People shouldn't base all or most logic and reason on Science
Debate Rounds (3)
Not every theory that looks like a fact (Well, near-fact, you can't be 100% sure about anything Scientifically) is actually as accurate as it looks.
Give your argument in round one.
your right in saying that you can't be right about a theory. did you just learn the concept of a theory or something because everybody knows that. theories are based on facts and probability while religious dogma is based (over 99.9 times) on someones imagination and emotions. thats how a lot of christians chose a religion. well your emotions and your conscience consists of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth. thats why all the people in the ages of faith did what they did. because of their consciences and emotions. i know the beliefs are wrong 99.9 percent of the time because of the contradictions between the thousands of religions. not to mention the different combinations of beliefs like you see in the 35000 denominations of christianity. how many of you can be right? you might argue that you are right about one thing which is god and that religion is a way to god but lies are never the way to find truth. when a perfect all powerful god speaks if he ever did speak would end controversy and conflict that results from it. not cause both.
you spoke of machines. im guessing you are talking about computers which make so... so many less mistakes than us that it would be like trusting a 3rd grade special ed kid over a famous philosopher or scientist not to mention a computer is not infallible all the time. i don't know much about computers but i know that. sounds like you don'ta know nothing dude.
In regards to religion, people that believe in whatever they believe for an incorrect reason are just plainly ignorant. While belief in ignorance happens a lot, you can't speak of religion unless you also mention that there's some people who have a religion, and don't believe it because of bad reasoning and things like that (I.e., I'm not a Muslim, but I can see how someone could believe in Islam.).
As for the multiple religions and denominations, your point is kind of irrelevant. No matter how much false beliefs and deceptions happen, that doesn't change the truth. You can know which one of them is true by seeking out the answer.
About computers, though, the same thing applies: "that is only human interpretation. It's correct to us partly because the limitations in our minds.". Obviously I believe that 2 + 2 = 4, but the father you go from the very obvious things, the less sure you get. For example: How do you divide 5 among 3 people equally?
Also, to people other than the person debating against me: Please ignore the spelling, and focus only on the points made.
these ignorant people you speak of are most people. now which world would you rather live in? a world where everybody says i don't know and uses science and common sense to draw their conclusions so that there is not much controversy, conflict, slavery, burning people alive etc because they are wrong and think they know they are right while people try to learn right from wrong and are at least humane. or a world where almost everybody has ridiculous views that cause them to torture others for their beliefs, slow every moral progress by opposing it consistently, disagree on everything because there are a thousand lies for every one truth, and prevent them from knowing right from wrong while making them think they do making evil inevitable. science is much better than that. if we base our views on religion it guarantees that most will be wrong and most will not know right from wrong while they think they do never even using the analytical part of the brain to learn right from wrong. slavery cant be both right and wrong. misogyny can't be both right and wrong. every precept we have was or is disagreed with by most other people. that means most don't know right from wrong whether we are right or some others are right. im sure you and i would disagree on a lot of moral issues and we clearly have religion to think for most of it.
even if one religion is true like you say, it would be better to ignore the true religion with all the bad ones as its better for everybody to say i don't know and try to learn right from wrong like we are doing by rejecting religious dogmas and thinking for ourselves, than it would be for 99.9 percent of us to believe false religions insuring that most of us don't wont right from wrong. also each religion only speaks to far less than one percent of people because no religion has been with us from the beginning to the present day. they have lasted an age at the most and they weren't available for most people to read until recent years. if god really had something to tell us that was important for humans to know then why wouldn't it be told to all humans? if it isn't important for most humans to learn than its safe to say its not important for me to learn.
you said "people don't believe in religion because of bad reasoning and things like that" yet you failed to mention one bad reason while i have provided you with several good reasons to ignore religion. your saying its unreasonable to not believe in religion and that is clearly false as i have proven. you said "i'm not muslim, but i can see why people believe in islam." ok so you can see why people believe other religions yet you say and i quote "You can know which one of them (religion) is true by seeking out the answer." so your saying you can see why people believe another religion but if they were seeking the answer they would know which one is true. so your saying 99.9 percent of people don't search for answers as there are far more than 1000 religions where only one can be true. even when they search for answers they all come to different denominations and religions that agree with their feelings rather than reason so that is clearly false. religion doesn't give you the answers it just keeps you from asking the questions. but you pretty much contradicted yourself.
how do you divide 5 among 3 people equally? its about 1.6 and if you dont know you can use a remainder. and i'm not giving you all the numbers. thats almost as simple as 2 plus 2 and you aren't sure about that? wow. no wonder so much of what you say is nonsensical. not to mention id trust a genius before i trusted someone with precepts like you can beat your slave to death as long as they don't die that day. if they die two days later then you deserve no punishment. and if a woman doesn't scream loud enough for someone to hear her when she's being raped she is to be put to death also as an accessory to her own defilement. its as if the authors of religion don't want you to know right from wrong. that or they are extremely unintelligent or evil.
2. I'm saying that, facts about the Universe as so "obvious" to us because of our human perception. If we were all each 1000x smarter than the average human, we'd have a completely different perception of the Universe. If you would consider Darwinian Evolution to be true, we'd look like we have to knowledge of baby compared to creatures 1000x smarter than us. So I'm saying, that no one should take Science as seriously as some people, because for all we know we may not be headed down the Yellow Brick Road.
Science is based off of logic, but only human logic. If Darwinian Evolution is true, our logic will look like Cave Man logic one day.
saying that if we were a thousand times smarter that we would have a different perception of the universe is like saying if we were a thousand times smarter we would have a different perception of two plus two. we would have a new perception on some things no doubt but that wouldn't change facts like the worlds are round and not flat or the worlds revolve around stars or all the matter of the universe comes from stars. that would change the facts so i don't know what your point is. we arent headed down the yellow brick road? so your saying we arent smart enough to know whether or not we are right about scientific facts? i know that we are headed down that yellow brick road because light bulbs work. i have a house that has power and heat and air. i drive a car that gets me from a to b. i watch tv and take pictures. i can go to a doctor and get medicines and treatments that will make me better when i'm ill. earlier humans were in caves freezing there buts off in the winter and dying when they were thirty tops. today we live to be over twice that age and we have good homes that keep us warm in the summer with plenty of entertainment and things that keep us much happier. tell me where should the yellow brick road get us? i think the yellow brick road should lead to human happiness. and it has clearly done that while the religions you were just defending have done the opposite of that. so religion isn't the yellow brick road. and your saying we shouldn't base our logic on science (observation) but we should wait until humans evolve more to start having logic? how can we base our logic today on the observation of future generations that are a million years in the future. thats impossible. you have yet to offer anything else we can base our logic on besides religion but then after i refuted that you said this debate is not about religion. so make up your mind and come to a point. you have yet to make a single point.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by alphafailed 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Esiar had better conduct, which would win this argument in my books alone. He/she also met each of steff's "arguments" with more elegant, conscious arguments. This topic is pretty subjective, so it all comes down to how it's presented.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.