The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

belief is theism, so science is a religion

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 66989
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




i can get scientific information from the tv, computer, news paper, and call that information scientific evidence, so accepting information is allowing my self to be programmed, while my experience of now is real and true

religion=to rely on



I accept, and per my opponent’s instruction, I will begin to argue in this round.

My opponent has declared that "belief is theism" and while it can certainly be said that Theism is a belief, the inverse is not true, all beliefs are not related toTheism. There are many beliefs that have nothing to do with Theism, I believe the sky is blue, I believe a square has four sides, I believe one plus one is equal to two. These are beliefs and they have nothing to do with Theism, consequently, my opponent’s assertion that “belief is Theism” is not true.
My opponent follows the clearly incorrect assertion that "belief is theism" with the assertion “so science is a religion”, because this assertion begins with “so” he intends it to be a true statement that Iis contingent upon the first assertion, which has been shown to be false, so he has already been negated even if his conclusion that “science is a religion” were true, and of course, it is not true.
Science and religion are two distinct areas of human knowledge, science is interested in causes, while religion is interested in meanings. Science asks carefully delimited questions about natural phenomena. It was not intended as providing an overall worldview, a philosophy of life, or a set of ethical norms. Religions are ways of life, their primary aim is the transformation of the person, they involve experiences of liberation, it is a subjective domain of knowledge. Science is an objective domain of knowledge, the scientific approach attempts to remove the rich texture of personal apprehension and response and construct a model of a depersonalized world of “pure objectivity”, without purpose, passion, meaning, or value. Science deals with information that can be publicly verified, religion deals with inwardness and self-knowledge.
While it is true that there are people that have elevated science to a role that is religious in nature, that is scientism, it is not science. A strong argument can be made that scientism is a religion, or at least that it performs the role of religion in the lives of those people, but again, scientism is not science, and while scientism may be equated with a religion, in no way is science a religion, my opponent’s assertion is simply wrong.
Debate Round No. 1


thank you for not skipping the first round.

belief goes to imagination, as i can at best believe what i can only imagine, unless its absolute. what are you most certain off, what you neighbor is doing, or that you are reading these words?

know=Physical experience of now
belief=be lie, as i don't know is true

i don't know=i have to imagine it

1 pen in my hand, and 1 pen in my hand, is 2 pens in my hand, is true because matter is true, and know is matter now

belief is false, and know is true

religion=to rely on=false

i am one is true

imagination is false, and physical experience of now is true for balance

science is not true, you are quietly admitting it with soft language


My opponent begins by thanking me for not skipping the first round, and I will respond with “You are welcome”. Unfortunately, almost everything that follows is practically incomprehensible and appears to be a series of non-sequiturs rather than an argument or a rebuttal of my argument.

With some effort, I think I can get to something along the lines of an argument but it doesn’t seem to be an argument related to the subject of the debate. He stated “i don't know=i have to imagine it” and so I will use my imagination to relate his response to the subject of the debate and attempt a rebuttal to what I can imagine he is getting at as it relates to the subject of the debate.

He starts by equating belief with imagination, he asserts that immediate experience is true and beliefs are not true because they are imagined. This seems to lead to his own belief that science is not true and religion is not true, and therefore he is equating science and religion on that basis, which I presume he associates with the debate premise that equates belief with theism, and science with religion.

And now my rebuttal of what I think my opponent is trying to say. His so called “argument” is self-refuting and therefore invalid, he states that “belief=be lie, as i don't know is true”, and everything he stated is a unsubstantiated belief, so by his own admission, his argument is untrue. His idea that “belief is theism” was not addressed at all, and calling belief a lie and also calling science a lie does nothing to support his contention that “science is a religion”. In the final analysis, he hasn’t done anything to support his assertion nor has he in any way refuted my initial argument, so the argument stands unchallenged and I don’t need to expand on it as it is.

Debate Round No. 2


I have no beliefs

belief=be lie

if I don't have to imagine it, I know it

what are you most certain off, what you neighbor is doing, or that you are reading these words?

am I holding a rock in my hand? you have to imagine it

I don't know is a position of know, and know is true, so its true I have to imagine it unless I don't, which is to say its true I know

there is a separator thou, I can know infinity has no end, so it can never be destruction, and I can only imagine this, but it is absolute so its true, so I know it, as know is true. imagination is false, is true, even thou I can never physically experience my imagination

belief=acceptance that information is true
know=matter now, like my eyes perceiving physical light

belief is doubt, and know is certain. the basis for any religion is doubt, and doubt is fear

any belief is theism, therefore believing in science is false, is a religion

religion=to rely on, while self is one


My opponent begins by stating that he has no beliefs, which itself is a belief, so it is a self-negating statement. He then restates two of his word equations which appear to be an attempt to make some kind of point but are not the least bit accurate. He says “belief=be lie” and although the word belief has those words in it, it has nothing to do with the definition of the word, which is as follows:


  • a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

  • something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

  • conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

He also states the equation “kNow=now”, again the word “now” is contained in the word “know” and I suppose this is supposed to be clever or something, but the words have two completely different meanings:


  • to have (information of some kind) in your mind

  • to understand (something) : to have a clear and complete idea of (something)

  • to have learned (something, as a skill or a language)


  • at the present time

  • in the next moment : very soon

  • in the present situation

The final word equation that he repeats is “religion=to rely on”, and this is a meaningless statement, that is not the definition of religion and it makes no relevant comment regarding religion. Religion is a very hard to define, but “to rely on” doesn’t seem to help, nor does it do anything to support his assertion that science is a religion. The definition follows.


  • the belief in a god or in a group of gods

  • an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

  • an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

He also claims “belief is doubt”, and that “the basis for any religion is doubt, and doubt is fear”, which just isn’t accurate. The basis for religion is hard to define, but if I were to try to present a single word, it would be “faith”, which is practically the opposite of doubt.

While none of what he presented constitutes a coherent chain of reasoning, he seems to conclude from it “any belief is theism, therefore believing in science is false, is a religion”. I see nothing in his posting that supports that statement, as I already stated, the word belief covers a wide range of subjects, while it is true that theism is a belief, it isn’t true that belief is theism, and nothing he presented remotely supports his contention that science is a religion.

While I was prepared to, and was looking forward to doing so, I don’t really think I need to expand on my initial argument, I will simply provide one more definition. As anyone can see the definition of science provided below, compared to the definition of religion posted above, makes it quite obvious that science is not a religion.


  • knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

  • a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science

  • a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

Debate Round No. 3


I don't have beleifs, I know my experience of now

belief=be lie, as i don't know is true

belief is nothing, and know is something. I cant believe in reality, and I cant know imagination, as know is true and imagination is false

belief=acceptance that information is true

know=physical experience of now, matter

information is the opposite of matter, not real, like the universe is an imaginary concept

understand=stand under information and be a slave to it

now=reality loop 1 second or less

to rely on, is information, as matter is necessary. without your senses you are dead

god is information, a world creator if believed, like the belief in a round earth spinning in space, where as the earth I know beneath me has no necessary shape

belief is doubt, as I don't know is true, and imgaianton is false, what is your neighbor doing right now? you accept reality by accepting you don't know unless you know, or you may eve heis sleeping or whatever

I can at best believe in science, therefore it is a religion.. as I have to rely on it

religion=to rely on, while self is one

I can at best believe what others tell me, and belief is false, as I don't know is true....

fact=knowledge=personal physical experience


Sidewalker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


don't not not not vote pro


I’m sorry to miss the last round, got tied up with work and just never made it back in time to post an argument.

It appears that my opponent is claiming that the only thing that can be known is immediate experience and consequently everything other than that is false or a lie, and therefore, science is a religion because they are both false. Or something like that, it’s some kind of “Now” philosophy thing, Eckhart Tolle on acid comes to mind. In any event, even if it were true that almost everything is false, or an illusion, or whatever these posts are supposed to mean, the fact that two different things are both false certainly doesn’t mean they are the same or one is a subset of the other. My opponent’s “argument” deems almost everything false, not just religion and science, but philosophy, history, mathematics, logical arguments, and debates. In the end, it strikes me as rather pointless, I think the contentions put forth are preposterous at best, and repetition doesn’t change that, and they certainly do nothing to support the subject of the debate, which is his assertion that all “belief is Theology” and “science is a religion”.
Because I don’t see a lucid chain of reasoning to refute, I suppose I will just discuss the differences between science and religion here to demonstrate just how different they are.
Science and religion are practically polar opposites; they completely differ in their basic presuppositions and in the domains in which they operate. Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Consequently, they contribute to different areas of human existence and give meaning to life in different ways.

Religion’s focus is on transcendence, it is typically referential to a spiritual realm, often involving a supernatural being or beings. While it is not a conclusion of science, “methodological naturalism” is its starting point, so it necessarily presupposes that neither spiritual realms nor supernatural beings can be the data or proper areas of study.

Science involves the measurement, description and classification of natural processes; it is the study of how things behave, it cannot tell us why they behave the way they do, and it offers no insight into issues of what is morally right or wrong. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive, consequently, science can say nothing about values and ethics, it can only tell us what is — not what ought to be.

Science deals in objective fact, it attempts to remain free of subjective values. Religion’s primary focus is the subjective realm of values, meaning, and purpose, while science’s methodology involves the systematic denial that ‘true’ knowledge can be got by interpreting nature in terms of final causes, which is to say it consciously denies that “purpose” is an aspect of nature.

Science has nothing to do with such subjective matters; it seeks objective facts in the dispassionate analysis of evidence that leads to certainty. Religious belief does not depend upon a dispassionate analysis of evidence that leads to conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, it is always a commitment made in response to an insight that is individual and unique. Because science attempts to remain as objective as possible, its focus is only with what is public and sharable, and it’s theories must be repeatable and falsifiable. Religion focus is primarily inward, it is designed to bring about a new understanding of human existence and achieve inner spiritual renewal rooted in encounter with a personal, moral, liberating, and transcendent power and presence. One of religion’s goals is a personal experience of liberation – freedom from egoism and union with a spiritual reality of supreme goodness.

Religion is comprehensive, religious beliefs offer a wider framework of meaning in which particular events cab be contextualized, in the final analysis, it is a way of life. Science on the other hand is selective, it does not claim that its picture of reality is complete; it asks carefully delimited questions about natural phenomena, it is not intended as providing an overall worldview, a philosophy of life, or a set of ethical norms. These and much more make it clear that science is not, nor can it be, a religion.

My opponent’s contention that science is a religion is an extraordinary claim which would require an extraordinary argument to support. It is clear that vi_spex has done very little if anything to support such a claim, consequently, he has failed to establish his contention and a vote for con is in order.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
you want to challenge me? I will make the claim that only now is true
Posted by Sidewalker 1 year ago
Sorry to not post that last round, I got tied up with work and just couldn't get to it in time...I'll be sure to post for the last round.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
geez im right lol
Posted by Sidewalker 1 year ago
Leo - if you can figure out what the heck his opening argument was, please let me know.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
What the heck was your opening argument...
geez vi_spex...
Posted by Sidewalker 1 year ago
Sheesh, you can never tell what kind of strange formatting this site is going to do to a debate post, I tried using the paste from word button, thinking that would help, made it worse...anyway, sorry for all that white space in my post in last round, makes it hard to read I think.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
Posted by 18Karl 1 year ago
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 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 Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - tie. Con ffs a round, but Pro calls opponent a "f**kface". S/G - Con, obvious reasons. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to refute many of Con's arguments. Sources - Con, as he was the only one who used any.
Vote Placed by Solomon_Orlando 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro receives a point for conduct, as Con had failed to show for one round of the debate. However, Con successfully refuted the nearly incomprehensible argument of Pro with every round that he was involved in. Con's spelling and grammar was much more understandable, where Pro seemed to have been prattling on without much use for sentence structure or spelling.