CreateDebate


Debate Info

38
41
Yes No
Debate Score:79
Arguments:48
Total Votes:89
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (20)
 
 No (28)

Debate Creator

TERMINATOR(6779) pic



Atheists: Would you embrace religion if World Peace will result from it?

Yes

Side Score: 38
VS.

No

Side Score: 41

If you can possibly explain how atheists converting will bring peace, then I'll not only convert, I'll give all my possessions and walk through the desert for 40 days.

Until then though, I'm gonna go ahead and avoid talking to imaginary friends to make the world a better place, and continue volunteering at charities.

Side: yes
4 points

True World Peace vs. What would most likely happen... world peace.

If it is true world peace where one can live his life in any way he wants without the threat of others, than I will embrace (but not convert to) religion being a globally dominant ideal.

But world peace can be tricky. Think of a world where you are either part of the greater good or an enemy who must be eliminated. We see this with Equilibrium and 1984. You bring world peace, but at the expense of freedom of even the most personal thing; thought.

Side: yes
2 points

The world would be no better than Nazi Germany if that occurred. To dictate what one can or cannot think, feel and say defies all concepts of human rights and ethical morals. I will never embrace any religion if World Peace will result from it because World Peace will not occur from atheists embracing religion. First, there must the argument over which religion will be the state religion. This argument will not do the world any good as every religion will be fighting against themselves. Instead of bringing world peace, it will bring WW3. That is why I am an atheist. I started doing my part to prevent WW3 and will continue without falter until I breathe my last breath.

Side: No
2 points

I'd support other people being religious, but I could never agree to believing in something I have no proof of.

Side: yes

Just as a smart person should. Religion is completely out of whack.

Side: yes
2 points

well we already have islam for this argument. and hey iv always wanted to wear a turban and crash planes (sounds fun), and the best part, its for world peace!

Side: yes
1 point

I don't think you'll find many atheists with any problem given this were somehow magically possibly true.

You will however find that the religious will not give up their Allah or Jesus, they'd sooner watch the world burn since they only fake die according to their mythology.

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6779) Disputed
1 point

I was wondering when this would come up:

An atheist believes he has absolutely nothing to lose, so it doesn't matter if he converts to a religion.

A religious person, however, is religious for a reason. An atheist is of the belief they've nothing to lose, and a religious person is of the belief they've everything to lose. Obviously the latter would not change.

Side: No

"They made made a wasteland and called it peace."

Tacitus, Senator of Rome.

The above phrase refers to a scenario called "Carthaginian Peace". In 146 BC, Rome subjugated Carthage and ensured a lasting peace - by burning it to the ground. Thus, peace can only truly be achieved through eliminating the need (and often desire) for war. The only practical way of achieving this is war.

Philosophy aside, religion breeds conflict. All are convinced utterly of their beliefs' veracity and the falsity of others'. they feel obligated to aid these heathens by converting them. On a larger scale, this has always been achieved through war. If all the world were spiritually liberated, they would be atheist. Religion is perpetuated by the credulity and blind hope of a deceived multitude. It is a device of control, and yes, if one were to achieve dominance, a great deal of conflict would be avoided. But at the cost of liberty and free thinking. Educational Institutions would be replaced by Ecclesiastical inquisitions, in a bid to remove all opposition.

With the recent Catholic child-sex scandals, we have seen how clergy use their power to achieve their depraved, evil fantasies. It was a minority, but they were protected by the majority.

The only question which remains is which religion would dominate? There are some quintessential properties:

Sexual repression.

Historical inaccuracies.

False attribution of mystical properties to ordinary occurrences.

But some more exclusive ones as well

Islam

Patriarchal society.

Barbarous punishments including stoning, beheading and dismemberment.

Misogynistic.

Depraved.

Christianity

Patriarchal society.

Hypocrisy.

Misogynistic

Judaism

Patriarchal society.

Ritual mutilation of Children.

Misogynistic.

Hinduism

More of a philosophy.

Actually more attractive than other religions, in that it does not seek to butcher everybody that does not adhere to it.

Unfortunately, based on lies, as are all religions.

Atheism

No belief in unproven statements.

Cannot be attributed to any conflict.

Has no doctrine regarding other faiths.

Is not institutionalised or corrupt.

Encourages freedom of thought and scientific advancement.

Does not interfere in the lives of its adherents.

No outdated teachings on sexuality.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Minor point, really, but on your assessment of Hinduism, you made a mistake:

Hinduism

More of a philosophy.

Actually more attractive than other religions, in that it does not seek to butcher everybody that does not adhere to it.

Unfortunately, based on lies, as are all religions.

You should have added "Strong nationalism based on what is perceived as Hindu," "Caste systems which lead to severe social inequity," and "Repressed culture towards sexuality."

Side: No

Perhaps I should have remained in character and been damning. I apologise, it was a moment of weakness.

Side: No
Kinda(1649) Disputed
0 points

Now isn't this complete bullshit.

How can you sit there and say nothing can be attributed to athiesm?

Athiesm is the lack of religion. Anything that happens in an irreligious manner is to blame on athiesm. When a woman murders her daughters because her husband divorced her, athiesm is to blame. When a whole movement of people murder a couple million of those outside their group based on their science... it's athiesm to blame.

Side: yes
2 points

How can you sit there and say nothing can be attributed to athiesm?

Because nothing can.

Athiesm is the lack of religion.

A penetrating insight.

Anything that happens in an irreligious manner is to blame on athiesm.

Such as the rape of children by the Catholic clergy?

When a woman murders her daughters because her husband divorced her, athiesm is to blame.

If she was an atheist then they would not have married. And atheism is not to blame. "There is no God, therefore I will kill my daughters". Doesn't fit I'm afraid.

When a whole movement of people murder a couple million of those outside their group based on their science... it's athiesm to blame.

This has never happened. Again "E=mc2, therefore you must all die" does not fit. "You [insert name] are pagans and must therefore be killed or converted in the name of the Lord", however, has been done. Several times.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Athiesm is the lack of religion. Anything that happens in an irreligious manner is to blame on athiesm. When a woman murders her daughters because her husband divorced her, athiesm is to blame. When a whole movement of people murder a couple million of those outside their group based on their science... it's athiesm to blame.

You've made my mouth drop in disbelief. So you're defending the premise that connections exist between things BECAUSE they are unrelated?

Side: No

Would you fill a boat with rocks if it could help it float? Would you put ice cream in an oven if it kept it frozen? Would you hire a pedophile to babysit your children if it made them safer?

Side: No
TERMINATOR(6779) Disputed
2 points

Somebody brought this up on another site and, to my surprise, the atheists - as aggressive as they usually are - almost unanimously agreed that, if embracing religion was the best thing they could do for the world, they would consent.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

Somebody brought this up on another site and, to my surprise, the atheists - as aggressive as they usually are - almost unanimously agreed that, if embracing religion was the best thing they could do for the world, they would consent.

Atheism isn't a meaningful group descriptor with respect to personality and beliefs, so it's no surprise.

Side: No

Nope. Religion is not for everyone and definitely not for me.

Side: No
1 point

unless you can prove a religion is right, then no, because even if i say ive "embraced it" i wont really have, because i wont believe in it without proper proof.

Side: No
1 point

There is no peace. There is no god.

Side: No

Although I am not atheist, and I don't believe in prayer (hence the username), because one, if God created a divine plane and he and the plan are perfect, what is the point in praying and two if God has to manage the universe, do you think he has the time to listen to and grant every prayer, no.

Therefore, as long as there is religion, there are differences in belief; hence, hatred and intolerance reigns supreme.

Side: No
Troy8(2431) Disputed
1 point

what is the point in praying and two if God has to manage the universe, do you think he has the time to listen to and grant every prayer, no.

Well, if he was omnicsent and omnipresent, I'm sure this would not be an issue.

Side: yes
1 point

Well, if he was omniscient and omnipresent, I'm sure this would not be an issue.

I am yet to see where this God is, and certainly isn't omniscient and omnipresent if so.

Have you seen him physically?

Side: No
1 point

It's important to remember that peace in a society just means no more wars, it doesn't mean that the civilian life of that society will be without violence. Religious societies are often very conservative, inflexible, and care little for the rights of minorities because there is always someone interpreting a passage to read that the minority is somehow sinful or deserving of prejudice.

I would choose a world full of secular states where the people are free, but with political wars, over a world where there are no wars but religion is enshrined and allows vast populations to be virtually enslaved under strict laws.

Side: World Peace is Overrated
1 point

I wouldn't know which religion to embrace.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: No
1 point

The world would be no better than Nazi Germany if we must embrace a religion. To dictate what one can or cannot think, feel and say defies all concepts of human rights and ethical morals. I will never embrace any religion if World Peace will result from it because World Peace will not occur from atheists embracing religion. First, there must the argument over which religion will be the state religion. This argument will not do the world any good as every religion will be fighting against themselves. Instead of bringing world peace, it will bring WW3. That is why I am an atheist. I started doing my part to prevent WW3 and will continue without falter until I breathe my last breath.

Side: No

It is the fortieth millennium, all of humanity worships the God-Emperor.

There is only War.

Side: No
Troy8(2431) Disputed
1 point

There is only War.

There is only war, huh? I am inclined to believe that is bogus.

Side: yes
1 point

You have obviously never heard of 40k.

--------------------------------------------------------

Side: No
1 point

Of course we wouldn't ! The whole point of being an atheist is that we DON'T think religion solves things like world peace. I'm an atheist because i don't see how, logically and realistically, there could be an almighty being up there controlling everything going on, and for the good ? Whatever... if God does exist then he's clearly failed to bring us peace right from the start. I mean we wouldn't have had two world wars already if he was so caring about the human race and so powerful.

Side: No
1 point

How can one believe in something which with their entire being and sense of reason, they disagree with? Is it possible to believe in something, in which you strongly believe is not true?

Beliefs are not chosen. They are acquired.

Side: No
1 point

if you could pray for the oh heavenly lord in the sky. Watching over 900 trillions of humans in the world and just one person tell's it/her/him to make everyone peace and loving then i would become Christian... but can that really happen?

Side: No
1 point

i dont see how one would relate to the other. plus ppl like to just sit there and argue just to be different or difficult. plus the whole purpose of being human is to be able to feel these differences

Side: No
0 points

Athiests don't care about world peace.

They just care about being right. They'd rather the world burn a million times over than convert and bring peace - even if they didn't believe in it

Side: No
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

I'm an atheist and I care about world peace.

............

Side: yes
Kinda(1649) Disputed
1 point

So shouldn't you be on the other side saying yes you would embrace religion?

Side: No
1 point

convert and bring peace

One problem remains: which religion should everyone convert to?

Side: Yes
-2 points
aoeoxoeoa(7) Disputed
2 points

A thoroughly ignorant statement, with nothing to back it up besides your biased point of view. One does not require religion or a belief in a personal god to care for others. Logic, empathy, compassion, love and humility are all human traits bred not from religion but from a mind able to distinguish the desirable from the undesirable, or the 'good' from the 'bad' if you want. If you truly think you need the threat of eternal punishment - of an ever watching, ever judging God - to be a moral and compassionate person, to love, protect and be kind to your fellow man, I think that's a fairly sad state of affairs.

Side: yes
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
0 points

What is an ignorant statement is claiming that religious people do things because of the fear eternal punishment. This just shows how little you know.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

You will never get an atheist to do anything for anybody else, they are only concerned with themselves.

Do you believe in Allah? No. So to Muslims you're an atheist, and as you know "they are only concerned with themselves."

Side: yes

The truths hurts. Down votes just confirm this. Atheist are the dumbest people on the face of the earth. They validate their own stupidity by acknowledging me. Haha. What superior beings they are.

Side: No