Atheism
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.