Should the world become atheist in order to function as a moral society?
Debate Rounds (3)
You say "MAN has value because he is created in the image of god..." by that sentence alone you are claiming superiority over other living creatures, proving my point even further. By saying that you are implying that other conscious beings have no value or inferior value to you because of your beliefs.
"We do not have any unique value for HUMAN BEING in scientific worldview..." Value? No value, you are right. Atheists believe that they are no more valuable than the cat they house. Believing that you are superior to other forms of life is entirely immoral.
But the truth is that morality comes from the brain, it comes from the way your brain develops as a child and the way you were brought up. But its much more difficult than just that, it comes from millions of years of human behavioral evolution.
2. If u say, morality is just a maturity gained by the man..! Is it ok if we categorize a rapist as a less-matured being?
3. If I say that MAN has unique value, it doesn't mean that animals are worthless, religion has given a great importance to animals, trees and the nature as well, if I say 'A' is a king, it doesn't mean that all the rest are slaves.., 'A' rules people as the father protects his child. ! In the same way, we believe,MAN, as a intelligent being, has the responsibility, to govern this world for a better survival. We see this as a sacred thing because we know how sacred the governor of this universe is..
We never experiment on a rat (animal) keeping human being in a superior lane, isn't this immoral? If u have to select one to save among a MAN and FISH whom would you select? I understand that you are not a layman in philosophical grounds. Hope you got my point..! So, in religion, we have values for each and every thing that God has created.
4. If morality comes from the brain what explanation would you give to a terrorist who blasts, or a rapist who wipes a poor girl.., even their thoughts come from their brains..,
Morality isn't a nature or a property that a brain possesses.,
5. There are many things that a naturalistic worldwide has to consider, we know that if we wind this entire universe back to singularity, this all would've never been happened. Vikram singha says that there is 1 in 10^40000 chances that an enzyme could come into existence in a random natural process.
6. And finally what moral judgment do you think, is being given to many hard hearted people who cost thousands of lives of poor, to establish their wealth? These are not rare scenarios, come down to a country side place and see how depressed would be, the people over there...! what hope could a naturalist give them? We give the hope of eternity, and eternal judgment of all hard hearted..! Which worldwide gives the courage in their hearts, sparks in their eyes, smile on their lips?
David brelenski, being atheist, physicist says that we do not know how and why this universe is tuned to allow the life to exist,
DawDawkins, who says to mock the religion, agrees the fact that we couldn't understand the origin of life. The title grant design itself lets us to assume the grand designer. A good debater is the one who accepts the fact. Believe it or not., accept it atleast. .!
6. On one had we have a struggle of understanding the reason of existence, no hope, no value, many theories, which contradict, etc etc...
On other hand we have meaning of life, values of relationship, love, hope, pleasant living...! Which one do u want to suggest of a MAN longing to live.... The ball is now, in your court...!
2. No, a rapist is fully aware that what he is doing is wrong in every sense, but he does it anyway. Truth be told there will always be murderers and rapists and thieves as long as intelligent life exists in the Universe. They must be punished in a moral manner. Who is to judge what is moral, though? unfortunately our government makes the laws about what is "right" and "wrong". Everyone would agree with me (other than the rapist) that rapists must be jailed. But is talking on your cell phone wrong? Are you hurting anyone? No, its not until you do hurt someone that its considered "wrong".
3. You kind of got me on this one. I would like to say however that rats are experimented upon for human benefit and medicinal progression. In Evolutionary Biology it is said that the main reason for life is to SURVIVE. That's why poison ivy makes you itch, so you wont go near it. Humans also have this "instinct" if you will... and to survive it is crucial to find cures and treatments for all of life's ailments. But do I think putting this poor animal through what might be pain and suffering for our own benefit moral? No. But its imperative for the progression of mankind.
4. I like this argument a lot because a terrorist who does blow up a building has had their morals poisoned by religion. I mean Atheists don't get on planes and crash them into buildings (Unless they're psychopaths). These terrorist's are told that if they kill the "infidels" they will be rewarded in the afterlife. As for the rapist, it has been been revealed in the last 20 or so years that those convicted of child molestation, rape, or other acts of violence have a much more different Frontal Lobe than those who are not. The Frontal Lobe of the brain is responsible for aggression and irritability and in these violent people the frontal lobe has a much darker patch (on scans) than a less violent person. So in some sense I would say that these people were either born into a life of violence.
5. This does not really have anything to do with morality but I will play along. You're right, the odds of the the specific proteins capable of forming life on early Earth forming are immensely astronomical. BUT, in living cells, most catalysts are protein enzymes, composed of amino acids, but in the 1980s another kind of catalyst was discovered. These are RNA molecules composed of nucleotides that are now called ribozymes. Because a ribozyme can act both as a catalyst and as a carrier of genetic information in its nucleotide sequence, it has been proposed that life passed through an RNA World phase that did not require DNA and proteins.
6. I think as time goes on these wealthy people are coming into the light of the world. How these men got their wealth has been well hidden for decades but people are now starting to stand up and ask questions and try to understand why some are more greedy than others. But I don't see Atheism as an excuse to criticize religion but an understanding of the Natural World. Sure, I really like the idea of giving people hope and comforting them with an ideological afterlife and the belief that someone died for you and will always be with you and loves you unconditionally.. but it is ignorant of religion, regardless of the one you happen to be part of, to teach creationism and other claims they make that have been scientifically proven wrong. Sure religion satisfies you by saying that you are here for some special reason, as an Atheist I conclude that I do not have any purpose on this earth, that is why I must GIVE myself a purpose. There is such little time on this earth we have. You believe in an afterlife, which means you will be in heaven with your loved ones for eternity under the supreme reign of God. But I do not believe in an afterlife, which makes the little time I have on this planet so much more meaningful and inspires me to do as much good and accomplish as much as I possibly can.
Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) along with proteins play major role in an animal's body..,Even micro-organic bacteria encode their genetic information using RNA genome.., It sounds wow to me., But, is that a good reason to reason, the existence of God? Say, I've studied in and out of an Apple product and came to know every design and technique of that product, how foolish it would be if I deny the existence of Steve Jobs? Isn't it?
Francis Crick (Nobel prize winner) says- An"honest"man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a"miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going..,
Religion, as an individual entity with many traditions, cultures, myths, blind faiths, has got no value without the presence of divine entity in it., Don't forget our topic, Religion is a path to inculcate the divine characters (unconditional love, humility ever-lasting) in our lives.
And a person who fails to do this(say a person who blasts) is by definition a non-religious, who ofcourse wears a mask of religion. If you misunderstand GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, it is not the mistake of Einstein. Even a lie, a false witness, is considered as a major sin which a believer should not have. Which one do you now think, is a corrector ? A divine character or a mere opinion? An atheist cannot deny moral law, because he doesn't have such a thing called moral law, just an opinion. Don't forget our topic.
You know, if I start explaining that "it is a control of hypothalamus, signals of it,which is further carried out by lateral hypothalamic nucleus, as a result of which we feel hungry and it is all the work taken over by amino acid peptide yy, and finally the leptic which stores the fat finally satisfies our hunger" , if I really start explaining all this stuff to a person who comes to me hungry, I may be so profound, knowledgeable in my answer but EOD, his hunger is not being satisfied.
You are so profound in your answer, but ask yourself, does that really work? Think practical. Maturity is not a measure of morality. See the purest face of religion, who indeed believes Christ in his heart, trying his best to be holy. People might be there who really take religion for granted. One thing you need to know is if a man is not an atheist, it doesn't mean that he is a theist (religious). If there are 20% atheists don't be in a perception that rest of 80% are theists.., I am sure 50% of people don't really bother if God exists or not.
We can categorize people into 4 groups- Theists, non-theists, atheists, anti-theists (hate-theists).. Now look at the face of a theist. Understanding crucifixion of Christ as mere history or a mere religious myth will not pass the moral criteria.., See it in this way- Crucifixion really means to crucify every evil thoughts of a man who understands the sacredness of it. Religion is not to restrict ourselves to superstitious believes but to give us liberty so that we wouldn't sin says Paul. Blood of Christ really shows how we should protect our righteous even in toughest situations. Do not give up your righteousness until your last breathe, teaches the death of Christ. He says, because he could do it, even we can (by his spirit).
GR, space-time, time dilation, quantum mechanics, string theory, these may sound too foolish to an early man because he thinks that earth is an endless land and sky is an endless space which is above the earth. So is a least concept of spirituality and the theories of God.., He is beyond the human mind and thought and only through his spirit we get to know him.
If I have applied physics theories in a biological experiment, who could be a greater fool than I? Never try to apply science theories to understand the concept of God. Go with a practical experiment basing his theories.., may be by reading the scriptures in the way they have to be read. God Bless..!
Comparing a piece of technology to a divine being is apples and oranges.
Im assuming youre speaking of the Judeo-Christian god are you not? The same god that killed every living thing on the planet "because he loved them". Truth be told the religious have moral teachings in their books, along with immoral. Like I said earlier it is the christian god that tells you to kill your wife for committing adultery or kill your children for speaking back to you. These dont sound like very moral things to do. A person of no belief system has a higher moral law than those of the religious, more people have been killed in the name of God than any plague or war has ever. Remember that moral law does not derive from a religion, it is self defined. Religion (in history) was just a scapegoat for what we did not understand.
But if morality comes from the teachings of god, who taught the ancient Chinese their morals? or Iroquois Indians before columbus?
The truth is that no god or supreme being gave them their morals, every society needs a set of rules to function properly, which was given to us by centuries of secular law and government.
Ive been up for 36 hours straight so my response will not be very filling or descriptive or maybe even helpful to my argument but I will conclude with this:
The religious, sure, have great teachings such as the golden rule; but it did not come from religion, people are just born with the notion that killing people is wrong.
Sexism, racism, homophobia, slavery, murder, etc is all the outcome of religion.
I point again at the fact that atheists dont just hop in a plane and crash it into a building "for the hell of it". Only a person of religious faith would do something so horrifying. Atheists dont hate gays or oppress women. We fight for equality not only in society but in the workplace and at home.
An atheist does good because it is the right thing to do, a theist does good in the hopes of a rewarded afterlife. see what im driving at?
Ill say it once more because it is the utter truth: Morality is self defined, no god gave man moral law. What you believe to be right or wrong will forever be opinionated but it is your duty as an individual to make the "right"" decision not made upon religious teachings but as a fellow earthling to better mankind.
Blaise Pascal once said "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
Sorry if this wasnt the answer you were hoping for, it certainly wasnt for me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Vote speaks for itself.
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.