The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UtherPenguin
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

belief is unresonable

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...
UtherPenguin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 630 times Debate No: 80060
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

the parts of the book of christianity/islam etc, that are not false, is not religion, is not christianity, no belief involved, and christianity is a religion
UtherPenguin

Con

I accept, assuming that the first round is for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you cant join without accepting
UtherPenguin

Con

I’ll do my arguments this round and rebuttals in the next, thanks to Pro for offering the debate.

Terms

In the first round, Pro had not specified any terms as to what he defines as ”belief” and what he defines as “unreasonable” so I’ll bring up the definitions of the words from the dictionary to base the rest of my arguments upon:

Belief:an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Or a trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something” [1]

Unreasonable: “not guided by or based on good sense. Or [something] beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness.” [2]

Sources

  1. 1. https://www.google.ca...
  2. 2. https://www.google.ca...
  3. 3. https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Arg 1: Science is based on belief.

Whether or not one chooses to accept the terms previously stated, the fact still remains that belief is not an exclusively religious conflict. Everyone in some form has faith or belief in something, whether it be religious or not.

Science is to a degree based on belief or faith. Since science I primarily based off observations [2]. For example, take a look at the scientific method


It is, mostly based off observations. The hypothesis is an claim based off belief because it came before the actual experiment was done. The conclusions were made due to observations of the experiment. And the conclusion itself is the belief that one’s original hypothesis (or theory developed afterwards) is true. Whether or not said belief is based off of any evidence or observation, it still stands that such a conclusion is a belief. Yet just because a person has that belief, doesn’t make it false or untrue. In fact, most theories or conclusions undergoing this method have been based on various experiements and observations , hence are fairly reasonable. Sense they are within the boundaries of what is plausible or what is acceptable. Hence, to say belief or all belief is unreasonable is to also say that science is unreasonable, despite the fact that most scientific theories were made as a result of logical observations.

Sources:

  1. 1. https://www.youtube.com...
  2. 2. http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org...

Arg 2: Logic is based on belief.

All logical systems are based off a series of postulates [1], things we suggest or assume to be true as a basis of further reasoning [2]. Without postulates, we would have nothing to base our logic from.

Postulates or axioms have to be taken with some form of faith as long as it works within the system, if rejected, the system collapses.

Euclidian geometry is almost wholly based off axioms/postulates [2], and Euclidian geometry is also the foundation to many other branches of math.

These axiom include:

1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.

2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.

3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.

4. All right angles are congruent. “ [2]

To give another example of axioms in math, take a look at the development of different studies math over the centuries:

Once more, the earliest branches of math are based on the “foundational elements” which are axioms. The very foundation of math is hence based off of axioms. Axioms are based on belief. However, without beliefs such as postulates, systems of logic such as math and the scientific method would not be able to stand. As both are based off observations. Human observation is flawed and limited. A man that can see colour and says “the sky is blue” has as much merit to that observation as a colour blind man that says “the sky is grey”. Hence, belief is required for logical systems to exist. Therefore, belief is reasonable to have.

Sources:

  1. 1. https://www.youtube.com...
  2. 2. http://mathworld.wolfram.com...
  3. 3. http://www.homolog.us...

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

belief=theism=religion


belief=be lie, as i dont know is true=doubt=false=imaginary

i am not here to argue what belief is but that because i dont need to believe certain things in the bible, say the bible says, all birds are green, is it correct? similarily, if i claims there are rocks, i do not have to believe that, i have knowledge of that, it dosnt make me a christian to accept that there are rocks

know=true, not can be

belief is a blind man seeing, or a can with emotion attached to it

..

belief is illogical, imaginary.. there is no logic in fantasy

logic=log i see

math is considered true based on absolutes and logic, i know where you are, if you pick up 2 rocks you will not have 3 in your hand without additional adding, if this is not the case math is useless
UtherPenguin

Con

Rebuttals.

R1:
"belief is illogical, imaginary.. there is no logic in fantasy


logic=log i see

Math is considered true based on absolutes and logic, i know where you are, if you pick up 2 rocks you will not have 3 in your hand without additional adding, if this is not the case math is useless"

All of what you've just stated are observations. Observation is defined as "a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed." (Source: https://www.google.ca... )

To base logic off of observation requires belief, the belief that your observations are correct or carry more weight than the other persons observations.

For example, if there were three people, one was colour blind, the other had average colour perception, and the other had above human perception and one said "the sky is grey" the other says "the sky is blue" and the third said "the sky is not blue" who would be the correct one? All of them are basing their conclusions off their own observations. Human observation is inherently narrow, limited and prone to error.

As mentioned previously, math and Logic are both based on postulates, and postulates require belief. I've already given my evidence and reasoning for that. However, Pro has failed to meet the burden of proof in showing how math is based on "absolutes" or how belief equals to imaginary, he only gave bare assertions.


R2: "i am not here to argue what belief is but that because i dont need to believe certain things in the bible, say the bible says, all birds are green, is it correct? similarily, if i claims there are rocks, i do not have to believe that, i have knowledge of that, it dosnt make me a christian to accept that there are rocks"

The original resolution of he debate was on belief in general, not just religious beliefs. Even assuming that the debate is originally about religious belief it does not stray from the fact that Christianity is not the only religion, and arguing that Christian belief is unreasonable fails to prove that religious belief is unreasonable. Hence this argument is irrelevant. Even if this proves Christian belief is unreasonable, it fails to prove that religious belief in general is unreasonable.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

it would be true to the individual observation of the sky, same if all 3 has different colour shades on, they see that color..

but how would a guy argue the sky is grey if he dosnt know blue to begin with? faulty premise, unless he sees black and white and i dont know that is possible

errors dosnt exist in reality

math is absolute based on reality.. therfore i know you will only have 2 stones in your hand picking 2 up and not adding additionally...

belief is religious, theism

i am saying belief is unresonable.. i dont have to believe true or truth, matter is true no belief involved

UtherPenguin

Con

R1: "but how would a guy argue the sky is grey if he dosnt know blue to begin with? faulty premise, unless he sees black and white and i dont know that is possible"

That is why I made reference the the third person with "above average" colour perception, meaning that he could comprehend colours that the former to people couldn't.

That being said, since neither of the first two people would be able to understand the colour that the third person could see, then what weight does the observations of the first two people have? And what if the majority of the population was colour blind , and scientists came to the agreement that the sky is gray. That was an observation, if the population then decided to follow your logic of "logic=log i see" then would that not mean the sky is gray? Or that arguing otherwise was illogical?

Since a person's own observations are naturally, narrow, subjective and prone to error. Then it would make little sense to follow one's own observation as the absolute truth without some element of belief being involved.

R2:

"errors dosnt exist in reality

math is absolute based on reality.. therfore i know you will only have 2 stones in your hand picking 2 up and not adding additionally...
belief is religious, theism

i am saying belief is unresonable.. i dont have to believe true or truth, matter is true no belief involved"

Once more this argument is followed with no evidence or reason behind it, it is just a bare assertion followed with no evedience. As mentioned previously, Math and other logical systems are based on postualates and axioms that require belief. Science is based off of observation, which also requires belief. How can one be sure that the matter that they observe is true? Since observation is subjective and limitied, it would make little since to view one's observations as true without some form of belief involved.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

you see color.. not understand, your thoughts dosnt determine color

their observations have the weight that its their experience unarguably

i see the sky is blue, no doubt about that


there is no your and my logic, logic is necessety of motion

the sky being blue is an objective statement.. i dont determine that it is just red all of a sudden

are you saying 1+1 dosnt equal 2?

reality is real, you are the one having to prove it is not, while that is impossible
UtherPenguin

Con

R1:"you see color.. not understand, your thoughts dosnt determine color

their observations have the weight that its their experience unarguably

i see the sky is blue, no doubt about that"

This argument had made a large contradiction. Firstly, Pro states " your thoughts dosnt determine color" yet right at the end of the argument he says "i see the sky is blue, no doubt about that". Yet how could one have no doubt the sky is blue without some form of thought. Because he essentially states here and in previous arguments that logic is objective. Yet states that "logic=log i see". Observations are subjective, yet how can logic be objective if it is based off of something that is subjective.

R2: "the sky being blue is an objective statement.. i dont determine that it is just red all of a sudden"

How could one come to the conlcusion that the sky is blue without looking up at the sky and observing it's colour? And what about a colour blind person who says the sky is grey? They made the same observation as you, yet came to different conclusions. Belief is required to come to the conclusion and remain at that position.

R3: "there is no your and my logic, logic is necessety of motion"

Rebuttal 1 applies to this statement.

R4: "are you saying 1+1 dosnt equal 2?

reality is real, you are the one having to prove it is not, while that is impossible"

Firstly, I've never said that 1+1 doesn't equal 2, neither did I imply that. Secondly, Pro had asserted a positive statement, and instigated the debate, as well as asserting the first claim, hence the Burden of Proof was on Pro during the debate. However, I never suggested that reality is not real, but Pro is shifting the burden of proof on me with a statement I never made.


Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
I vote for........

UtherPenguin!
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Knowledge trumps belief every time.
Beliefs and faiths represent a type of mental activity that produces an unnecessary and dangerous false sense of trust and wrongful information (thinking coupled with the feeling of 'truth'). Faith rarely agrees with the world around us. History has shown that beliefs and faith, of the most intransigent kind, have served as the trigger for tragic violence and destruction and sustained the ignorance of people. Replacing beliefs with predictive thoughts based on experience and evidence provide a means to eliminate intransigence and dangerous superstitious thought.
Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with evidence, then it simply cannot have any validity to the outside world. All things we know about the world, we can express without referring to a belief. Even at its most benign level, beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
is religion known?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you just show me why i am wrong con, you can present a case as a pro, as long as it contradicts my position
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
I did accept. Anyway, do I go on with my arguments this tound?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
vi_spexUtherPenguinTied
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 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: Con used proper English, while pro was mostly incomprehensible. Con had clear arguments that were backed up by clear reasoning and evidence. Con had extremely unclear statements with literally no evidence.