The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

science is a religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 668 times Debate No: 67638
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

vi_spex

Pro

religion=to rely on, while self is one
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true
theism=belief
atheism=(dis)belief
agnostic=Non belief
Zarroette

Con

I thank vi_spex for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since there are no regulations on rounds, and it appears that my opponent has made some kind of opening argument, I will therefore use this opening round to make arguments. Keep in mind that despite me making arguments, the burden of proof is on Pro to affirm the resolution, since he is the one making a positive claim.

Negation Case

P1: What science is

The scientific method (i.e. science) “is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe[1]. In science, there is potential to amend and build upon existing knowledge via tests.

P2: What religion is

A religionis an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence” [2]. Often, within this collection of beliefs, religions will have moral doctrines, religious figures (e.g. holy people) and many other features which cannot be found in science.

A1: The ability to change

Science reserves the right to change its narrative. Through tests, experiments and studies, science may alter or add to existing knowledge. This does not happen within religion. Once the religious doctrines/knowledge have been finalised, the doctrines/knowledge will not be changed. For example, the religion of Islam has “The Quran [as] the holy book which Muslims recite and turn to for guidance in all aspects of their lives. Its verses have remained intact since their original revelation by God in the 7th century” [3].

The ability to change the narrative is a key difference between religion and science, resulting in non-equivalence.

A2: Is versus ought

Science is solely focused on what is: science is descriptive. For example, the Big Bang Theory is an explanation of how the universe came to be. Religion is sometimes focused on the descriptive, but will become focused on the prescriptive in other areas, the latter of which science does not do. This manifests in things like morals. For example, Catholic Moral Theology specifies “how one is to act” in regards to “medical ethics, sexual ethics” etc [4].

The solely descriptive nature of science is not the same as the sometimes prescriptive nature of religion, hence another point in which there is no equivalence.


Counter-Arguments

“religion=to rely on, while self is one

In a sense, religion is something “to rely on”, as I have shown, as it does not change and offers prescriptive advice on how to live life. For these reasons, religion is not science, as shown above.

“belief=be lie, as i dont know is true
theism=belief”

Do you mean “belie”: to give false representation? “Be lie” does not make sense, otherwise. Or perhaps you meant “be a lie”. If we consider either of these possibilities (not that there are not others), you have said belief involves not knowing what is true, and then you have continued to equate theism with what you do not know as true. As shown in my first argument, religion, in fact, involves knowing what is true, hence the inability for the scriptures/knowledge of the religion to change (and so the presumption is that the scriptures/knowledge are correct). It would be a contradiction to commit to a certain religion, yet think that the scriptures are lies or false representations.

“atheism=(dis)belief
agnostic=Non belief”

I do not think these are all that relevant to the debate. If Pro could please explain why they are, then I will respond.

References

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.whyislam.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

fact=knowledge=personal physical experience of now

i just looked at my dog, is that a fact, is that knowledge?

i can at best believe what others tell me, as i cant know imagination

the universe is an imaginary concept, not real.
how do you know a universe is not just an imagianry, when you have to imagine its real?

any lie is a lie

lies are non sense

religion is false, and know is true, religion cant exist without belief. belief is doubt, the driving force behind religion

belief is false, as only know is true, and beyond what i know, is what i dont know

you any religion was known to be true, it would be true, as know is true

imaginaton is false, and taking the posiiton that science is true, when i dont know is true, is a lie, as something is either true or not
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, vi_spex.


Negation Case

My opponent seems to have ignored the structure of my response (which was to help both of us), so I’ll try my best to respond to his arguments.

P1: What science is

Pro seems only to type about what science is in his final line:

“imaginaton is false, and taking the posiiton that science is true, when i dont know is true, is a lie, as something is either true or not

As I demonstrated in the previous round, science does not itself register as “true”, rather it is a methodology that aims to see whether something is true.


P2: What religion is

Pro seems to type about religion with this quote:

“religion is false, and know is true, religion cant exist without belief. belief is doubt, the driving force behind religion

I am not sure how “religion can[no]t exist without belief” makes science a religion, or is even relevant to this debate. I would like further clarification, if that is okay.


Furthermore, it is contradictory to say that “belief is doubt”. To show this, take the following definitions.

Belief: “something believed; an opinion or conviction” [1].

Doubt: “to distrust” [2].

Conviction =/= distrust.


The next mentioning of religion is here:

“belief is false, as only know is true, and beyond what i know, is what i dont know

you any religion was known to be true, it would be true, as know is true”

So religion is true because you know it is, and knowing something makes it true? This argument seems to be circular (which is a logical fallacy), in that the conclusion (we know religion is true) is embedded within the premise (any religion known to be true is true) [3].


A1: The ability to change

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I cannot see any trace of this argument being contested.



A2: Is versus ought

Again, please correct me if I am wrong, Pro, but I cannot see this argument as contested either.


Counter-Arguments

My opponent’s argument this round seem to be concerned only with the definitions of science and religion, and anything not covering those things seems irrelevant to this debate. Again, Pro, please correct me if I am wrong. I do not mean to be rude.

For example, “the universe is an imaginary concept” does not seem relevant to this debate.


References

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

only know is true

the answer to your definitions are in the questions i asked

religion is false, belief is theism, theism is religion

if any religion was known to be true, it would be true, as know is true*
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, vi_spex

Negation Case

Pro argues that "the answer to [Con's] definitions are in the questions [Pro] asked".

I never asked any questions about my definitions. I showed how your definitions were erroneous, and my original premises (the definitions) did not seem to be addressed. So, what you follow with from this, "religion is false, belief is theism, theism is religion if any religion was known to be true, it would be true, as know is true", answers a question that was never asked, and hence is a strawman (logical fallacy) [1].

Extend the rest of my arguments.


References


[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

your definitions are in contradiction with mine

i asked you

i just looked at my dog, is that a fact, is that knowledge?

how do you know a universe is not just imaginary, when you have to imagine its real?
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, vi_spex.

My opponent now claims that "[my] definitions are in contradiction with [his]".

Firstly, I referenced my definitions. The definitions I used to make my arguments are widely accepted.

Secondly, I showed, in the second round why your definitions are contradictory and/or inaccurate.


My opponent then continues attempting to prove his definitions by questioning what counts as fact, knowledge and real. If this is relevant to the debate, if this is relevant to definitions of "science" or "religion", then my opponent needed to draw that conclusion, which he has not done. Instead, he has fabricated some definitions of his own and accuses me of contradicting him when my referenced definitions do not allign with his.


Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

just answer the questions
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, vi_spex.

My Negation arguments have gone mostly untouched. There were quibbles with the definitions (premises), but I think that I have addressed all of these quibbles already, and I would not be saying anything new here.

Thank you for reading :)
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by rezapci 2 years ago
rezapci
Description: The miracle of embryonic development is mentioned in the Quran in such minute detail, much of which was unknown to scientists until only recently. It mentions the first stages of life after conception, the second stage of life after conception, and witnesses of scientists about these scientific facts of the Quran. http://www.islamreligion.com...

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
fact=knowledge=MEMORY of physical experience of now
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
if any religion was known to be true, it would be true, as know is true*
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by z1 2 years ago
z1
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was somewhat rude during the end of the debate. Also, pro sort of forgot his period on a few sentences. Con proved more points, and also was more convincing. Con also used sources, whereas pro did not.
Vote Placed by IvenMartin 2 years ago
IvenMartin
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: No need to explain. vi_spex is a troll, and always have been.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely shows that they are different and the arguments by Con are not refuted.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Concession.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't provide any sources, didn't seem to understand capitalization, and barely seemed to address the subject at hand. 7 points to Con
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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: Con was successful in deconstructing the "case" that Pro had. Pro used horrible grammar, gave out sentences without any substantiation and annoyed the readers greatly. Con used Sources. Happy to clarify.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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: Pro misspelled "position", and never capitalized, so s and g to Con. Pro ignored most of Con's arguments, so arguments to Con. Only Con had sources.
Vote Placed by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel Zarroette made better arguments here.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
vi_spexZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con offered more reasonable definitions with citations and her arguments went mostly ignored