CreateDebate


Debate Info

49
43
science is good for world science is bad for world
Debate Score:92
Arguments:94
Total Votes:94
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 science is good for world (49)
 
 science is bad for world (40)

Debate Creator

razilee38(5) pic



are scientist and science good for the world

science is good for world

Side Score: 49
VS.

science is bad for world

Side Score: 43
1 point

Yes the contributions of scientists and science cannot be underestimated , anyone who thinks science is bad for the world is possibly insane , uneducated or a religious lunatic .

Side: science is good for world
nancycaroll1(3) Disputed
1 point

Thanks, really useful argument. But as an option, I can offer this one, where each student will find something useful for studying.

Study Llama offers students a one-stop shop for all their academic needs.

Supporting Evidence: StudyLlama (llama.study)
Side: science is bad for world
1 point

I Agree. I think that we can rely on the help of various sources. PapersGeek is the best source of ideas and help for students who want to improve their studies. We offer a vast database of research papers and term papers, as well as topics for persuasive and argumentative essays. All our resources are carefully curated to provide you with the best possible help for your education https://papersgeeks.com/

Side: science is good for world

Science void of atheistic nonsensical theories is good: evolution, big bang etc.

Science is already highly resistant to religious views which i have no problem with, but should also be void of atheistic views using it as a cover.

It is evident that all the flaws in science are from theories generated by hypocritical atheistic scientists.

Side: science is good for world
Dermot(5736) Disputed
1 point

You say .....Science void of atheistic nonsensical theories is good: evolution, bing bang etc.

Science is already highly resistant to religious views which i have no problem with, but should also be void of atheistic views using it as a cover.

It is evident that all the flaws in science are from theories generated by hypocritical atheistic scientists.

Cannot stop laughing at your .. bing bang .. oh dear , oh dear :)

Side: science is bad for world
jeffreyone(1382) Disputed
1 point

Really?...........................................................................where?

Side: science is good for world
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

Hey give him a break. He is probably typing with his thumb, on some crappy Android device, smaller than his dick. Soooooooo 😂

Side: science is good for world
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You dumb fuck. Religion is resistant to science, not the other way around.

Side: science is bad for world
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Climate Chaos is the Religion of the Left !So Leftist are not resistant to religion there SouthPark !

Side: science is good for world
jeffreyone(1382) Disputed
1 point

"You dumb fuck"

I know you are refering to your father(idiocy) thou art in your genes.

"Religion is resistant to science, not the other way around."

you idiot......do religious people not use electric power, vehicles and meds etc. which are products of science?

It's just that religious people are not that stupid to a accept your incomplete atheistic under cover(science) nonsensical theories, with so many unanswered questions surrounding them.....

Side: science is good for world
KingGinger93(50) Disputed
1 point

Science void of atheistic nonsensical theories is good: evolution, big bang etc.

Tell me, what do either of these have to do with atheism? Neither theory suggests there is no god, the only thing making these theories "atheistic" is that they contradict fundamentalist christianity. That doesn't make evolution, nor the big bang "atheistic", if anything it is anti-fundamentalist, and not really when you consider the fact that the theory was never intended to contradict anyones religious beliefs, it just happened to do so and was only intended to explain the phenomena of biodiversity of life, and it explains the phenomena very well establishing evidence across several fields of science that also coincidentally documented things that fit the theory (thus being established as evidence). Evolution is more Pro-truth" than it is "anti-fundamentalist christian", and it is more "anti-fundamentalist christian" than it is "atheistic".

The Big Bang theory came from a catholic who believed it to be the moment of creation from god himself. Of course none of that is scientifically verifiable and thus has no place in a scientific theory so of course when science classes teach the theory they don't teach it to students as gods work, they just teach it for what it is meant for in the field of science as they should, an explanation to how our universe as we know it was created, why the universe is expanding, and etc, because it does that well. Now tell me, if the scientific community is trying to bend science to support the atheistic stance on god's existence, why would we accept a scientific theory from a religious man claiming it be evidence for his god's creating of the universe?

It is evident that all the flaws in science are from theories generated by hypocritical atheistic scientists.

No, the flaws are generated from the fact that the entire universe and the whole of reality are pretty fucking incomprehendable... Entire Scientific fields that are obviously studying very real aspects of our reality contradict each other... What we understand from the very big "Astrophysics" crumbles to dust when we walk on over to "Quantum Physics" territory and vice versa. The most controversial issues within science is not evolution... Evolution is one of the most backed scientific theories in history, as far as the scientific community is concerned is pretty much fact at this point with over a century of research backing, only controversial politically. True scientific controversies have nothing to do with religion, atheism, or anything that is actually pretty fucking off subject. God is not even considered a factor, because god cannot be scientifically verified one way or another, not even used to explain anything scientifically. Science doesn't reject nor accept god, it doesn't consider god at all and probably won't until we get emprical evidence of god if we ever do.

Side: science is bad for world
jeffreyone(1382) Disputed
1 point

"Neither theory suggests there is no god,"

It doesn't suggest. It implies a high possibility of no God(capital 'G' pls take note). Like 85%.

"the only thing making these theories "atheistic" is that they contradict fundamentalist christianity"

Even without christianity they still don't make sense.

"That doesn't make evolution, nor the big bang "atheistic""

Even if so

Come on!! You know the train is moved by atheists. Those scientistts get their emotions mixed up with work. You don't have to wait for them to come for confession.

"not really when you consider the fact that the theory was never intended to contradict anyones religious beliefs"

So it's a coincidence? It's sensible . But then it's just the outlook. You cannot confidently conclude on motives.

"Evolution is more Pro-truth" than it is "anti-fundamentalist christian", and it is more "anti-fundamentalist christian" than it is "atheistic"."

Evolution makes sense(continuity) to some extent(doesn't mean it's true though); incomplete at the core(origins) making it nonsensical.

"The Big Bang theory came from a catholic who believed it to be the moment of creation from god himself. "

There are demonic doctrines. "Not all who say lord lord............"

And it sounds like more nonsense if you believe in the big bang theory and yet say God exists or he caused it in creation. He is a loony seeking attention and he got it. Even these atheistic scientists made it less nonsensical by making it highly imply God couldn't exist then.

"why would we accept a scientific theory from a religious man claiming it be evidence for his god's creating of the universe?"

Religious is just letters. Your heart proves it. That guy was atheist at heart. And atheist scientists grabbed it. Most religious scientists reject what their fellow religious person said.....why? The catholic guy was either lying he believes God exists or he is an idiot.

I don't even think he even had a personal bible he used to read. The big bang was one of his childhood imaginations, he never let go(many can't), and he finally got a good platform to shylessly blurt it out. And it was grabbed by........(not all scientists)

I have a lot of self made scientific theories. Some are with existing evidence and some are assumptions. So there many people who have a lot of things in their heads. some are good and others nonsense(what big bang happened to be)

"True scientific controversies have nothing to do with religion, atheism, or anything that is actually pretty fucking off subject. God is not even considered a factor, "

That is the good science i was talking about. It's okay they don't involve God. It's not their fault they cannot find scientific evidence of Him. They study nature, but he created and exists independent of nature. He set and changes His own rules whenever He feels like it. It will be disrespect, to discover Him like a planet.

Side: science is good for world
1 point

Science is a gift from God to be used wisely. I am alive because of neuroscience.

Side: science is good for world
Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

You have just convinced me that we need to ban neuroscience.

Side: science is bad for world
Sitar(3680) Disputed
1 point

Leave me the fuck alone............................................................................................

Side: science is good for world
1 point

Ouch :) that gotta hurt ... that's a knockout punch ...... 😂

Side: science is bad for world
1 point

Yes, because they piss off the religious right. ..................

Side: science is good for world
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

The Religious Left are pissed off when you say Climate Chaos is a hoax ! Do you deny that ?

Side: science is bad for world
Denis_didero(24) Clarified
1 point

Your argument is incomprehensible as your motion is, he was specifically talking about the religious right whilst you talk about the religious left. The question is about the good contained in scientists and science in our world. The "religious left" isn't probably that scientifically inclined as you think.

Side: science is good for world
1 point

Absolutely. But one must make sure there are certain ethics that are maintained. There is such a thing as going too far, as is the case with most anything.

Side: science is good for world
1 point

Of course science is good for the world. what idiot would say otherwise?

Side: science is good for world

You must be very new here.

You'll soon understand the answer to that question yourself.

Side: science is good for world

Of course scientists are good for the world, knowledge empowers everyone. Science advances the world and empowers every aspect of society, we live longer, happier lives due to our scientific prowess. Science is the means that our species learns, and to gain wisdom means to learn. Yeah sometimes it seems a little ridiculous with irresponsible people not paying attention due to their phone, and sending in essays with texting lingo but compared to the preservation of life, rising quality in life, it is worth it, plus much popular technology exists in it's infancy (cell phones) that young people are just starting to learn how to use responsibly. We'll grow out of it.

Side: science is good for world

You'd be dead or at least vomiting up your guts from sickness without science.

Science created medicine and the technology we use in our daily lives. We'd be in the Stone Age still without it.

Side: science is good for world

Overall no, in fact from what I can see science has caused more destruction overall, such as via the invention of nuclear weapons, gas chambers, and sweatshop labor.

In fact most of the good things which science produces are just remedies to ills caused by humans for tampering with nature in abnormal ways to begin with.

Vaccines for example only had to be invented to cure diseases which Europeans caused themselves by living in dirty cities, and which Native Americans had lived for 1,000s of years without ever catching since they lived closer to nature and did without dirty industrialism (which unfortunately is also why they died of the diseases Europeans brought to them).

If anything science is just a necessary evil for the sake of survival, rather than a good.

For that matter the average "scientist" is not very intelligent or creative, and many of them are little better than bean counters or video game debuggers, only a few standouts such as Einstein were truly inventive. They're also often very unattractive to women because of how ugly and reductive the nature of their work and their minds is, and also more likely to be sociopathic I believe.

Truly intelligent and creative people tend to be found far more in the arts and humanities, or the formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, rather than the ugly 'natural sciences' like biology and chemistry.

Side: science is bad for world
Denis_didero(24) Clarified
1 point

You start off your argument by using the phrase "Overall no" and proceed by mentioning a few benefits such as the prevention of climate change and the prevention of diseases. Science isn't a "necessary evil", it has always been a necessity for us humans to inquire the nature of an aspect in our world whether it be in the microscopic level or in the external level. . Either you're a troll or an utter idiot, natural sciences is one of the most important sciences around besides logic and mathematics as it's being used to analyse everything that's abstract in our universe wherein logic and mathematics aren't able to solve such. Without natural sciences you're not going to be able to take medications for whatever illness you undoubtably have.

Side: science is good for world