Humanity's end Thread - The Debating Society

Not 100% sure this should go here but...

Is humanity destined to destroy its self?

I have often found my self wondering about this, for me its not so much an if as a when. I believe we have not learnt from our mistakes as a species. One of our greatest mind (albert einstein) created the most horrific weapon to date. War creates amazing technological advances, but i belive it will enevidebly lead to our destruction. I belive we will destroy our selves or die trying

So i pose the question to you, will we destroy ourselves? And if not what do you think will (plague, famine, aliens)

Cheers do_i_ob

Yes we are already well on our way, me and walrus had a dicussion on this exact topic afew days ago.

there are really 2 possibilitys for destruction- 1. down the road (not very far) resources will become scarce and countries may fight ove them.
or
2. religion cause nuclear holocaust- this is a major possiblity all we need is an altra conservative christain in the white house and then we will have nuclear war.
or just have Israel attack Iran, because again the ultra conservative american christains would back them, again causeing big war- either way i am worried.

the real question is if we destroyed areselfs would it really be that bad of a thing?

Yes the second one does seem dangerously close.

As a human i can safely say in my personal opinion me ding would be a bad thing for me. Objectively im not a big fan of extinction of any kind.

Yes. Humanity will likely end up destroying each other.

@Deer_Hunter

You do know the war in the Middle East is politically motivated right?

If a WW3 is to occur it will likely be started by North Korea the atheistic communist state who have already challenged the civilized world.

thank you Triangulm, ok so eccelsia, you believe N Korea will start a third ww can you explain why you believe this?

I can explaim my point as well if you like.

Haven't I already explained my point?

so your reason is you hate atheists os they will caue ww3???

well that i s extremely biased.

I said religion COULD cause war because of fundamentalism- you say atheists will cause war because we are atheists and you dont like us.

if you dont want a serious debate just say so, and i will just leave. but just because YOU hate us doesnt make us evil. I can admit i am sometimes to tough on religion but you dont even think we can be good people.
if all you want to do is claim atheists are wrong and evil then there is no point in us being here and we will just leave these forums.
we refuse to talk to bigots, so have a nice day.

goodbye

Reading comprehension fail.

And apparently you're a university student?

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of that.

Your pointing out North Korea as atheistic makes it seem you're blaming atheists for their mistakes, which is what Deer_Hunter was getting at. Now, whatever North Korea does, I think we can all agree that it's politically motivated, and not (anti-)religously motivated.

If there is a WW3, or if Global Warming becomes an epidemic, or whatever we do to eradicate ourselves, I think there will almost always be some humans left. If theres too many of us, I think the problem will correct itself. I think we should avoid over-population, although the people who want to avoid it least will be the people to raise the next generation, so a mass epidemic, such as lack of resources is inevitable. We will almost certainly be wiped out eventually, maybe not by ourselves, but it's really just a question of how and when.

o so now you are going to insult my schooling status??? first you claim atheists will destroy mankind because YOU dont like us- then you claim because i dont back your rather intolerent view i must be lying about being in college.
good god, you been trolling much lately?

if i misunderstood you explain what you mean, and i will apoligize for making accuzations- but as it stands you seem to be just trying to cause fighting and not trying to be constructive here. and just insult me my character and my beliefs- when they are not part of or relevent to this disucssion.

to xxt65xx yes i believe you are right there- i am guessing we were all refering to human civilization and not the entire species. Just as with animal life and extinction in the past, it will need something from the outside to uproot humanity and wipe us off the face of the planet. but how large of a disaster would it take? how strongly rooted is humanity and how well could we survive a major extinction level disater?

xxt65xx wrote: Your pointing out North Korea as atheistic makes it seem you're blaming atheists for their mistakes, which is what Deer_Hunter was getting at. Now, whatever North Korea does, I think we can all agree that it's politically motivated, and not (anti-)religously motivated.

Yeah and Deer_Hunter also said that it's likely for a religious caused nuclear holocaust to occur. He then expanded upon this in the following posts which were deleted (along with mine) so you missed out on that part. Now North Korea is a communist country and atheistic so how am I stating that all atheists are to be blamed if North Korea went to war?

In my deleted posts I exposed Deer's flawed logic about one man representing religion (his ex-pastor who wanted Iran nuked) and the same would apply to atheism too. Oh and when I've brought up Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Kim Jong Il in other posts, it's when an atheist brings up The Inquisition and Witch Hunts, thus I show that you can't represent religion by the actions of a few otherwise atheism would be represented just as badly.

Now to say I hate atheists based on that comment is a reading comprehension fail on Deer_Hunter's part and one that he still foolishly making.

@Deer

I have not insulted your educational status. I am simply doubtful of you going to university when you fail to understand what I mean and interpret my statement of "North Korea could be responsible for WW3" as "you hate all atheists and think we will destroy mankind because *you* don't like us" which is a massive reading comprehension fail.

What you're also stating is that North Korea represents the whole of atheism which is a claim on your part and not on mine. In other words, those are your words and not mine.

Now consider that several communist tyrants have started wars in the past, what's to stop North Korea? It might not be WW3 but it could still be a big war.

I mean at this point, I don't think it would matter if I told you that I respected Hawking and his contribution to science or Einstein (although he was agnostic but he didn't believe in any of the religions). Or if I told you that I've worked with people from all different religious beliefs (meaning atheists included) on modding creations but whatever. Believe what you want. I know what I believe on this matter and if I can't convince you then that's no big deal. However we clearly can't have debates if you're going to conclude that all my arguments against atheism are based on your opinion that I hate all atheists.

Edited by: KnightofEquulei

The main difference between Communists like Stalin and the witch hunts is their motivation. The witch hunts were directly motivated by religion, while Stalin was motivated by communism, not atheism. Although, I'm not going argue whether or not Jesus would approve of such atrocities, Paul at least gave some apparent witches a chance to repent (I don't remeber exactly where that happened, but I remember reading it somewhere in the NT). The main point in bringing up the witch hunts is to show that religion isn't inherently good, and that religion tends to cause more violence than a lack of religion. Remember, I'm not saying that you're necessarily violent, although there are some christians who believe violence to be necessary, and who are willing to kill. Whether or not it agrees with you're interpretation of your holy book, religion has a tendency towards violence and *could* lead to war in several decades, or even centuries if the hatred continues to build.

Also I believe Einstein was a pantheist for at least most of his life, although I could be wrong. Let's try to stay on topic.

Edited by: xxT65xx

Well if i misread your post eccelsia i am sorry, but you took my first comment wrong- I said conservative christain- like sarah palin. conservative christain in the US is a term used to refer to fundamentalist and rather dangerous.
and xxt65xx is right stalin wasnt motivated to commit war crimes because of a religious motive- he hated religion but all his killing was politically motivated.
and xxt65xx your other point is what i have tried to say before- people will kill others no matter what, but religion dose usually give a good excuse. Its easier to say God loves us, he hates them so lts kill them- than say there is no god lets kill them. the second adds no motivation to kill the first makes you feel special and protected and right. thats why religon is more usefull form commiting atrosities- because you have to give people motivation to commit war crimes and twisting scripture and religious doctrine works just gets the job done.

The reason I said North Korea is rather unlikely to start again is that South Korea is not weak anymore, and North Korea is no longer really strong. N koreas only chance would be if china backs them up- and china is for the most part trying to avoid conflict because it would disrupt there trading and profits.

The reason I said Israel is dangerous is they want to attack Iran- If they were to attack Iran it could spell disaster. the US being the Israelie lapdogs we are would come in and help Israel, which would most likely anger Russia and China and if Israel were to use nukes (which they have threatened) it could spiral down to a very bad place.

and lastly i am sorry if i said you hate atheists and you don't- but most of the atheists on this site agree that by your speech about us it would seem that way.

cheers.

xxt65xx wrote: The main difference between Communists like Stalin and the witch hunts is their motivation. The witch hunts were directly motivated by religion, while Stalin was motivated by communism, not atheism. Although, I'm not going argue whether or not Jesus would approve of such atrocities, Paul at least gave some apparent witches a chance to repent (I don't remeber exactly where that happened, but I remember reading it somewhere in the NT).

Communism is atheistic you know...

xxt65xx wrote:
The main point in bringing up the witch hunts is to show that religion isn't inherently good, and that religion tends to cause more violence than a lack of religion. Remember, I'm not saying that you're necessarily violent, although there are some christians who believe violence to be necessary, and who are willing to kill. Whether or not it agrees with you're interpretation of your holy book, religion has a tendency towards violence and *could* lead to war in several decades, or even centuries if the hatred continues to build.

And who said religion was inherently good? If you atheists/agnostics/anti-religious people spent less time bashing religion and those that follow a religion, then you might have learned that pretty much every religious person in the civilized world accepts religion has been used in the past for evil but the same can be said of any belief or system.

Religion doesn't have a tendency to violence. Stupidity, backwardness and ignorance has that tendency which is why the further you go away from civilization, the more you see things like religion being abused (Middle East for example). Meanwhile in civilization you see religion being used for good (charity shops, Christians who feed the homeless - and it's more Christians who do it than atheists - and so on). So the violence isn't caused by religion, it's caused by the society one lives in and tyrants will use anything to support themselves.

Politics has been used for just as much bad as religion and yet we still have it. The thing with anti-religious people is that they never look at the good things religion has been used for and they always look at the bad. Well if we took that attitude with everything, the world would be an even worst place if we were to destroy everything that's ever been used for wrong.

Deer_Hunter wrote: Well if i misread your post eccelsia i am sorry, but you took my first comment wrong- I said conservative christain- like sarah palin. conservative christain in the US is a term used to refer to fundamentalist and rather dangerous.

Yet you still called the war "religiously caused" which in subsequent posts I exposed such an argument for being illogical. One Christian cannot represent Christianity otherwise atheism is represented by one atheist too.

Deer_Hunter wrote:
and xxt65xx is right stalin wasnt motivated to commit war crimes because of a religious motive- he hated religion but all his killing was politically motivated.

But he was also using his personal beliefs in the war and those personal beliefs were atheism.

Deer_Hunter wrote:
and xxt65xx your other point is what i have tried to say before- people will kill others no matter what, but religion dose usually give a good excuse. Its easier to say God loves us, he hates them so lts kill them- than say there is no god lets kill them. the second adds no motivation to kill the first makes you feel special and protected and right. thats why religon is more usefull form commiting atrosities- because you have to give people motivation to commit war crimes and twisting scripture and religious doctrine works just gets the job done.

Which still doesn't reinforce your original point. It simply states that there's a tyrant (who probably isn't even religious himself) using religion and politics to get the people on his side.

Deer_Hunter wrote:
The reason I said North Korea is rather unlikely to start again is that South Korea is not weak anymore, and North Korea is no longer really strong. N koreas only chance would be if china backs them up- and china is for the most part trying to avoid conflict because it would disrupt there trading and profits.

Then clearly you haven't heard all the news about North Korea.

Deer_Hunter wrote:
The reason I said Israel is dangerous is they want to attack Iran- If they were to attack Iran it could spell disaster. the US being the Israelie lapdogs we are would come in and help Israel, which would most likely anger Russia and China and if Israel were to use nukes (which they have threatened) it could spiral down to a very bad place.

Which doesn't sound like a religious war at all but one involving politics and land which most wars are caused by.

Deer_Hunter wrote:
and lastly i am sorry if i said you hate atheists and you don't- but most of the atheists on this site agree that by your speech about us it would seem that way.

Well it seems no matter how many times I make it clear to people, no one will ever understand that I often come of rude and blunt in debates but who doesn't? I try to be as respectful and formal as I can but I won't make it a point of saying "I respect your belief that the Bible is a bunch of a fairy tales" which I find offensive myself but I have to put up with it. One also remember that we communicate differently on the internet and in real life, we surely both have religious and atheist friends/acquaintances/pals who we respect as fellow humans.

Edited by: KnightofEquulei

Get back on topic or, I will lock this thread.

this isnt the place for your holy war eccelsia.
I have tried repeatedly to stear it back on topic and i have been ignored- This thread is will humanity destroy its self and how,
any more off topic posts will be deleted. and if doesnt stop then i will lock it.

Thread locked then because you clearly are paramount on trying to start another flame-war. I was having a civilized debate with xxt65xx and it was completely on-topic but clearly you are against that so this thread is locked. Let in die in peace now.

Edit:

Alright I've re-opened this thread as xxt65xx wishes to continue the debate. It hasn't gone off-topic Deer so just leave it at that. No one is on a "holy crusade" we're simply debating our views or have your forgotten that this is the debate forum?

Edited by: KnightofEquulei

Since it's been reopened, I guess I'll start by replying to Ecclesia, but I'll try not to leave it open to counter so we can end this and stay on topic (I don't think we're too far off topic really):

1. There are some christians who practice a sort of communism (*some* hippies for example), although they may not exactly be marxists

2. Nobody here said religion was inherently good, although some people elevate it to such a position they believe it to be immune to any sort of criticism, and I'm sure you've heard about this in the UK - I was just pointing out a reason why someone would bring up the witch hunts, and you seemed to be relating communism to atheism (communism =/= atheism)

3. Just to be perfectly clear, communism is most prominently motivated by power, such as in countries like North Korea. They may be atheistic but they are not motivated by atheism (I'm sure I've stated this before, but I'm posting this just to be completely clear).

Quote: "But he (Stalin) was also using his personal beliefs in the war and those personal beliefs were atheism."

He was not motivated by atheism, he was motivated by power. He wasn't killing people simply because he was an atheist. Where as during the witch hunts, people were killed for an (apparently, whether or not you agree with their interpretation of the bible) directly religious reason. I don't agree with communism, and I definately don't support Stalin, just as you don't support the witch hunts. I don't think anything else needs to be said about the motivation of communists or the witch hunts, let's not bring that up.

As I've said before: I don't think we'll ever be able to totally wipe ourselves out, although it's certainly possible we could destroy all civilization as we know it. Do you think we will need an outside force to remove ourselves from the planet, or do you think a nuclear holocaust would be enough to wipe us out totally?

Edited by: xxT65xx

This forum is on This thread is will humanity destroy its self

I am not trying to start a flame war, I am trying to keep the discussion on what it should be on.
so we shall focus on the last part of xxt65xx statement
" As I've said before: I don't think we'll ever be able to totally wipe ourselves out, although it's certainly possible we could destroy all civilization as we know it. Do you think we will need an outside force to remove ourselves from the planet, or do you think a nuclear holocaust would be enough to wipe us out totally? "
debate and discuss above question- not on religion or atheism- save that for another debate

and to answer your question- I dont believe a nuclear war would end human life on the planet- it may end the primary civilization but humans are resourceful eough to survive
example
Space.com
The comet impact that was beleived to have occured i canada during the last ice age, it would have had similar effects to a nuclear winter over the Americas and possibly the Norther hemsisphere. if humans survived that then there is a good chance enough to maintain population would survive and nuclear war.
I am guessing it might take something along the lines of a gamma ray burst or a K-T disater sized comet to wipe human life out. Of course there are other things that could end human civilization- a super volcano or an ice age would do the trick but again niether really has the impact to end humanity all together, there is a reason we are the dominate species on this planet we are highly adaptable and versitile.
othe things like plauge and climate change can decimate a population but would not destroy all humans civilization mabye but there are always humans that can adapt.
so i would say no a nuclear war would ipe out humanity but I guess there is only one real way to find out- and we dont exactly want that do we?
so eccelsia what do you think?

The main problem with a nuclear holocaust may not be the initial blast from the nukes. The real problem is nuclear fallout, which can sterilize humans from much farther away than the initial blast can reach. It would be entirely possible to destroy a continent's worth of people that way, although for us to be wiped out entirely, every continent on earth would have to be hit with a large number of nukes. I believe during the cold war, the U.S. and the Soviets had enough nukes to destroy the world several times over (my history teacher told me that), though I doubt every continent would be hit.

xxt65xx wrote:
1. There are some christians who practice a sort of communism (*some* hippies for example), although they may not exactly be marxists

Yes they have their own version but the main version (the one inspired by Marxist philosophy) is atheistic. It is the atheistic communism that governs communist countries and states.

xxt65xx wrote:
3. Just to be perfectly clear, communism is most prominently motivated by power, such as in countries like North Korea. They may be atheistic but they are not motivated by atheism (I'm sure I've stated this before, but I'm posting this just to be completely clear).

No but due to their beliefs they have hatred for religion.

xxt65xx wrote:
He was not motivated by atheism, he was motivated by power. He wasn't killing people simply because he was an atheist. Where as during the witch hunts, people were killed for an (apparently, whether or not you agree with their interpretation of the bible) directly religious reason. I don't agree with communism, and I definately don't support Stalin, just as you don't support the witch hunts. I don't think anything else needs to be said about the motivation of communists or the witch hunts, let's not bring that up.

So why was Stalin closing churches, killing priests and generally persecuting religious people? How could that be for power? It was a display of his hatred for religion and religious people. That's not power-motivated. That's belief motivated. So religion or lack of religion, there's always a belief people use for killing.

xxt65xx wrote: Do you think we will need an outside force to remove ourselves from the planet, or do you think a nuclear holocaust would be enough to wipe us out totally?

I don't think a nuclear holocaust would be enough to eliminate the whole of humanity but it would certainly spell the end of civilization as we know it. Think of Fallout or Wasteland in terms of how the world would be afterwards. I guess it could be possible for humanity to eventually rebuild after centuries but even then they would need to find a way to survive via use of uncontaminated resources.

Deer_Hunter wrote: debate and discuss above question- not on religion or atheism- save that for another debate

You mentioned a religious nuclear holocaust which could contribute to humanity's death and I mentioned North Korea possibly causing WW3 which could contribute to humanity's death so how is discussing the ills of religion and atheism "off-topic?"

A communist state who pushes too far could indeed cause a war that impacts the whole world one day. I mean it was a communist inspired political party which led to such a war last time. It's either that or this war in the Middle East somehow expands and someone sets of a nuclear bomb.

Deer_Hunter wrote:
and to answer your question- I dont believe a nuclear war would end human life on the planet- it may end the primary civilization but humans are resourceful eough to survive
example
Space.com
The comet impact that was beleived to have occured i canada during the last ice age, it would have had similar effects to a nuclear winter over the Americas and possibly the Norther hemsisphere. if humans survived that then there is a good chance enough to maintain population would survive and nuclear war.
I am guessing it might take something along the lines of a gamma ray burst or a K-T disater sized comet to wipe human life out. Of course there are other things that could end human civilization- a super volcano or an ice age would do the trick but again niether really has the impact to end humanity all together, there is a reason we are the dominate species on this planet we are highly adaptable and versitile.
othe things like plauge and climate change can decimate a population but would not destroy all humans civilization mabye but there are always humans that can adapt.
so i would say no a nuclear war would ipe out humanity but I guess there is only one real way to find out- and we dont exactly want that do we?
so eccelsia what do you think?

Well if the dinosaurs were wiped out by a world-wide catastrophic event then how could we small humans hope to survive? A nuclear war might not wipe us out completely but lack of clean resources (food and water) would contribute to the death of survivors. That's excluding the toxic levels of radiation that would be going around, making agriculture impossible and poisoning any who come across such radiation.

====

In any case I think I've said all I have to say on this topic. Naturally both of you are free to reply to this comment but I don't think I have anything more to add to what I've already said. Personally I think humanity will destroy itself in the distant future and it'll be down to every human having a different opinion of how things should be. In the end it will be opinions that destroy. That is unless humanity learns to get along (which I doubt and that brings us back to the topic of "Is humanity inherently evil?").

Edited by: KnightofEquulei