- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Science and morality cannot co-exist because for science and morality to co-exist scientists have to give way to morality to be the guiding force for all actions scientists take.
Example, look at how science uses animals, cruelty to animals is illegal but why can science use animals to advance their efforts?
Science uses animals to advance their research and this is immoral, but the argument against this is it is for the greater good.
Who's greater good, the greater good of general population or mega corporations? Science is steeped in greed and self glorification; greed from the business perspective and self glorification from the nobel prize perspective
Science and morality will never co-exist, because for science to advance (in one of many aspects) there always has to be a guinea pig and money, and the only way to prove the scientists efforts are worth funding is through experimentation or some profound find.
You're right, atheists do make their claim God does not exist at all, but not one atheist has proved their claim and position even "once". Here is the polemic argument of an agnostic against atheism.
A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.
Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.
If this comes from CNN why shouldn't they be shut down for egregious display of modern day oppression and slavery. They themselves are using their platform to get a rally going to shut down one voice. Could this one voice be so damaging to American belief system better shut him up? In a day and age when the main mantra of the day is equal rights and equality for everyone this is what comes out of the wood works. I don't believe in equal rights for everyone but I do believe everyone is allowed to have their say.
Thought you were a Jew Super Stupid ????
What is wrong with Jewish people???? State your claim, but don't run down another race especially Jewish people to make your point heard. You sound like a person who loves to be heard, and to get your point out there you will use racial slurs to assist your efforts. If you can't articulate your point with class and style don't make one!
Hey man, I agree with your argument for the most part however if the 2nd amendment can be amended when will the issue be resolved because everyone involved in the amending will have their opinions and expect their opinions to be encapsulated in the amendment? Another point is we are talking about politicians on both sides of the debate and they each have their personal agenda, this will be another roadblock to contend with. And here is the unknown factor which is a probability - on a scale of o 1-10 probably around 5 - what about the responsible people who suffer traumatic events which cause them to become embittered and seek revenge of some sort, sad and true we have teenagers suffering cyber-bullying and other atrocities which have a dangerous impact on their psyche etc. For those of us who are not in the seats of authority it's easy to give quick witted solutions to a very complex problem, but dealing with the inherent "person" problem is going to take far more than a few laws and amendments to effect the problems we face. Why not just ban guns altogether? Very noble idea but it won't stop people killing. And what about the people who enjoy hunting should they be banned from a sport they enjoy? Stopping people from enjoying their hobbies because of a few bad apples who ruin the environment for others is unfair. The same argument goes for weekend warriors who enjoy time at the gun range. Why not lower the price for professionals help. I.e psychologists lower their fees to give assistance to people who are mentally unstable. The problem isn't the guns, it is the people who are doing the killing, and the murderers are spiritually, emotionally and mentally unstable. They are unstable both in spirit and soul. To stop a murderer from murdering they need real help, but here is another problem the cost to get real help is really expensive, so what are they to do? Just another perspective to look at this difficult situation from.
Part A) I am simply claiming to understand things that they don't about objective reality because their beliefs happen to be wrong.
Part B) I don't know better than everyone, just people who are wrong about things that I am correct about.
My Argument: The argument against God has and will always be the writer knows better than anyone and everyone else!
You prove my argument by trying to disprove my argument. Are you stupid?
Which nation? Which God? There are multiple cultures with "proofs" of their Gods.
If there are multiple nations with proof about their god, give me another example other than Israel? And proof about the existence of God? Yeshua Hamashiach was God incarnate! Disprove this satatement.
Some things have been found to be historically accurate.
Which parts are historically accurate? I say all of history in relation to the Tanakh is and will always be historically accurate including but not limiting to the miracles contained within.
I'm done wasting my time with this hogwash poppycock drivel.
Four statements to get to the depth of your understanding? You're not even worth arguing against because the depth of your understanding and knowledge base is as shallow as a puddle. Go and read a thousand books about Jesus Christ then come back and argue other wise your a waste of time.
Wrong again retard, I am simply claiming to understand things that they don't about objective reality because their beliefs happen to be wrong.
You think you know about objective reality better than anybody else? And how do you know their beliefs are wrong? You're the idiot with the wrong beliefs. If you think you know about objective reality, tell me how this happened "objectively"? A lady who has been dead for 130 years and she has "NOT" decayed in the slightest bit. Here is a link to her photo http://bit.ly/2GWByKI.
And here is another fact you little snake, you wouldn't know what is right or wrong if you had the manual to help you tell the difference. Wouldn't matter anyway because you wouldn't know how to understand it.
And here is another fact: What about Dr Heidi Baker who has personally seen impossible to explain miracles in the country of Africa? Here is a link to a video: http://bit.ly/2BjDc8y
Or what about Kathryn Kuhlman and the miracles and ministry she operated? Then you have the likes of Smith Wigglesworth, who himself raised 17 people from the dead (including his own wife), maimed people received their body parts back. Then you have Margy Palm and Stephen Peter Morin, Katie Souza, Steve and Pam Johnson - their 2 year old daughter was murdered and then 12 hours after being dead she comes back to life, who is as far as known 14 years old, perfectly healthy no problems, mentally physically or emotionally. Carol Kornacki and the list goes on and on and on.
You are being stupid on purpose. I don't know better than everyone, just people who are wrong about things that I am correct about. If you are going to say this simply because people disagree that God exists then it could be applied to any argument about anything universally including arguments FOR the existence of God. You know it alls think you know everything, how dare you tell me God exists!
GOD EXISTS!!! I will tell you and I will tell you a thousand times. But you are a deluded fool who still thinks you know better than everyone else, you don't even bother to look for evidence to prove your right! There are more miracles happening in todays day and age than anytime else. But why don't you go out there and look for it, because you're an idiot and lazy.
Which nation? Which God? There are multiple cultures with "proofs" of their Gods, in reality all of these "proofs" are pure bullshit and all religions are the product of the culture they arose from.
Yeah, where is the proof? The only nation to show proof about the existence of God is Israel. And then there is the death and resurrection of Yeshua Hamashiach. You have Israel and the Exodus from Egypt, you have the Israeli nation walking the desert for 40 years, you have Noahs flood. You have the miracles Yeshua did himself - historical fact!
There are more evidence and facts in all the world to make a liar out of you any time of the day and any day of the year. Go bury your head in the sand, you're just like all these other idiots who think they know better.
This entire argument is a contradiction because the person who formulated the argument is attempting to express dominion over another persons beliefs, values and opinions. And this argument is attempting to show they have supreme wisdom and intelligence. The argument against God has and will always be the writer knows better than anyone and everyone else!
You take a look at every argument trying to disprove the existence of God, God doesn't exist because, because of this, because of blah, and blah and blah. There are thousands of different arguments created to try and disprove the existence of Adonai.
Now here is some evidence against these nay-sayers:
- You have an entire nation whose heritage and history is spotted and speckled with evidence detailing acts of God.
- You also have an entire scientific community who have scrutinised the historic validity regarding the Bible. The scientific community has used textual criticism, archaeology, medicine, history and a slew of other science based resources. So this writer knows better than all these scientists too
- And then you have social communities who have experienced miracles, healings, prophecies, knowledge, wisdom the world over in today's day and age too.
- And then you have the hardest mystery of all to try and disprove; God Himself turn up as a man. His original name is Yeshua HaMashiach, but people today also refer to Him as Jesus Christ. There is blood evidence scrutinised by scientists. And they have diagnosed and determined the blood has a foundation impossible to possess, unless for one specific premise, He was born of a virgin and His chromosome numero viente cuatro came from another source other than a human male.
If the person who created this argument actually dug around for some evidence looking at both sides of the coin before going off on their little rant, they would have found some evidence which makes their current position look foolish. People are always going to think they know better when it comes to disproving the existence of Adonai. The truth of this person's position is very very dire indeed, because they only have themselves to look to for strength and support or to their fellow man. The problem is when you look to yourself for strength and support your like a wave tossed about in the ocean by the winds or if you look to another man for strength and support the person you look to will probably throw them under the bus just to get ahead, his bros will probably screw his missus too, and when he gets married his missus will screw around on him too. And then after all his pain and suffering and when he is old he will probably turn to Adonai and say why did you do this to me, I thought you were loving. The irony is he ranted off about God and then after all the pains, trials and tribulations he will take the audacious position of trying to talk to God to find comfort and solace. So all in all when he suffers his consequences and life has smashed him to the ground he will trun around and talk to God, so he's a hypocrit too.