceful is ridiculous.
Religion is a tool used to better oneself, or at least should be considered this way.
The people whom use religion in "wrong ways/violent" are making religion look bad, and I'm sure you'd agree.
I'm not on the fence, I'm strongly against humans possessing the power of the sun, while I am strongly for humans striving and looking for answers a part from what meets the eye, belief in X, Y, Z god(s) (aka religious)
So, in a great sense, people who do not manipulate religion and/or atheism (amongst other ordeals) to heed to their "dirty works" (violence) are more peaceful than anything and anyone whom we're speaking about now, whomever they are.
It really seems like you complicating a very simple question. I have no idea why you assumed this "Are all people capable of peace and non violence" is the question I was trying to answer. In fact I told you what the topic was. No one is arguing that both sides are capable of both. And no one is arguing that there is as much violence in the world as there is non violence. It is a valid question with 2 valid answer. What is ridiculous about it. Religion has been used to improve yourself, and it has also been used to kill people. That is the part we are talking about. Religion has caused more violence in the world, in my opinion. That makes them less peaceful. And you still haven't answered the question being asked. "Atheist are more peaceful than religious people". You say you are strongly against humans, but both sides are humans. Be more specific.
To be fair, atheists are a fairly new group. And you cannot lump in every religion into one group and call them more violent, when not all are equal. History has not shown that religion has caused violence, but people who abuse the system to manipulate the masses... and this can be done with anything, not just religion. You take what's popular and appeal to the audience, get them to agree with you. If that requires being a 'man of god' or just 'someone concerned with the environment', so be it.
Yes religion is not the soul source of violence in the world. And yes people can manipulate anything to harm people. No one is denying that. It seems like everyone wants to beat around the bush and avoid something they know is true. The answer to the question being asked is Atheist are more peaceful. And not all violence in religion was a product of cunning manipulation. Some of it was done under the direct command of God, according to the bible. But every group in history has its dark past. I understand that. And I am not claiming one side is better then the other in anyway shape or form. Im am jus answering the question being asked. Im not even an atheist.
Though it is no major crime, I feel obliged to inform you that this is incorrect - every child is born atheist, and has been since there have been humans. In fact, atheism has been around since the moment theism bloomed into the picture.
What you meant to say was - "Atheists have only recently been able to profess their lack of faith without being murdered for it."
Yeah I don't care what you call it. I was undecided. Whether it's a misunderstanding or not matters little.
In my eyes I could only have been an atheist if I were made aware of the concept of a god in the first place, then given the choice of what to believe.
Besides, when I called atheists a group, I meant the movement, not your 'well, technically...' definition.
Well, agnosticism is really sitting on the fence. If you don't know anything about either side of the fence, that would make you an atheist, wouldn't it? I get your point, though.
Hah, more people in general means more probability for non violence and violence. Do you know what this means?
I believe people are generally good people.
I believe many atheists do non violent acts.
I believe many religious folk do non violent act.
I believe we're all capable of both, yet it's matter of choice.
It's a greater probability for mankind to both equally, than one side or the other. Even though I believe people are naturally more "good", than "evil".
Sure, both can be violent, but there are many more disciples of religion, so the likelihood is religious people are more violent.
There are a lore more theist than atheists, or of course there are going to be more violant relgious people, because there are more religious people in general. By the same logic you are using, religious people are more likely to sign peace treaties.
Atheists don't have a long enough history as being a dominant mindset to attest for how proportionally equal they are to the mainstay of religious people in how peaceful they are.
Though, for what little we have seen in our history of 'organized atheism', they do appear to be somewhat more peaceful then the big three monotheistic, organized religions.
They don't see to more peaceful then Buddhism and religions similar to Buddhism, but the unfortunate fact is that those religions are not the dominant ones.
However, I cannot accept that religion and religious people are any more or less violent than any other atheist, or non believer, to do harm to others.
It's like I punch you in the face and say "I am a catholic by the way.. "
versus
I punch you in the face "I am atheist by the way..."
The way you put that, you seem to be arguing on terms of the relevancy religion has with violence. And in a way, you're correct to question why it's relevant.
But, it's relevant because religious views, or lack thereof, effect beliefs and mannerisms, which in turn effects an individuals motivations, reasoning, and reactions to stimuli. If a Catholic devoutly believes that Muslims are devil worshipers, and are evil, and are therefore a threat, then the way he reacts to certain stimuli is totally different then, say, a non-Catholic not having such a belief.
The relevance is plain and simply motivation. If someone is motivated to be violent because of a religious view, you could construe that as religious violence, and violence that is not motivated by religious views to be non-religious violence.
They are both not peaceful because they are both humans. Lets not forget Stalin was atheist and he killed millions of people. But generally atheists are usually more peaceful
For once i side with Atheism. Religion started the Curscaded and many wars. It has indirectly caused that but if you look at an atheist and a religious people at a whole then it is a little different.
Religion is the source of many of the world's problems. I am more anti-theist than atheist, meaning, I refuse to accept any religion or belief as fact. I think that this is truly how the world should work. We do not know the answers, and the fact that we fight over the answers is foolish. We do not know, we will never be able to find out. I live peacefully, acknowledging that I do not know the answers, I do not choose to fight with those who think differently, however a lot of times they choose to reprimand me, and shun me, and call me a 'nonbeliever' These people are definitely more confrontational than I am.
Atheists are more peaceful than theists because theists are always in a worry to elevate their deity but sometimes theists do kind of hurt the theists by denying the presence of god. I mean the atheists should be quiet in front of them because we are not fools like the people who have desperate belief in God.
To tell the honest truth, neither religious people or atheists are more peaceful. There are evil religious people, and evil atheists. There are good atheists and good religious people. There is simply no one answer.
To tell the honest truth, neither religious people or atheists are more peaceful. There are evil religious people, and evil atheists. There are good atheists and good religious people. There is simply no one answer.
Oh great another debate where athiests can say thier far surperior to christians and right in every way. Im gonna stay out of this one knowing its just going to be more made up lies -_-.
I think I am very peaceful because I have someone greater that is watching over me and protects me everyday from the this evil and corrupted generation that we are living in.
This is a loaded question if I've ever seen one. Still, guess I'll answer.
Neither are more peaceful than the other, since they are all people. Wars may be started on religious basis, but they have also been waged for political reasons, as well as other, less intelligent reasons as well. The root cause is the corruption inherent in all mankind. So to say one group or the other is more peaceful is to be lying.
I only answer with 'religious people more peaceful' since I can't bring myself to hit the atheist option. My brother is an atheist and he's prone to anger/violence and has cut all ties with our family. So atheists aren't more peaceful than any other human being.
Religion does not necessarily reflect the person as a whole. Violence may come from an external source such as way of life, therefore religion is`t as violent as people think.
Actually , it totally depends on the practisers who grasp on their on thinking . In my point of view , I don't see any conflict between the co-existence of these 2 thinkings . Apple appears in the eye of beholder , as a matter of fact, both deliver positive sort of teachings . Neer do I notice that these will coupled with myriads of shortcomings or disadvantages , instead , what do matters is the individual itself . Bias thought , will indefinitely , bring about disastrous and unpredictable conflicts and blood-shredding events . Hence , we should treat both of them in a balanced and just manner .
These people were not motivated on the basis of their lack of belief in god. With the possible exception of Stalin no atheistic tyrants pushed their atheism on the populace, and even in the case of Stalin he was arguably trying to replace mainstream religion with Stalin worship, so you couldn't consider him an atheist. Religious fanatics, by comparison, are driven almost exclusively by their religious beliefs.
Admittedly referencing Mao does refute the notion that atheist are a more peaceful people, but that was never my position, anyways. Just that atheism isn't a predominant factor in a tyrant atheist's regime the way religion would be a prominent factor in a religious tyrants regime. if anything, we see atheistic tyrants borrowing themes from religion to make their tyrannical rule more complete, like Hitler did.
Exactly, the essence of religion should not be dictated by those like Hitler, or whomever else that uses religion as a means of conquering and control and to bring war upon peoples; it's not the religious' fault, it's Hilter's fault, it's X, Y, Z person or persons using religion to be "violent" because "that's what they believe in".
Still, religion is not at fault for being violent. The person (s) is at fault. It's the way it's utilized poorly by X, Y, Z person(s).
Correlation does not mean causation. There are more religious people out in the world than atheists, so it should be expected that more violent events will be prepitrated by relgious people, just because it is more likely in general that they are religious.
When people do bad things, they rationalize what they did with what they believe. While relgion can be used for such rationalization, it is not the only way to rationalize bad things. Look at the nazis. even though they were targeting a religous group during the holocaust, the reasons given for doing so were not relgious themselves. They used psudeo-sciences like eugenics.
The point i am trying to make is that religion is not the cause for the bad things in the world. The problem is naturally bad people using religion as excuses.
It would be hard to say who exactly. So many chrisians still struggle with happines and peace. Same with atheist. In fact, both groups can easily say and come off to be this peaceful person but only the person themselves know if they truly are or not. Some could even convince themselves that they are when they're really not. And when i say some i'm talking about both christians and atheist. Now, the only reason why i side with christians is bc i base my truth off the bible. According to the bible, it lets us know that a peace will come over us once we decide to follow God. That doesn't mean we'll just be this super happy person 247. We will still get mad, sad, hurt, and etc. However, its God's peace that at the end of the day should have us reassured that everything will be ok. I know this might frustrate a lot of people just by reading this simply bc i talk about my God the way i do, but if anything that should make you question yourself and ask "why am i getting so mad???". We're so quick to look at others and get mad and point out everythingt that they did that justifies why we can be mad at them, but never look at ourselves.
Being peaceful comes when you look to something other than yourself. Anger comes when you feel your out of control, and you MUST release control to be peaceful. The Atheists I've met are more bitter than happy, a need to win rather than talk. (this is only my little piece of the world).
Serving others is a great thing, and there's no accident on why "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you," is in the Bible. It just works for peace.