The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bgirlctforlife
Con (against)
Winning
14 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 3 votes the winner is...
Bgirlctforlife
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 67952
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

belief/religion=positive or negative position on an imaginary claim
Bgirlctforlife

Con

Science is not a religion. Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (dictionary). Specifically, science has evidence and it includes proven theories & many sources. For example, evolution has bones and artifacts from thousands of years ago; we can tell from carbon dating, etc.
Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (dictionary)." Religion is merely a belief which has hardly any real evidence. For example, Catholicism has only a bible to conclude that the religion is accurate and true. People say the bible was created by the Holy Spirit, but however, they just merely be attention seekers and fiction writers.
In conclusion, religion is not science, it's only a belief.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

kNow=physical experiecne of now

only know is true

so any positive and negative positive on an imaginary claim is false, religion

god is information

belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it
Bgirlctforlife

Con

The word "know" is not the physical experience of now. Words are not physical experience. Physical is like action or movement, your "point" hardly makes sense. No offense. Negative positive is not a real word that even makes sense in your concept. God is not information. There are only theories about "God," nobody has information from this "god."

You are making up concepts and words, but I will still state my point. Science is not a religion, there is no information from religions that we could use in our lives (sometimes morals). What I'm saying is, your point has no real evidence.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

if im talking about bricks im not talking about the Word brick

sense=physical experience
non sense=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

god is imaginary, imagination is information, not real
Bgirlctforlife

Con

"Know" is only a word, not a specific thing.
God is imaginary. We can't get information from something that we know doesn't exist, because there is no real evidence or facts behind it. Sense is not specifically physical experience. Of now? Your definitions are not accurate & too specific. You can't just make up definitions. Imagination is not information, imagination is just our ideas and imagery that we thing of, etc. Once again, I'm going to mention my main idea, because you are not defending your side of the debate. Science is not a religion.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

god is imaginary, imagianton exist... you just said it

know is true, and only know is true, matter is true, know is matter

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter

you said god is imaginary, and are your ideas not imaginary? dosnt your ideas exist?
Bgirlctforlife

Con

"know is true, and only know is true, matter is true, know is matter"

What? Know is not an object or a word of discussion. What do you think matter is? Know is not matter. Know is a word, not an object so it doesn't take weight and space, or matter. You seem like you don't know what you are talking about. Facts are not in the past. For example, every object has matter, that is a fact and it will always be a fact. You are not on topic whatsoever.

"Dosnt your ideas exist?"
Those ideas are not mine. They are proven with evidence. For example, religion is not science, and neither is science religion. People have known these ideas centuries before me. By the way, your two last questions are complete opposites,

I'm going to make my claim once more, please stay on topic and debate normally. Religion is not science...
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

know=physical experience, like my eyes are matter

only know is not a religion, religion is false, religion is belief, and knowledge is truth, fact

an object is matter is absolute
Bgirlctforlife

Con

Know is not religion. Many things are not religion. For ex: Shinto & Catholicism is religion. You are speaking in circles, your claims make hardly any sense. You've failed to defend your side of this argument. This was honestly a funny debate. Your logic made me laugh.

Goodbye now.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Narwhalicorn 1 year ago
Narwhalicorn
Well, it looks like con is going to win this one. Pro did nothing but dance around the rebuttals of Con without reaffirming his original assertion. Con on the other hand refuted Pro, like Con(s) should.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
because im right
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
Why are you still arguing stuff like this even when you've lost multiple times before lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 1 year ago
Codedlogic
vi_spexBgirlctforlifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to support the affirmative. Con not only negated all of Pros positions but also advanced a highly compelling counter argument.
Vote Placed by PapaNolan 1 year ago
PapaNolan
vi_spexBgirlctforlifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not even argue, and con used what pro said against them in an effective way.
Vote Placed by Rubikx 1 year ago
Rubikx
vi_spexBgirlctforlifeTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: vi_spex's argument didn't make any sense at all. Easy win for Con.