Instigator / Pro
16
1483
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3862
Atheism
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Vici
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
21
1501
rating
11
debates
27.27%
won
Description
There has to be a winner on this one, surely? I want to debate whether or not atheism is absolute in a sense that, really, it should be second nature in this day and age. The technology and electronics we have, as well as pure logic, should be able to confirm that Gods/Goddesses/Deities do not truly exist physically. I'm not debating the moral aspects of religion, anybody can be "moralistic" in a way of "we shouldn't hurt anybody or anything physically or verbally/psychologically". I'm debating theism - the idea of a god or deity existing.
I myself do NOT believe in gods, goddesses or deities.
Round 1
So let me begin by saying I don't believe in a God/Goddess or any other Deity. My first argument in conjunction with this statement is purely based on the missing physical entity. No God has been recorded, visually or audibly. No evidence has been put forward as such.
I, for one, have never seen or heard a God. As far as I am aware many millions (if not billions) of other people on this planet would agree with my argument because if we look at it scientifically it's impossible.
Science is being proved all the time physically so it's audible and visual.
For a basic, bog standard example of simple science, take the idea of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are never mentioned in the Bible, even though several other mythical and non mythical creatures are. Dinosaurs, by way of the scientific practice of Paleontology, were discovered by scientists. Digging far enough, these scientists uncovered something which couldn't possibly be explained by a theist because it wasn't visually or audibly recorded in such works as the Bible.
Theists go on what is written in a book and by word of mouth to relate to what human history was built upon. Most of what appears in the Bible also does not pertain with what modern science has proven, for example the talking snake in the Bible. Snakes do not talk, science explains this by way of biology. By studying how vocal chords work within a human body, Scientists can prove why Snakes are different and can prove why snakes cannot talk or communicate verbally, let alone physically.
So let me begin by saying I don't believe in a God/Goddess or any other Deity. My first argument in conjunction with this statement is purely based on the missing physical entity. No God has been recorded, visually or audibly. No evidence has been put forward as such
Here is a list of all of Jesus’ appearances:
Luke 24:39 Jesus’ Own Testimony
Revelation 1:18 Jesus’ Own Testimony
John 20:14-16 Mary Magdalene
Matthew 28:9 The Virgin Mary
Luke 24:34 Peter
Luke 24:13-16 Two Disciples On a Road
John 20:19,20,24 The Disciples (except Thomas)
John 26-28 All of the Disciples
John 21:1,2 Seven Disciples
Matthew 28:16,17 Eleven Disciples
1 Corinthians 15:6 Over 500 people
1 Corinthians 15:7 James
Acts 9:3-5 Saul
Acts 1:3 Saul
That is over 10 appearances to over 500 people.
I, for one, have never seen or heard a God.
Personal incredulity.
For a basic, bog standard example of simple science, take the idea of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are never mentioned in the Bible, even though several other mythical and non mythical creatures are. Dinosaurs, by way of the scientific practice of Paleontology, were discovered by scientists.
to neglect mention of something doesn't mean its false. The bible for example doesn't mention Joe Biden yet we know that this isn't proof that the bible isn't accurate.
The argument I pose is the Kalam cosmological argument
everything that begins to exist has a cause
the universe began to exist
therefore the universe has a cause
this cause is god.
Round 2
Forfeited
illogical ape ran.
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Science is good at destroying nature. To paint itself as good or useful is a horrible misrepresentation.
Useful for who? Not for trees. Not for tigers. Not for bees. Not for clean air. Not for grass. Not for ants. Science only harmed these things. So, for who?
Only for humans? Well, even that is questionable. The amount of humans who die in car accidents alone outweights the entire population of early tribes.
If the point is for there to be less harm or less pain in the world, the point is not being met.
Even if we disregard all the animals getting slaughtered so that all the humans could live, we are still left with all the humans who die and suffer.
Science allowed for multiplication of life, which had horrible consequences.
Depression, slavery, mass cases of rape, prisons, murders, accidents, religion, junk food, wars, violence, torture, suicides and so on are all the results of human beings being able to think more than they should. Being able to science!
This "knowledge" that humans obtained was more of a curse than blessing.
Science, gathering of knowledge, is ultimately the worst thing that happened to this planet.
But many people think its the best thing ever.
It may be best for them. There are different interests involved, and some people benefit from science as means to reach their goals.
I agree that knowledge can be used for bad things. But that doesn't make science bad. You described it as witchcraft before. Many cultures describe a white magic and black magic used for good and bad respectively. The same understanding of chemistry that allows us to make harmful plastics and pollutants also lets us engineer new materials for spacecraft, medicine, and improvement of living conditions. Chemistry isn't a white magic or a black magic, but a grey one; without morality or motivation behind it intrinsically.
Long story short: knowledge can be used for bad things.
"Are you referring to animal testing? Or by abuse do you mean "defying the natural order" such as flying and vaccines?"
Science turned the Earth into a junkyard. Literally all plastic bottles and pollution are a result of scientific progress.
Scientific progress created weapons that enabled large scale wars.
The original humans who had no science - they took from nature only a little.
The modern humans take a lot. They have cut down so many forests. They have made factories of death where animals are mass bred for slaughter on a scale never seen before.
"And do you believe that the end result of all science is "wicked"? Even eradicating smallpox?"
There are parts of science that sound good. Sadly, its hard to get the good and not the bad.
I firmly believe that vaccines were another bad move of humanity, that caused massive increase in population.
The resources are limited, and the fact that humanity grows both in number and in needs means that humanity will take even more from nature.
They have already destroyed a lot of nature, but also they destroyed the previous humans and their behavior.
Original humans who had no science, who didnt brush their teeth, who didnt work in a factory, who didnt go to school, who built their homes in forests and lived in a small commune - such nature-loving humans are gone.
Only to be replaced by a greed-driven vampiric consumption that caused anyone not engaged in it to suffer.
We abuse the nature and fill it with filth, and we justify that.
The experiment that we are doing - how much can we abuse the nature - is on levels unimaginable to any other species. It is unimaginable for them, as they have no knowledge(science).
Not sure how I missed your reply, sorry.
"the abuse of nature for wicked things is intolerable."
Are you referring to animal testing? Or by abuse do you mean "defying the natural order" such as flying and vaccines?
And do you believe that the end result of all science is "wicked"? Even eradicating smallpox?
I would say that science is more accurate today than it was 100 years ago.
I would still label it as witchcraft, since the abuse of nature for wicked things is intolerable.
Would you say that science is more or less accurate than it was 100 years ago?
If science says that snakes cant talk, then science is wrong. Simple.
Science has been proven wrong many times.
Dinosaurs didnt exist.