Atheism, Theism and Society
Debate Rounds (5)
This debate will be about why atheism will lead to more advanced society and why theism is holding the human race back.
I shall begin mine.
1) Let's first talk about what atheism is. Atheism is not a religion first of all, atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. To which I will explain as to how the disbelief of God or gods will advance our species. If we learn to not to have a religion but use education, logic and reason to explain how things happen and not depend on what a book or books (Depends of your religion) that were written by a mere mortal like you and I has to say about how certain things happen. For instance a lunar eclipse happens because the moon passes the Earth's shadow (umbra). It does not happen to foretell a disaster or crisis. It happens because of gravity and how the moon orbits around the Earth.
2) As to why religion is holding back human progression is because people choose to have faith in something that would make them feel better. Now, to some, that may sound like a good thing; sadly, that isn't the truth. Not only does religion blind people from facts that are explained thoroughly by science but it also leads to wars and power (that was to given by "God" AKA absolute power) which would make that society a totalitarian formed government.
1) There has never once been a successful attempt at creating a society founded on pure atheism (meaning that Buddhism is not included since it has elements of theism), examples include USSR, China in its communist days.
2) Additionally, societies founded on Buddhism have, collectively, the highest suicide rates worldwide[http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Buddhism is the most atheistic religion.
3) Whether a scientist believes a god made the universe or a pixie did is irrelevant to their efficiency as a scientist. Science is studying how things work, whether or not a god made it.
4) If religion conflicts with science (such as blood transfusions and embryonic stem cell research) then this should be resolved peacefully, not handed over entirely to the scientific community because that's not resolving hte conflict, it's giving one side auto-win and will result in civil war.
5) Theism, to most who believe in it, is not about truth versus lie, it's about maintaining sanity versus killing themselves. There are people who psychologically need religion to want to live, this is the predominant reason for its origin in the first place.
2) Science will further our kind. We just have to learn to accept the facts that are put forward for us. Many people believe that God will cure their child of a disease (whether it may be). They are dead wrong; we have medicine and treatments put in place to help them get better. Example of this are nano-particles that will make a cancerous tumor self-destruct.
(Article on this will be below.)
3) Religion can get in the way of a scientists work if it conflicts with their, "beliefs." If a scientist finds a way to make a baby or human being using in vitro and while doing so finds a way to make that baby not be affected by any disease known to man; that scientist might not go through with his work as it would be, "playing god," in his mind. And yes, this may be possible in the near future thanks to gene therapy.
4) Whether religion was invented for people who, "need religion," in order to, "want to live," is refutable based on your opinion. There are other ways, SCIENTIFICALLY, to help that person want to live because of bullying , childhood neglect, abuse or whatever the cause may be. This is curable. (Trust me, I have been diagnosed with severe depression, and I have recovered thanks to an experimental hypnosis session with my psychiatrist.)
5) Based on what you said about people committing suicide because of being atheist is merely argumentative as that comes from a very unreliable source (Wikipedia). Besides they were Buddhist which doesn't make them fully atheistic as they have a spiritual side to them.
1) Provide one example of an atheist political regime ever working. Otherwise concede that history supports that an atheistic society ultimately falls apart.
2) Many scientists believed in god and were Theistic. [http://www.biblequery.org...] Science in way a conjecture to Theism. One is literal, the other metaphorical.
3) Science shouldn't be done if it's unethical though. Society needs morals so that we don't all go around raping and killing each other. These morals extend to the treatment of an unborn fetus for some and that is the price we pay for being moral.
4) You can't use first hand evidence as this is not reliable.[http://www.angelfire.com...] and the logic is on my side.
5) Here is another source for suicide rates: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com.... Add together nations like Japan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and China and you begin to understand that they, collectively dominate other religions as the leading suicidal societies. there are no fundamentally atheist societies so their stats do not count.
I have have five uncontested arguments.
My opponent has one, contested argument based on zero evidence.
His argument is that a society must accept facts without belief but this requires belief that we are not in the Matrix, or a fake reality, to begin with.
Atheism requires blind faith in that physical evidence is accurate. It is possible that everything is an illusion and that beneath it all there really is a god.
Atheism requires belief too.
If it is a belief that requires me to have faith in something that has no physical evidence like God; I would not believe it. There is no physical evidence whatsoever to back that up. That is the definition of blind faith. My kind of faith is something that I can trust in as it has physical evidence to back it up. It isn't spiritual faith but rather a trust that has been verified by physical evidence. If I say that I am putting faith into something that something better have some form of physical evidence to back it up. I may very well say that something that has no physical evidence whatsoever, is real. By using basic and simple logic and reason; I then conclude that there is no evidence to back up God. You can say, "look around you, God is everywhere. Look at his magnificence. Look at what he created." I, then, will say by using logic and scientific proof and facts, "The only thing I see is the collection of iron, hydrogen, oxygen, water (H2O) and carbon that formed this planet. All of this formed when there was vast amounts of dust and rock colliding with eachother to form a planet. Overtime, the planet has cooled down and water vapor precipitated and made liquid water. From then on, the rock that formed land and expanded upward and made even more land. This is done by plate tectonics. Life was then only microbial life which evolved to an animal and then that animal decided one day to go above sea level and viola; the rest is history." Also the Earth has been proven to be 4.54 billion years old not 6,000 to 10,000 years old as stated by creationists.
Pro contradicts himself by stating that he would believe someone based on supposed evidence despite having just said that his viewpoint requires no belief.
Pro states that there is no physical evidence for God, yet this is irrelevant to whether a society thrives better with atheism or theism.
After this, Pro decides that atheism is not 'blind' faith because it is verified by physical evidence. This is also irrelevant to the debate as it has no relevance to society.
Pro has failed to deny that since atheism can't explain the origin of everything and since this is a logical loophole that is yet to be explain via physical means, atheism requires just as much emotional investment as Theism does in terms of the existentially aspect of it. Thus, when it comes to science there is absolutely no hampering with Theism whilst there is emotional hampering if a society is atheist as I have supplied numerous examples of and evidence in support for.
Society can do wonders if it didn't have the religious community holding US back! Christians still don't want stem cell research to go through! Who would you rather live; a few day old embryo or a 30 year old man or woman who is dying who could benefit from that and get better with stem cell research? If any religion is holding us back, it would be the christian religion...
ALSO, atheists will more likely support legal gay marriage than a religious person. That is a huge setback in society. They believe it is a sin for a man to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman. They say that these individuals deserve to, "burn in hell," which is quite childish and WRONG if you ask me. I know that this doesn't deal with science but it is a HUGE example of how religion is holding us back as a society. You can say, "Oh the new pope says he doesn't care!" Wrong!! He said, "If they accept the Lord and have goodwill." Emphasize on the word, if. So, if they don't believe in the lord (God) than it isn't okay if they are atheist or a part of another religion. That is still wrong and lurid!
So you tell me; is religion holding us back? Answer that correctly and HONESTLY.
My answer? Yes, OH YES, religion is definitely holding us back.
My opponent's closing statement is that because Christians are opposed to embryonic stem cell research that this proves the entirety of Theism to be inferior to atheism as a fundamental system on which society can rely. History has disproved him with the USSR and Communist China outlawing Theism and falling apart because the people didn't support such a regime.
Then he uses ad hominem to justify why hell is not real. This is not proven at all and hell can very well be real.
History has proven that the only societies that thrive are those accepting one's right to be a Theist, very often being more fundamentally Theistic than Atheist by population.
In conclusion, God is great and so is Satan, as well as Allah and Odin... Oh and, of course, Zeus.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: At first this seemed to be a relatively even debate, but as it progressed, con made strong points while pro got increasingly frustrated, spouting irrelevant information to the debate. Pro criticized con's use of sources yet never used a source of his own. He also never refuted any of the con's arguments. Con wins in a landslide.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.