atheism is a force for good in this world and progressing the human race unlike theism

Thanks, Pro. Unfortunately (for him) my opponent lacks a real understanding of what eugenics constitutes. A quick look at the trusty Merriam-Webster dictionary reveals that eugenics is: : a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents [1] Does Pro think this is good? Eugenics is not a "natural" process, but rather a purposeful scientific pursuit. Forced sterilization would be a good example of negative eugenics. So-called "positive" eugenics would be encouraging people with good genes to become parents. The latter is discriminatory, and, in my mind, is far from positive. Please comment to let me know your reactions to "positive" eugenics. Negative eugenics are obviously wrong, but follow from an atheistic evolutionary perspective. After all, for our race to survive we must ensure it remains as "pure" and strong as possible. Cloning: Cloning is not a good idea. Really. There's just too much that could go wrong. First, would clones be considered "human"? They would be fully human, but if the government decides to create an army of identical perfect clones we could easily start to view them as the property of the government. This can be referred to as the "commodification" of humans, where we start to see clones as objects to be bought and sold rather than living, feeling people to be respected, not manufactured. In fact, I see that Pro supports the utterly unconscionable practice of commodification when he endorses cloning for the purposes of organ production and medical research(!) Really Pro? You want to create humans, who will be just as alive and feeling as you are, only to kill or cripple them through research and the removal of vital organs? [2] Cloning would also disrespect diversity and would make the human race less diverse. In addition, cloning would result in permanent changes to the gene pool that might or might not be harmful (scientists won't know until they try), and could quite possibly lead to eugenics. "Yes through science we lived and still live in an age where we are threatened by the complete and udder [sic] destruction of all life on earth but science just found out how it works we made the bombs [sic] and if we use them and kill all life that is our fault and we have no one to blame but ourselves not science." Well, not quite. The creators of WMD's are responsible for giving us the opportunity to destroy ourselves. If I installed a big red switch in my house with a sign next to it saying: "WARNING! Flipping this switch will blow up the world!" and someone flipped it and blew up the world, then I would be responsible for hooking the thing up in the first place. I think scientists are responsible for foreseeing where their inventions can be used for and stopping short of world destruction. Sure, fusion can be used for good, but couldn't scientists have just stuck to reactors instead of making bombs too? Think of it this way. If we could get a big red switch installed in the White House, should we? I think we should not make bigger and bigger bombs from an objective, non-nationialistic perspective. Sure, if the USSR has them then maybe we should too, but nuclear bombs just shouldn't exist. Pro's objections to my points only verify that he is the typical atheistic worshipper of science who believes all progress is good, even when that progress results in cloning humans just to grab their organs. The first point, therefore, stands. Just because the Catholic church at one point got mad about the geocentric theory does not mean theism, in general considered in a progressive and rational sense, at all would hinder science. Remember, we are talking of the worldview, not of institutionalized theism. In fact, Christianity has done a lot to further progress: 1. Galileo, Da Vanci, and Copernicus were all Christians. Theists. 2. So were such great progressors of the human race as George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., and Locke, as well as other scientists such as Newton, Bell, and Marconi. 3. The Catholic church actually was a great contributer to science (in the main). Matt Walsh writes: "The Jesuits helped contribute to the development of clocks, barometers, microscopes and telescopes. They theorized about things like human flight, the moon and the tides, and blood circulation. They observed certain astronomical phenomena before anyone else. They did these things as an aspect of their religious pursuits, not in competition with it. In fact, for five or six centuries no institution funded and supported the sciences more than the Church. They don"t teach that in school, which yet again demonstrates the danger of mixing atheism and education. Atheism has to hide from so much, deny so much, and twist and manipulate so much, because its existence is always jeopardized by the scorching light of truth. To paraphrase CS Lewis, an atheist has to be careful about what he reads and which facts he encounters. There are traps everywhere. When western scientific knowledge came to places like China and India in the 1600"s, it came by way of Christians and their science-hating Christianity. You"d be hard pressed to find a single bit of modern scientific knowledge that wasn"t discovered, or heavily influenced by, the work of devout Christians. Do the progressive science lovers, who use the Big Bang to "disprove" God, even know the name of the guy who originally formulated the hypothesis? Well, they think the universe and the human mind came about my happenstance, so I guess it follows that the Big Bang Theory just appeared magically in text books one day. But, unfortunately for them, just like the Big Bang itself, the theory has an originator. His name was Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre. "Monseigneur," for the uninitiated, means "priest" in France-talk." [3] 4. The Church actually preserved much knowledge during the dark ages. 5. Churches, over the centuries, have done much for humans. Traditionally, the church has established schools, hospitals, and universities. All of america's first universities were christian, for one thing. And when did you last see an Atheist Hospital? Without Christianity we would lack a lot more than a cure for the common cold. Now Pro says he is dissapointed in me, as "this is where he shows his ignorance." Let's examine how he addresses my second argument: " I would like to say again morality isn"t defined by religion but is defined by what the masses think like in our society it is immoral to kill that is how we get our morality and with that said again and since con wants to talk about atheism killing people I would like to bring up all the terrorist acts theism has brought upon such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, KKK, and countless others we see people motivated to do these terrifying despicable acts such as the hijacking of multiple civilian aircraft by Islamic extremists which were latter used to be rammed into the world trade centers and the pentagon all in the name of their religion, the Oklahoma City bombing by Christian extremist in the name of their religion we also see Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics not very love thy neighbor like there are countless examples of radical religious groups using their religion to kill and using terror tactics to push their religion now as you said Christians, Jews, Muslims know they"re in big trouble with god if they do so, well in their minds all there doing is promoting their religion and doing the teaching of god just like Muslim extremist believe when they die for Allah they well go to heaven and get 99 virgins . . ." Most Muslims in America would laugh out loud at the virgins part. I'm pretty sure that's not in the Koraan. Morality isn't defined by religion. Well, that's debatable. But for now let's skip to what Pro says it is: "by what the masses think." This is where my opponant shows HIS ignorance. So if everyone thinks killing blacks is fine, then it is? If all the Germans want to kill Jews we should just let them? Pro obviously has the origins of morality way off. Then my worth opponant goes off into terrorism, extremism, etc.. Again, we are examing a REASONABLE theism. Pro can't just point to Al Qaeda and say, "Aha!," any more than I can point to evolutionist racist eugenic scientists. And, in the main, major religions endorse the golden rule and the ten commandments and morality. Just about every muslim would condemn Al Qaeda, by the way. In referring to my last argument from the previous round, I would like to again point out that there is no objective "good" from an atheist perspective. To the Christian bomber we can say, "Listen, Jesus does not endorse bombing. You did wrong," but to the atheist we can only say, "Killing people like that is wrong, because it hurts people," without any specific reason why hurting people is necessarily bad. Okay: people shoot up schools not because they are atheists but because they are mentally ill. To which I say: Not necessarily. [4] Generally, school shooters want to go out with a bang. They are killers who want to make waves. But if they believed God was waiting for them on the other side, would they still do what they did? I don't think so. The blame doesn't rest fully on atheism, but atheism does nothing to prevent it, unlike theism. So, in the end, all three arguments are upheld, as (3) wasn't even addressed by Pro. Here ya go, with 43 minutes to spare. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org... [3] http://themattwalshblog.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...