religion is non sense, science is religion
I will provide the necessary definitions.
Science: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Religion: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it
truth can only be in the past, claims about past events beyond my memory of it goes to future, as i can at best imagine and believe in it
its a fact that i just took a hard drug, i am just lying about taking a hard drug
Pro provides no arguments that even relate to the debate topic. In fact, Pro's arguments make little sense!
Pro said : "religion=to rely on"'
This statement isn't based off of any known texts, or sources, and Con simply makes up rational to help better his argument. The more I look at this statement, the more obscure and off topic it seems.
Pro said: "i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it"
Again, how does this prove that religion is nonsense, or that science is religion? In fact, the whole sentence doesn't make any sense,at least to me anyway...
Pro said: "truth can only be in the past, claims about past events beyond my memory of it goes to future, as i can at best imagine and believe in it"
This statement is false, as many things do not have to rely on the past to be truthful. In fact, something doesn't even need to have happend for it to be truthful! Truth has nothing to do with time. If I said that the number of possible games of chess that could be played is greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe, that js a true statement, as the number of possible chess games is greater than 64^64, and the number of possible atoms is 4×1081.
Pro said: its a fact that i just took a hard drug, i am just lying about taking a hard drug"
Again! this statement doesn't have anything to do with the arguement, along with the rest of them! if you claim to be lying, then why did you openly admit to it? You literally refute your own statement at the begining of this sentence, and you claim to lie. You have provided no evidence to support your claims this round, instead opting to keep your arguement in closed, bubbled off sections that make little sense.
Well, that's over with....Time to prove that Science is indeed not a religion. Religion is an organized set of beliefs about the universe and our life that is set in place to help better explain why things happen. On the other hand, Science is the process of finding out more about our universe by testing, experiments, and trials! Religion is something to believe in, and science is something we use to find out what we should believe in! There is little coralation between the two, dispite popular belief....
Oh, and for Pro
you dont know the text on your screen? :)
religion=to rely on, while self is one
belief is non sense, how do you prove to some one that you believe in them? im talking to the point where they know you are not lying
do i make sense if i talk about love?
its possible, but possibilities are false, and absolutes are true, its true that possibilites are false, as possibility has 2 sides, positive and negative for it to exist
belief is doubt
equations are either true or false, not about truth, past is impossible
if you dont know wheather i just took a hard drug or not, is it then true that it is a fact?
science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines, science is the religion of mechanical technology
the speedometer in my car is only so accurate, i still need my senses to drive or to know the speedometer broke on the way home
Pro said: "i'm talking about religion, religion is non sense"
Not to be offensive, and this will probably take away from my overall behavior during this debate, but your argument is non-sense.
Pro said: "you dont know the text on your screen? :)"
Just pointing out pro's lack of grammar.
Pro said: "religion=to rely on, while self is one"
The definition of religion says nothing about relying on something, but rather believing in something. You don't have to rely on something to believe in it, so this makes this statement false. I have no have no idea what "while self is one" Is supposed to mean, so I'll just skip over it.
Pro said: "belief is non sense, how do you prove to some one that you believe in them? im talking to the point where they know you are not lying"
Belief is non-sense...? Does that mean that your argument is non-sense? Belief is actually not non-sense, because if you believe that belief is nonsense, then that belief is non-sense. Phew, that sounds odd. Pro basically says here that anything you think is true isn't. ","how do you prove to some one that you believe in them?.."
How do you prove to someone that you don't believe in them? You tell them! It's that simple. It's their choice to believe you or not.
Pro said: "religion=theism+atheism=belief+disbelief=love+hate" (Another one of these statements?)
Is it me or does Pro have a tendency to make pseudo algebraic equations with variables that don't mix? If love + hate = disbelief, then why does the definition of disbelief not say that? Wait, did you just make up your own definition of disbelief? This is a fallacy and therefore irrelevant to proving that religion is non-sense. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Pro said: "do i make sense if i talk about love?"
Maybe someone else would, but not you.
Pro said: "its possible, but possibilities are false, and absolutes are true, its true that possibilites are false, as possibility has 2 sides, positive and negative for it to exist"
Wait, possibilities are false? Ever heard ofSchrödinger's cat? There are two possibilities, and neither of them are false until you open the box. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...) This means that it's false that possibilities are false. Possibilities also do not need to be positive or negative, as there can be an infinite number of outcomes. I.E. Quantum vacuum.
Pro said: "belief is doubt"
Funny how every single definition of the word belief has nothing to do with doubt. In fact, doubt is an Antonym for belief. Which means that belief isn't doubt.
Pro said: "equations are either true or false, not about truth, past is impossible"
I don't even know what point pro's trying to make.
Pro said: "if you dont know wheather i just took a hard drug or not, is it then true that it is a fact?"
Last time I checked, this debate was about religion, not "Hard drugs". Again, there are two possibilities that are true until proven wrong.
Pro said: "fact=knowledge=truth"
Pro said something I agree with! But, according to him it's nonsense, as he believes in this, and belief is non-sense. Also, this has nothing to do with the debate. Explain how science is religion please.
Pro said: "science is a religion because it relies on confirmation from machines, science is the religion of mechanical technology"
Science has nothing to do with machines, what?! Science has existed before machines, ever heard of fire? Discovering fire was done without the help of machines! Science is the religion of mechanical technology? Unfortunately, machines do not and can not believe in anything at the moment. Science can't rely on machinery, as it is a process, not a procedure.
Humans rely on machines to understand science, not the other way around. We don't need machines to do science. We only need our brain. (Someone could claim our brain is a machine, but our brain isn't mechanical technology.
Pro said: "the speedometer in my car is only so accurate, i still need my senses to drive or to know the speedometer broke on the way home"
.....I don't even have a clue as to what Pro is going for right now. This is irrelevant.
So, is science a religion? No! It's impossible. Science is a process, not a belief. Can you believe in science, yes. Can you believe in a certain presidential candidate? Yes. Does that mean it's a religion? No.. It doesn't...I wait for next round to refute Con's poorly organised argument yet again.
i dont have beliefs
how do you know they are not lying about believing you
possibility is 2, reality is 1
can be life is not life, because can be life can also not be life
when i am alone, the true size of the human population is one
memories dosnt make sense, reason is non sense
science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines, and i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it
do you think your senses are machines?
Pro says: "again i am talking about religion"
Really? I could've never guessed!
Pro says: "i dont have beliefs"
Then why are you in this debate if you don't believe in anything!? Do you not even believe in your own point? What?
Pro says: "can be life is not life, because can be life can also not be life"
If anyone can translate this for me, I would be gracious, because I have no clue what he's trying to prove.
Pro says: "when i am alone, the true size of the human population is one"
Pro, that's relative to your perspective, you're not accounting for everyone elses perspective in the same period of time as you. The universe doesn't revolve or flow around you. You're not the only variable.
Pro says: "memories dosnt make sense, reason is non sense"
Another statement, another invalid arguement. If a memory does not make any sense, then you either had forgotten about it or it is false. I remember playing chess yesterday, as that is what i did....that's not non-sense, that's recolition of a past event. Also....why am I refuting these statements? They have nothing to do with the debate!
Pro says: "science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines, and i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it"
You don't need machines for science! Machines don't believe in anything! In fact, they only preform a specific task, and that's it! They have no feelings, no emotions, no belief! You need a belief in order to create a relgion, not a process. Science isn't a belief as it is a process! You don't have to imagine it? What does that mean??
Pro said: "do you think your senses are machines?"
My senses are what my brain uses to interpret the surrounding enviorment. My ears are machines, but noise isn't. My tongue is a machine, but taste isn't. My hands are machines, but touching isn't. A computer runs scientific data to make a graph, but science isn't a machine! You can't worship science, you can't pray to it.
"Here is the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the two: science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence of such purpose. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to "why" the world is as we know it, based on the unquestioned assumption that such meaning and purpose exist. The two worldviews could not more incompatible." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
Pro said: "how do you know you are right about anything if you only have beliefs?"
How do you know that "religion is non sense, science is religion" if you don't believe in anything? Saying that I am false because I believe in something is basically like trying to say you are right when you don't believe in anything. You don't have to believe in the something for it to be true, and you don't have to believe in the truth for the truth to be true. How do you know anything if you don't believe in what you know, as you apparantly have no beliefs?
Religion isn't non-sense, as one can follow the principles of their own beliefs to help succeed and benifeit them in life (Well, they can also use it to destroy their life, but...pfft) I hope that we can all agree that I have won this debate, as Pro has failed to provide anything besides statements about everything but the debate topic.