The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Antonio8877
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

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...
Antonio8877
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 938 times Debate No: 67676
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (41)
Votes (2)

 

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
Antonio8877

Con

Pro started with defining certain positions which i find rather incorrect and far to straight forward to be considered. Given the nature of this debate, i find it appropriate to define these positions fully and professionally according to the context.
1.Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. Belief: Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
3.Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods.
4.Atheism: A lack of belief in the existence of any deity.
5. Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one

you are con, against my claim, i am not con on your claim
Antonio8877

Con

Yes i understand that,but since i am against your position, i need something to refute, so care to post your opening argument?
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

the definitions are arguments in themselves, belief is theism is a big claim, it basicly Means belief, is belief in god, as theism is belief in god

i get your point, but religion is about a position on a claim, and to take on the position of belief when i dont know is true, can only equal a lie
Antonio8877

Con

That's a rather fallacious to state. Science has got nothing to do with a god of any kind. It simply deals with aquire new knowledge through observation, experimentation,and testing theories against the evidence. In light of all that has been achieved with science and it's rather diverse fields of study, there is no better method. To state that not knowing a position to be true does not imply it's a lie, we just have to deal with what's true and work harder to find out more.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

god=information

knowledge=memory of personal physical experience(fact)
belief=not fact
Antonio8877

Con

"god=information"
The word "god" is useless if you don't first define what it is you mean by "god" and judging from my experiences in the English language, i have never come across a definition where god means information.

"knowledge=memory of personal physical experience(fact)
belief=not fact"
This makes no sense, knowledge is defined as:" Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning." The problem i see here is that you cannot just make up a definition for a particular word and argue as if it is that definition when clearly that's not what the world means.
Another problem here is you failed to give a sound argument about science actually being a religion, and given the professional definition i gave, its not in anyway a religion since scientific principles in various scientific fields deals with facts and acquiring new knowledge and testing the evidence against the theory. Facts don't require belief.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

god=creator

creation dosnt happen in reality

belief=non sense=false
kNow=sense=true(now)
knowledge=non sense=truth

information is mental, and matter is physical, so to argue god is not information, is arguing god exist in reality
Antonio8877

Con

I'm afraid this makes little sense, you defined god as a creator which is fine, however the rest does not even make the slightest sense because I do not know what pro is trying to state. I fail to understand what knowledge and matter and a creator god existing are in any way connected to the debate topic. As the thesis states:" science is a religion" and thus far all I have encounter are irrelevant misconceptions that are connected by an equal sign. These aren't arguments, since that aren't constructed logically, and are hard to understand and follow. Again since this debate is about science somehow being a religion, facts do not require belief, atoms exist,so does test tubes, lightning, and Pluto. Do they require belief? Of course not why would they, it's like asking do you believe that mountains exist? That would be ( to any rational thinking person) a stupid question
Debate Round No. 5
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TRUE-ISRAELITE 1 year ago
TRUE-ISRAELITE
So if there is no god, then how did we get here? And again, how were we created? The environment couldn't have created us because the environment is not live and breathing. So who or what created humankind, since apparently there is no god and HE did not create us?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
intent cant exist without randomness, random is natural
Posted by TRUE-ISRAELITE 1 year ago
TRUE-ISRAELITE
How is HE not true? You still have not proven that to me?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
if there was any truth at all, to the bible, god would be true
Posted by TRUE-ISRAELITE 1 year ago
TRUE-ISRAELITE
So what your saying is that we are made from nothing?

The Bible is knowledge, which means it is truth!
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
okay listen

if we cut open a head, and take out the brain, we cant poor the information, mind out on the floor, so they are not Things, they are nothing

the opposite of physical, is mental, something is physical, nothing is... imagianton is false, and knowledge is truth, kNow is now, and only now is true
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
transformation, change

you think apples come from nothing?
Posted by TRUE-ISRAELITE 1 year ago
TRUE-ISRAELITE
So how was an apple formed? Out of what? Thin air? Cardboard boxes, etc... out of what was an apple created? It couldn't create it self, in needed a foundation to being with?

Ok, I'm going to leave it at this. You are ignorant; you cannot disprove the existence of ALAHYM. You cannot answer my questions; you are contradicting yourself with everything that you are saying or typing, which you are the creator of, since you are creating the words. So I'm going to do you a favour, and let you be ignorant! 1 Corinthians 14:28 - "But if any man bee ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
intent=reason
randomness=logic
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
an apple is formed randomly like different sizes of apples and diffenet colors spiring out as they grow, randomly, in random sizes, no intent happening

imagination is false

im saying there is no beginning, matter can never come from nothing

knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

without knowledge i would not be able to type these Words

intent cant exist without an opposte, like logic and reason
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
vi_spexAntonio8877Tied
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: As Con pointed out, Pro never affirmed the resolution.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 1 year ago
NoMagic
vi_spexAntonio8877Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Vi-spex simply never, in any debate that I've read, makes any arguments.