CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
7
Yes No
Debate Score:20
Arguments:19
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (12)
 
 No (7)

Debate Creator

Swashbuckler(62) pic



Can an atheist be a feminist?

I don't see how an atheist can logically be a feminist, since atheists view themselves as no different from other animals, from a pure Darwinian perspective it can be evolutionarily advantages to commit rape and abuse women if it enables one to procreate more.

So if an atheist objects to rape and abuse of women, then he's merely going against his own evolutionary instinct, which would imply he really isn't an atheist and realizes that there's a higher objective standard of truth than his mere rapacious animal impulses.

For the record many modern notions of women's rights herald from the codes of chivalry of organizations such as the nights Templar; while on the other hand one of the most famous atheists Marquis de Sade advocated rape, torture and murder of women and children since he believed as humans were just like any other animal, they shouldn't be above their perverse impulses if it gave them pleasure.

Yes

Side Score: 13
VS.

No

Side Score: 7
1 point

Seriously though. What do you add to the community?

Side: Yes

I don't see why not. Atheists may believe that rape is a evolutionary adaptation, which it very possibly might be, but that doesn't mean that they think it's okay. This is a bit of a naturalistic fallacy- just because something is "natural" or "evolutionary advantageous" does not mean it's okay.

In short, yes, because supporting evolution is not supporting rape.

Side: Yes
Swashbuckler(62) Disputed
1 point

"Supporting evolution" is not the same as supporting atheism either.

Side: No
NicolasCage(505) Disputed
1 point

You're asserting through this entire debate that it is the same.

Your argument is that atheists support evolution, and therefore must be immoral rapists.

If you're not even consistent with your own arguments, why should we listen to what you have to say?

Side: Yes
1 point

With an atheist practically everything is the same except atheists don't go to church and don't usually say "thank god so and so."

Side: Yes

Your entire argument collapses in on itself.

You argue that we cannot be feminists because we all believe rape is "right".

However, I am an atheist, and I would never even dream of raping someone.

Therefore, I, and the countless other atheists who agree, cause your argument to be irrelevant.

Have a nice day.

Side: Yes
Swashbuckler(62) Disputed
1 point

Then your belief that rape is wrong is based on faith, therefore you are not truly an atheist.

If you were truly an atheist then it would be logically incompatible for you to have any problem with rape, murder or torture if it benefited you from a survivalist POV. Chimpanzees also sometimes commit rape, so there's no logical reason you shouldn't rape if it would increase your odds of reproducing, and you knew you would not be caught for it.

Side: No
NicolasCage(505) Disputed
1 point

You have a completely warped view of atheism and evolution.

The point of evolution is, quite fittingly, that we EVOLVE. Therefore, we're evolved enough to develop morals.

You use the example of Chimpanzees, so I will too. Chimpanzees (and pretty much every other animal) avoids murdering its own. They recognise that as WRONG... yet they do not have religion.

Your example also does not work at all. Chimpanzees "also sometimes commit rape"... in other words, not all Chimpanzees always rape.

There is a perfectly logical reason why I do not rape or murder or commit otherwise despicable acts, you're just too narrow minded to acknowledge it. It's called having a moral code, which is not based on God. Morals are not dependant on God.

Side: Yes

Your argument is built on a naturalistic fallacy, where you seem to think that atheists believe that just because something might be 'natural,' it therefor must also be right. That simply isn't true.

Side: Yes
0 points

I don't see how an atheist can logically be a feminist, since atheists view themselves as no different from other animals, from a pure Darwinian perspective it can be evolutionarily advantages to commit rape and abuse women if it enables one to procreate more.

So if an atheist objects to rape and abuse of women, then he's merely going against his own evolutionary interest, which would imply he really isn't an atheist and realizes that there's a higher objective standard of truth than his mere rapacious animal impulses.

For the record many modern notions of women's rights herald from the codes of chivalry of organizations such as the nights Templar; while on the other hand one of the most famous atheists Marquis de Sade advocated rape, torture and murder of women and children since he believed as humans were just like any other animal, they shouldn't be above their perverse impulses if it gave them pleasure.

Side: No
1 point

I think atheists know they are trying to fool themselves. They are masters of denial, trying to deny their own lives in death, hoping death gets them out of reality and their troubles end.

Side: No
ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

I'm not seeing how atheism somehow means that you should go along with your evolutionary interest.

From what I understand, atheism is simply the disbelief in gods, not the disbelief of morality.

Furthermore, just because you don't think there's some higher objective standard of truth doesn't necessarily mean that instead you want to give into animal impulses.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

You don't understand evolutionary theory. Nothing says that survival of the fittest is morally good. This is event from the fact that many atheists would help the weak to survive.

Side: Yes
Swashbuckler(62) Disputed
1 point

If atheists are helping the week survive, then they're going against their nature, proving they're most likely not really an atheist, since a true atheist would rape and pillage from the weak if it benefited him.

Side: No