The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

People shouldn't base all or most logic and reason on Science

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 68075
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Fallible people create fallible machines and make fallible conclusions based off of the results the fallible machine/s created by fallible people gave.

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.


well if i lose this it has to be for no other reason than my grammar. maybe in your world you cant be sure about anything scientifically but i understand simple math and freaking two plus two. i guess you don't know whether or not your alive. i say i think therefor i am. if we were figments of gods imagination we would not feel or think and god wouldnt be cruel in reality he would only be cruel at heart. however when it comes to god sure nothing can be known. but science has PROVEN beyond any doubt several things like the planet isn't flat yada yada. this can be proven to everybody because of the time zones. they would not be the same if the earth was flat. there would never be night in one place, during the daytime in another.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


Of course you can be certain about things in Science, but, again, that is only human interpretation. It's correct to us partly because the limitations in our minds.

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.


what do you mean its only human interpretation? facts are facts viewed the same way by everybody and they are not open to interpretation like religion. you say that as if religious views aren't interpretations that are far more controversial. funny how humans can speak much more clearly than your "all knowing" god.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


1. This debate is about if you should base most your fundamental beliefs, and everyday lives, upon Science (Knowledge gained by observation). If you want to talk about religion, I'll make a new debate after this one and put you as the opponent.

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.


oh well my apologies. i thought that was the debate. i thought you were saying we should base our logic and reason on science. you have yet to offer another thing we should base our logic on. after the first time i spoke of religion you were talking about religion so i think you've been defeated but instead of admitting defeat your now saying this debate is not about religion. you were just talking about religion. you talked about muslims and the said it's possible to know the true religion when you search for the answer and i clearly refuted that beyond a reasonable doubt. if you dont want to talk about religion then... dont talk about religion.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ulughbeg 1 year ago
Don't be mistaken in somebody's age. Everyone could opt any possible age provided in the age list.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
Posted by steffon66 1 year ago
holy crap hes 13! lol sorry kiddo. new something was off. if i had known that i wouldn't have smarted off and stuff. when i asked if you just learned what a theory was i guess you have just learned about theories and stuff. lol my bad kiddo.
Posted by steffon66 1 year ago
yea i know science is based on logic and reason. not sure if he said anything to the contrary either. but the whole time he never offered an alternative to science to which he says we need to base our morals on. if i lose it will be because of grammar. not capitalizing and maybe a few other things. that or biassed voters that are going to vote however they want regardless of what is said.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
What missmedic said.
Posted by steffon66 1 year ago
wow i wish i hadnt been high when i started this debate.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Science is based on logic and reason, not the other way around.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
There is a big difference between "all" and "most," so that "or" thing could cause some serious problems in the course of this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by alphafailed 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
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.