I thank Republican08 for inviting me to this Formal Debate.
In this Debate I will be arguing on behalf of Theism and in opposition to Atheism.
Unequivocolly theism means to pay respect and appreciation to a Supreme Being as the Creator of All-that-is, to value the sacredness of his
Creation (Life), and to follow the virtues of kindness, love, joy, goodwill and relief of suffering to the best of ones ability and resources. Both
theist and spiritual doctrine teaches accountability for ones choices, for whether one chooses good or evil. In Christianity this is what is referred
to as Gods Judgement. In Hinduism and Buddhism this is referred to as Karma. All religion is based on the concept of higher realities, afterlife and
accountability for ones thoughts, words and deeds.
Contrary to the claim of many atheists, belief in a Supreme Being does not require membership in an organized religion, as is evidenced by myself.
Atheism is, in my view, a mere rebellion against religious bigotry and fanaticism. It therefore tends to focus on the very worst of religion, such as
Islamic Jihadism or the Catholic Inquisition, in order to denigrate the belief in a Supreme Being. However, devotion to a Supreme Being has nothing to
do with vile and barbaric acts, murder, mayhem and brainwashing. These are merely humans abusing the name of God for their own hateful purposes. The
atheists tendency to focus on the very worst in religion, ignores the broad majority of religious people who are decent and respectful.
A-theism is inherently an antagonistic positionality rather than a product of "free thought". This is why atheism produces a lot of being "anti-"
something or other rather than visionary solutions. A-theism is a by-product of theism, its antithesis. It would not exist without theism. Ive often
heard atheists say that "every child is born an atheist". As atheism is a clearly defined position which has spawned hundreds of books,
lectures, political-systems and activism this cannot be true. A child is born without any position whatsoever. If anything, the new born child is an
agnostic - but even that would be one label too many.
I speak out against atheism because its fruits throughout the last few hundred years have been moral relativism (Where there is no moral
accountability it is merely "a matter of perspective" whether cold blooded murder is good or bad) and psychological apathy.
Politically, the fruits of atheism have been extreme forms of communism and anti-spirituality. The best example of this is North Korea which follows
an explicitly atheist doctrine called "Juche Ideology", where devotion to a Supreme Being is replaced by devotion to a human leader and a worldview
that is bereft of any merit, meaning or moral accountability. The results? Mass-starvation, mass-poverty, blandness, squalor, hopelesness,
imprisonment, suppression of media, dehumanization. Nothing else is to be expected when basic spiritual values are taken away and replaced by the
atheist view that life is the result of a meaningless chain of coincidences and chemical reactions.
Atheism as an activist movement tends to piggyback on science and infiltrate modern Academia with its agenda. Most of the great names of science
however (Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, DaVinci, Max Planck, Freud, C.G.Jung, Niels Bohr, David Bohm, Edison, Tesla etc.) were not atheists.
Its difficult to have a creative mind without consideration of higher forces of inspiration.
Both Atheists and the fundamentalist religious attempt to polarize "Evolution vs. Creationism" is based on fallacy, any half-intelligent human being
can see that they need not be mutually exclusive. Evolution can easily be a tool of Creation.
The atheist makes conclusive statements about the nature of reality although he himself is merely a tiny body-mind in a vast universe who perceives
not even 0,00001% of all-that-is. The sheer arrogance of this stance is awesome and ultimately destructive when presented as a "fact" to
impressionable young minds in school and the media.
If the atheist were to be content with his disbelief in God and keep it at that, no social unrest would arise. But many atheists feel compelled to
tell others and to force their agenda and opinion down societies throats. When one likes the color red one does not have to decry the color blue. The
intolerance of militant-atheists has become so extreme that some would prefer outlawing any references to Supreme Beings (such as removing "In God we
Trust" from the 1-Dollar-Bill).
The atheists main line of reasoning is, that there is no "proof" for God and therefore God does not exist.
This is no different than the 17th Century folk saying "There is no proof that manned flight is possible, therefore manned flight does not exist"
The truth of the matter is that humans do not know whether God exists or not. To make an absolute statement saying "God does not exist" has no
validity at all.
Not knowing whether a Creator exists or not, it then becomes a matter of choice, until a date in which more is known to mankind. And given the choice
of a life that originates from a higher, creative source, or a life that is a pointless coincidence, I certainly choose the former.
In this Debate I intend to use logic and reason, rather than biblical verses, to counter atheism. It is my opinion that atheism cannot be countered
with religious rhetoric, because it is of another paradigm entirely. Likewise one cannot use the tool of logic and reason to talk someone out of being
in love. Those are two different worlds. So atheism is best countered in the same frame-of-reality it purports to be in.
I look forward to a fun Debate from both sides that is beneficial to all readers.