The Instigator
Logical-Subject
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Spiral
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Logic proves that natural man is aware of a greater cause. Religion has distorted that awareness.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,397 times Debate No: 3278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (12)

 

Logical-Subject

Pro

What I am about to purpose is entirely a product of my own mind, hence I expect loopholes and since I consider this an absolute fact, I believe I should be able to solve them accordingly. I will now begin..

Religion and Science are one. Relgion can be defined as the yearning of the subject to know its true nature. while science can be defined as the system in which the subject (through the object), exisits in.

The subject (human mind), can only contemplate on what it gathers from the 5 senses. Therefore it is determental to "imagine" God, or or any greater thing, as it immediatly attains the flaws of Mankind, most notably, the lack of sensory understanding. Thereofore, attempting to understand "truth" or reality, through images leads us in a circle right back to manind, keeping us from attaining any real knowledge.

Where science went wrong...
Science adopted the scientific method put forward by Francis Bacon. It is a beautiful system that has been used to only half its necessary ability. Scientists only apply it to the object (dividable bodies), and not to the subject (indivisible bodies). this, to me, is even worse than all the crimes done by religion.

The following facts are the grounds for my theory...

Cause and Effect: a simple truth of everything, Subject and object.

Balance: the result of a balanced cause. ex. (-)Acid + (+)base = Balance

Extreme +: when the cause yeilds an unhealthy positive effect. Ex. base + base = Extreme +

Extreme -: when the cause yeilds an unhealthy negative effect. Ex. acid + acid = extreme -

Disuunion: both elements must have an equal opposite to yeild a good (balanced) result. 146 acid + 146 base = balance.

Though this process makes perfect sense for objects, and is very clear. when applied to motives of people and desires of people, it proves we are striving for euphoria, or a complete union with all things. yet this subject has never been touched by science, and it has been left to the corruption of religion.

Though increasingly intericate in relation to the subject, this can be applied to it. as well as everything our senses have ever experienced. It proves that everything is in relationship, constantly striving to reach a balance. the closer a subject is to balance, the better he/she may see the world, and the universe around them.
Spiral

Con

Welcome, thank you for posting an interesting debate. May our first time debating be an enjoyable experience.

As an aside, at your stage of life, no thought is completely unique, you are a product of your education and life's experience, and as such your ideas are influenced as such. Do you think everyday human thought relies on the scientific method, or does it need to be taught?

"Religion and Science are one. Relgion can be defined as the yearning of the subject to know its true nature. while science can be defined as the system in which the subject (through the object), exisits in."

Religion and science are not the same. Religion is a static system of beliefs that require faith in some degree i.e. non proof. Science theory, alternatively, is a system of explanation that requires of itself to be malleable and testable, open to criticism and if necessary its own extinction upon new evidence.

"The subject (human mind), can only contemplate on what it gathers from the 5 senses. Therefore it is determental to "imagine" God, or or any greater thing, as it immediatly attains the flaws of Mankind, most notably, the lack of sensory understanding. Thereofore, attempting to understand "truth" or reality, through images leads us in a circle right back to manind, keeping us from attaining any real knowledge."

The human mind can process far more than sensory input. At its most basic consciousness (awareness) is a product of an internal mind, requiring no external sensory input. Additionally we frequently experience non external sensory information, we all dream, fantasise, imagine. We can hallucinate, project our thinking into the future to predict, reason from another's perspective. To say then that non sensory information is any less valid than sensory, is an erroneous assumption. "Thereofore, attempting to understand "truth" or reality, through images leads us in a circle right back to manind, keeping us from attaining any real knowledge." This is only the case if you demand it of your religion, there are several religions and even xtian rhetoric that claims proof of god is in the physical universe.

"Science adopted the scientific method put forward by Francis Bacon. It is a beautiful system that has been used to only half its necessary ability. Scientists only apply it to the object (dividable bodies), and not to the subject (indivisible bodies). this, to me, is even worse than all the crimes done by religion."

Here is another erroneous assumption; one that science is not involved in the non material. The behavioural sciences are exactly dealing with that. Human thought, human behaviour, human emotion and identity, society at the micro to macro level. I am not going to argue with you about "crimes done by religion" because that is not what this is about, despite the rather inhumane sentiment of it.

"Though this process makes perfect sense for objects, and is very clear. when applied to motives of people and desires of people, it proves we are striving for euphoria, or a complete union with all things. yet this subject has never been touched by science, and it has been left to the corruption of religion."

Once again, the behavioural sciences are extremely interested in motivation for behaviour, including belief systems. What you describe as "striving for euphoria, or a complete union with all things" is the basic principle of the self needing to belong to group ownership. Humans are social creatures after all.

"Though increasingly intericate in relation to the subject, this can be applied to it. as well as everything our senses have ever experienced. It proves that everything is in relationship, constantly striving to reach a balance. the closer a subject is to balance, the better he/she may see the world, and the universe around them."

What you have just described here are basic tenants of Taoism. Harmony (balance) with oneself and universe is the path to enlightenment. "Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order. Tao is believed to be the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered. Tao is associated with nature, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao." http://en.wikipedia.org...
One achieves understanding of the universe by being in harmony with it. And yes, Taoism is a religion...
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Subject

Pro

Logical-Subject forfeited this round.
Spiral

Con

I guess until my opponent decides to clarify and refute, I will wait..........................................................................
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Subject

Pro

Logical-Subject forfeited this round.
Spiral

Con

Ok, quick wrap up:
religion is not removed from the physical, science is not removed the non physical, the mind is capable of far more awareness than the from pure sensory input. Psychology (behavioural science) deals with motivation, desires etc and so is not a pure religous domain. And my opponents view of harmony is nothing more than basic taoist tenets, the very use of religion he argues against.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Samacado 9 years ago
Samacado
I believe the concept of God to be nothing more. That concept has done so much to help society. I don't think our society would hold together if all motivation dissapeared to be "moral" some people can pull it off. Some can't. They need a motivation of an afterlife, but I can imagine someone having less trouble raping someone if they KNOW they wont go to hell...

Let's look at all of the world's wars... Ireland... Iran... Iraq... The Lemon... Nazi Germany... The US... all in turmoil due to religion.
Posted by Harboggles 9 years ago
Harboggles
I believe the concept of God to be nothing more. That concept has done so much to help society. I don't think our society would hold together if all motivation dissapeared to be "moral" some people can pull it off. Some can't. They need a motivation of an afterlife, but I can imagine someone having less trouble raping someone if they KNOW they wont go to hell...

-An athiest.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Np ;) Have fun, play nice :)
Posted by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
I'll take this one :) Thanks, Vi.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
If there is no contender in the next hour, I will be your contender.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lisaamey 9 years ago
lisaamey
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JUDGE 9 years ago
JUDGE
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MaxHayslip 9 years ago
MaxHayslip
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tainted 9 years ago
Tainted
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Logical-SubjectSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03