The debate "Science is more important than believing in god" was started by
August 8, 2016, 10:03 am.
By the way, Blue_ray is disagreeing with this statement.
28 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments, PsychDave posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 17 arguments, Blue_ray posted 1 argument, PoliticsAsUsual posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, Religion_is_unproven, Apollo, PsychDave, Gaurangi, PoliticsAsUsual, Yanksxx21, Kawaii88, historybuff, TheExistentialist, Treyceratops, harshita, adriana, Rajat, castor and 13 visitors agree.
SwaggerPoptart, arisa, moneybagboyz, hunadi, fadi, neveralone, Blue_ray, XenoBoy, Zuhayr, KiwiSheepTrainer, thereal, M_Rose and 12 visitors disagree.
Of course, science is more important. You cant follow a blind faith. Science is made up of facts and its easier to accept.
Casual would nearly have to be an end though (or something close to it).
Sex could also be a means. Withholding sex is used to encourage certain behaviors. Pursuing sex can be done to exert a claim over an individual rather than for the sex itself.
I would say sex is both means and end depending on circumstances.
May I assume that you are taking a deontological stance?
"...a lot of men that view women as sexual conquests and make it their sole goal to persuade them to do it"
sure, but that doesn't make casual sex immoral. It makes these men immoral for viewing women as a means/an object rather than an end. The act of sex is not the moral qualm, it's how you view and treat others that is the moral choice.
"How is a society in which casual sex is emphasized and broadcasted, not leading men (and frankly women) to only carnal ambitions?"
I'd say that even in a science based society, where casual sex is allowed/not judged morally, it is still a far cry from claiming that this society emphasizes and broadcasts casual sex. I'd argue that in a science based society a push for monogamy would be the stronger push. There are evolutionary factors that predispose us to monogamy as a species and thus a science based society would continue to view this as the norm rather than the exception.
"Actual I want to jump into this since I feel it is the more interesting debate. Is sex a means or an end."
Sex would be an end. So if you desired sex, and used a person solely for the purpose of engaging in sex without regard to their feelings, personhood, or agency, you would be using that person as a means to an end rather than treating them as an end.
Actual I want to jump into this since I feel it is the more interesting debate. Is sex a means or an end.
So you don't believe that there are a lot of men that view women as sexual conquests and make it their sole goal to persuade them to do it. Im not even talking seduction. Just patience (which is becoming easier in modern society). I can list numerous men who place a high emphasis on sexual relations as a source of pride and idea of convention. How is a society in which casual sex is emphasized and broadcasted, not leading men (and frankly women) to only carnal ambitions?
As I would argue the New Testament is the new law.
I understand that religious law should be looked at in the context of the time period that it was created. However, that simply makes the point even stronger that religion is simply not as beneficial to today's society as science.
true though we shouldn't. we are told not to shun.
Actually I think we are winding our way back to the topic. Lol
I have seen people teased the way you describe, but I haven't seen it be any worse than how people taunt someone who isn't drinking or doing drugs. It depends on the peer group. I know a few people who waited for marriage, and quite a few who did not. We were all friends. I wouldn't insult someone for their choices of who to, or not to have sex with. It's frankly none of my business.
Religious communities could go the other way an shun and shame those who have premarital sex. Again, it depends on the group.
Think of it this way: if a woman is raped and virgin, without a husband (if their marriage was consented upon) she would die alone without any support. Virginity was the greatest pride of a woman at those times. A man, if he raped a woman who was not married, would be forced to take care of her for the entirety of his life. No one else would. The Old Testament were laws to govern the Jewish people. That was their goverment, and that was the solution to ensure the women didnt starve to death.
the world overall looks at people who choose celibacy until marriage as outdated and they get insulted a lot. I could take a step outside my house right now and if i said anything about not wanted sex before marriage I would get ridiculed for being a wimp and outdated. but this has gone off topic I apologize.
Forcefully engaging in sex would be seen as morally reprehensible in humanism. In fact, this act would be seen in a much harsher light than in religious morality.
In the bible, we see that the rape of a woman is relative to whether or not she is possessed already. So if you rape an unmarried virgin for example, the consequences are different than if she is already married. In effect, an objectification to the highest degree, treating her as a possession, not an agent.
In the bible, a man who rapes an unmarried virgin, must pay the father (forgot the exact amount) and marry his victims. If the woman is married, the rapist is to be put to death. In effect the punishment is related to the degree to which someone has a claim on the woman. Isn't this more of an objectification than the humanist's view on even casual sex?
I absolutely agree they should not be forced to do anything they don't want to, but why would they be insulted?
it makes it seem to a person who sees that the world is fine with casual sex then women and men are fine with it. now idk if there a majority or not but there is definitely people not up for that and they get insulted and in rare cases forced.
I cam see it lowering commitment since by definition casual sex is not committed, but I still don't see how that inherently objectifies anyone. If I have a casual conversation, I am not objectifying the person I talk to by not committing to talk to them again.
Humanism would look at science to inform us about casual sex. So we'd look at things like "the selfish gene" and come to understand that sex is a genetic drive to procreate. So, there is nothing morally wrong with the drive to have sex, thus we must look at the consequences of sex and how we engage in it.
Let's look at the immediate consequences first since it's pretty easy. Sex needn't have consequences anymore as protection is pretty reliable and one can make decisions about whether the limited risk of protected sex is worth it. So we don't necessarily have to worry much about pregnancy and the considerations that come with it.
So we're left to look at how we engage in sex. In humanism we have to look at individuals as equally valuable to ourselves. This necessarily leads us to having to treat others as an end not as a means. This means we can't "trick", force, or in any way "use" a person for any end including sex. Casual sex must therefore be consented to and it must be known that the sex is casual rather than engaging in it under the pretense of some deeper meaning.
Essentially, in humanism, you have to respect the other as an equal and grant them the considerations you would like to be afforded. When it comes to objectifying women, if we grant them equal consideration, then objectification is impossible since that would mean treating them as a means rather than an end in themselves.
As for unions, an acceptance of casual sex in society based on humanism would have no impact on them. This is because once monogamy is agreed upon, it would still be immoral to cheat as it would be the violation of another's agency. Meaning that the party cheating used their spouse/partner as a means rather than an end, thus violating their obligation to view their partner as an equal.
That's a false statement. Try again and this time use an argument for debating.
it objectives both. both look less committed and just there for the sex. the only dif. in gender is women don't like it and guys don't care. for the majority.
If you're a male, you know.
I'm curious how casual sex objectifies women.
I wouldnt. That is the significance of religion. What is the humanist moral philosophy on casual sex. I believe the argument could be made that it objectifies women, opens doors to irresponsibility (pregnancy), and diminishes the value and strength of unions.
Why would you expect a life philosophy from science in the first place? It doesn't have any tenants which would produce a philosophy. However, secular moral philosophy is also very rich in moral guidance. Look at humanism and tell me that (on pure human consideration) it isn't at least as compassionate as Christian doctrine.
Science is a tool used to inform secular philosophy, but it can't be a philosophy in and of itself. So if we discuss humanism in regards to homosexulity and science, we'd say that homosexulity is likely a biological trait and thus not subject to moral consideration. So homosexulity/heterosexuality/bi/etc... is an act/disposition which has the same moral implications as having blue eyes.
This is just a nonsense argument. It has no basis in the real world. When we look at the real world we actually find that secularists, atheists, agnostics are less likely to commit crimes.
The reason for this is that atheism isn't a moral or philosophical claim. Atheism is simply the unacceptance of theism. You seem to equate that claim with moral claims. Atheists can still have other reasons to act kindly; humanism, utilitarianism, etc... provide a framework for secular ethics.
So show me how religious ethics is superior to secular ethics.
provide evidence that Christians are better people or we can safely conclude that you are full of crap.
Religion I believe provides a very good life philosophy that is not offered by science.
I'm saying there's less to hold u back. for us we have a God telling us to do things. for u u only have urself.
if you want to argue that atheists commit more crimes, please provide evidence. do not make completely unfounded claims. I could just as easily make a statement like more religious people are paedophiles. I have no idea if it's true, but it could be.
an atheist has huge reasons to fear death. to do bad. if u go by a religion it has clear cut rules for the most part. unlike with being an atheist which makes it where u can do anything
what ability does religion give to do good that an atheist does not have?
the answer is yes to both
The challenge here is simple really. Which contributes the greater good and which is more necessary to perpetuate the greater good. So in a world where there is some kind dichotomy between the two we would have to evaluate the two on their individual merits for benefiting humanity. The two simplest questions to ask are thus:
Does believing in God bestow some capacity on an individual to do good which a person who doesn't believe in God is not privy to? If not, then the only reasons for believing in God are selfish and not necessarily tied to the greater good.
Does science bestow upon an individual some capacity for doing good which a person without science would be incapable of? I'd argue the answer to this is yes. Science can help us fight disease, famine, etc... So science uniquely contributes to the greater good.
So, by the broadest of measures, if one were forced to choose, the best choice for humanity would be science.
we aren't comparing god to science. we are comparing the belief in God to science. whether or not there is an afterlife is irrelevant to this topic. the belief is what is being compared.
for the ones that don't believe sure but not for the ones that do
and since there is absolutely no evidence there is one, we should assume it's science.
true. I would say if their is one then I would say belief. if there isn't one then science.
if it were possible to know God was real, it wouldn't be faith. that is why there is no one who isn't a fool or a liar who can say they know God is real.
but this topic isn't about the afterlife. it isn't even about God. the topic says what is more important science or believing in God. whether or not your afterlife exists is irrelevant. it is belief vs science that is being compared.
haha. it's what people believe man. this is putting faith agaisnt science which is very silly honestly. I mean God told us to have faith not to know. would u say it would be faith to know God is real?
religion convinces you there is an afterlife with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
I refuse to include a hypothetical afterlife. unless you can prove that afterlife exists it has no place in a comparison with the very real science.
it's like comparing cars and unicorns. it's not a comparison any sensible person would try to make.
and what is important. science helps this life. religion helps the afterlife
religion is important to individuals. it gives them personal strength.
science is important to humanity. it helps us to develop and advance. it saves lives, it builds cities, it feeds the hungry.
it depends on how you judge importance.
true. science is a means to an end more than anything else.
IF we assume God is real then this is a useless comparison. you are comparing a method to a being.
what do you think is better? Ghandi or Logic? how do you even compare the 2?
does any one want to continue under the stated parameter?
I can accept ur opinion
that's a big IF. I'm not willing to accept that condition. to assume God is real, we would no longer be talking about our reality.
so for this debate to go further we will probably have to debate with the requirement that God is real. so we arnt at a dead end
science helps people live longer, healthier, and overall expose the truth. the benefit of God rests entirely on whether he exists or not, which is and will remain a maybe.
I know. was searching through people's arguments and found this. I wasn't really meaning to accuse anyone. just giving my opinion.
actually its a quite old thread posted by me. Now i think different about god and science. and now i agree with you.
I love science but it can't do anything for me after I'm dead. God can do anything for an eternity