Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
@alexOland
>I will only answer the arguments which I haven't touched on before.
OK.
>This is the last time I am writing to you. There is no point in arguing someone who cannot even admit his smallest mistakes.
Or someone who doesn't agree with you that he's made a mistake. But you're always right, no?
Was it useful? Did Newton understand gravity waves? What invention or advancement did his law bring? Can you name one?
>They were used. And they are still being used.
So you could not name a single advancement his law brought.
>Mechanical engineers STILL use it.
They use the equations that describe the law, not the law itself.
OK then. My point stands. What science was "meant" for (I'll assume you mean by the creators of science - whoever they are) does not dictate what people do with and to, science.
>Okay then, the debate is over. My position was this: "Religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood." which was stated clearly in the OP's first argument.
The OP also concluded that thinking of science as a belief system was wrong. My point was that it was not wrong.
>My claim was not "no one believes in science", it was "it doesn't make sense to believe in science".
I know, but you then continued on to claim that this meant science could not be a belief system. That did not logically follow.
>I am sure you will somehow try to lie your way out of this.
You think so because you believe there is something I need to get out of. Why you believe that is unimportant to me.
>I do not really care because I will not be discussing with you any longer.
I'll live.
Reality is not what I decide.
>How did you decide that you being never wrong was a reality?
I said I was rarely wrong. And I'd did not "decide" it any more than I "decided" I have 10 fingers.
And our debate clearly shows I should. But I try to remain humble. There is a God after all.
>The responses you get and the debate itself clearly shows that you do not have a right to have that image.
As a liberal you may find this difficult to understand, but reality is not something we "decide" on. It just is.
>Humble? You just said that you make absolutely no mistakes.
No, I said I was hardly ever wrong.
"I was being humble. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken."
That is a famous joke. I am hardly ever wrong because I only debate subjects I know. Lighten up.
I only ignore things accidentally. Simply point it out to me and I will promptly address it.
>I pointed out that you were wrong to accuse me of certain things. You never addressed it.
I did. I told you I was not wrong, and hardly ever am.
People? Do you mean the contingent of idiots who go around marking every theist's post as a fallacy? I would be ashamed to have any of those dolts agree with me. I view their marks as proof that my arguments are correct.
>I have disagreements with people as well. But they rarely mark me as "fallacy". This happens even in discussions so sensitive, like child pornography. Do you know why that is?
Yes. Because you are an atheist PC liberal snowflake just like them.
>Because I actually make arguments and consider what people are saying. I do not accuse people and even if I do, I apologize afterwards. I am not arrogant.
Lol. You have quite a rosy picture of yourself. You just called me a . But I think you're reading too much into the fist bumps of anti-theist dweebs.
>You do not care for feedback because if you did, you would not be able to call yourself "never wrong".
Illogical, as my right/wrong ratio is not affected by feedback.
>If you do not care about other people's arguments and you are sure that you are never wrong; why are you here?
Did I say I do not care about other peoples arguments? Or are you projecting ?
>If you do not care about feedback, why don't you just create a blog and start writing there?
I will ignore that as it makes no sense.
>Why does Ethan the almighty grant us their sublime presence when we are clearly not deserving?
Who is "we"? I'm only talking to you.
I like you, so I'll tell you, this is pathetic. Get off your knees.
>Don't worry, I am already up.
Good lad.
>Some people are beyond saving.
And you were going to save me? Lol. No, no hubris there at all.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: hidden description    Science   Religion   belief  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
Because I have as of yet, to watch the news, and to hear a news media outlet news story, about ANY anti religious individual, protesting a religious building, or a minister, preacher, chaplain, or a rabbi, in person, and was interviewed, while their physical protest was viewed by the news crew, and the people, who live in the same locality?
The predominant amount of anti religious protesting is done right here, via the internet.
"Why restrict it to the internet?"
Just like I have yet to see anyone protest Science, at a Science building?
Or to defend Science from religion?
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
Moving on, my position may seem like I'm defending belief in god or religions, but I am not. Rather, I disagree with a few of your premises(but not your conclusion that science and religion are very different), namely that understanding or knowledge is even possible, and my position is that only beliefs are possible for external stimuli(as in, anything that isn't produced by one's mind), and that we should base our beliefs on something where if we assume a postulate is true, then there are things which naturally follow due to logic, evidence, or both. However, it still requires that axiom to be assumed true with no evidence. Axioms/postulates by definition cannot be proved or disproved. An example would be "my senses/perception are/is accurate". In order to prove or disprove that, it requires the use of your perception/senses. Whether someone else is telling you that you are hallucinating, that you are sensing things incorrectly, you must assume your senses are accurate, at least for when your senses told you that someone else is telling you this. You need to use senses to determine your senses are wrong. That is logically fallacious: circular reasoning. But, at the moment, it's impossible not to use circular reasoning to prove or disprove a person's senses as being accurate. Whether you do a scientific experiment, rely on others to do that, rely on others to observe you, or you observe yourself, to become aware of the results of any of those tactics require the use of your senses. How do you know you're perceiving accurately the results of that scientific experiment to see if your senses are accurate, or that you're perceiving others correctly when they claim you're not perceiving something correctly, etc?
Thus, since it seems all of our knowledge is dependent on the use of our perception/senses, and we cannot prove those to be correct, we also cannot prove anything correct to ourselves. It's impossible until somehow we find another way of determining one's senses to be accurate without using one's senses.
Now, if you notice, I have argued against the idea of knowledge in this manner: since it inherently requires the use of a logical fallacy to prove knowledge is even possible, we can't be certain we have knowledge. I'm not arguing it's impossible to have knowledge, but we would never know if we did. Of course if I was arguing it's impossible to have knowledge due to it requiring the use of a fallacy, that is the "fallacy fallacy".
But, I can certainly argue that you're making an assumption that we can know things due to that your only way of proving we know anything is with the use of a fallacy. Unless, of course, you can prove your own senses accurate without using the senses themselves. It would be akin to someone born in a coma to prove there is an outside world from their mind. They have no senses. If you can show how someone in a coma can become aware of the outside world while still in a coma, that might serve as a starting point to proving our senses accurate with using something other than our own senses.
At any rate, my conclusion is this: everything boils down to belief: even science. Science requires the belief that your senses are accurate since observation(which requires one's senses) is used in science. And that is merely a belief that your senses are accurate, at least until you can prove your senses accurate without them, as I've said a few times here.
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
According to that logic, you accepted some axioms to form that argument as well. So how can you say with confidence that everything boils down to belief? You reached that conclusion through a certain set of beliefs. If knowledge is not possible, how do you hold the knowledge that knowledge is not possible?
The problem with arguments like this is that they are almost always paradoxical and self-contradictory. We have to accept axioms to even realize we are accepting axioms. There is no other way. Well, it is not that we "have to" accept some things as true, it is that we already do accept a lot of things as true. That is just how we came into existence (or maybe there is another reason).
Plus, I really do not think all of our senses can be just false. I mean, I do accept that there is a possibility that they are false but I think it is really improbable. The patterns we percieve are too complex, interrelated and harmonious - if you will excuse that word (though, I am indeed writing under observation) - to be entirely coincidental.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well, it's not necessarily that they are coincidental. There could certainly be an explanation for these patterns. I of course believe other people do exist, so given that, I would admit probably most others don't experience what I do. But I do have a dissociative disorder(not DID, thankfully) and so my mind seems to lose connection with my feelings of free will, my senses, perceptions, etc during such times dissociation occurs. I recognize this could be a reason I am skeptical of one's senses being accurate, since I'm told mine are not all the time. But, certainly a mentally-healthy person may have more reason to believe their senses to be accurate. However, it assumes one is mentally healthy too(how does one know that they are?), isn't in some simulation or something, etc. I'm not sure it's possible to support the idea that these possibilities are improbable, but if you think you can, I would appreciate it. So, since you said it's improbable for one's senses to be false, I'm curious to see why you believe that by diving deeper into it if you can and don't mind.
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
Firstly, I would like to say that you are very good at forming your arguments. Do not worry that you make simple mistakes because you are obviously a very talented - although, that might not be the right word - debater (Now that I look at it, maybe this statement makes me seem a little arrogant and I apologize if that is the case. After all, who am I to judge who is good at debating and who is not?).
I have no idea what your disorder entails so I will refrain from making any comment on that. With "senses" I am just referring to how we observe the world. The thing is, our observations do seem coherent. We are able to make predictions as well. This means that we are most likely onto something. If our observations were just "wrong" we would not expect to see this coherence.
It doesn't matter if we are in a simulation or not. Look at it from a phenomenalistic - or rather "first person" - standpoint, we have "senses". It is self-evident that our senses must at least "exist" in some form. Now, think of "vision". It is apparent that this is "something". And, through knowledge, we can predict what will show up in our "vision". It doesn't matter what this "vision" actually is in the "real world" - if such a thing exists. We are still able to succesfully predict what our "senses" will experience. This is how I view science if I have to look at it from a completely blank and personal perspective.
If a real world exists, our "senses" could not be completely irrelated to it. If a real world doesn't exist, then it is our "senses" that construct all of reality. In both cases science is still valid. And in both cases our "senses" are not false.
Again, can it be completely coincidental that we are able to predict what our "senses" will show? Yes. We might be just making a random prediction and it might be turning out to be true each time. But I think this is pretty improbable.
We can also extend this reasoning to more complex and abstract thoughts. Because they still follow a pattern. I would suggest you watch this clip of Richard Feynman to understand exactly what I mean (I can't find the original source, the specific lesson containing this clip was deleted from the playlist that has his lectures. This is from a game):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Qa93JQxg4
The black-white part is what is relevant but the second part is also interesting.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.98  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>At any rate, my conclusion is this: everything boils down to belief: even science.
Then, though we have taken different paths to get there, our conclusions are the same.
Trying to now differentiate the basis for belief in science and religion is moot. It remains belief.
The OP was incorrect.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: different paths    conclusion   belief   belief.The OP  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Science flies you to the moon , religion flies you into buildings
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: old saying    Science flies   differences   moon  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is not necessary for these "senses" to represent reality correctly, because from this very first person perspective we are indeed just exploring our "senses". It is self evident that our senses do "exist" in some form. It is also self evident that logic is correct.
So I do not see how anyone can claim that science is a "belief system" when it is basically the observation of the "senses" with logic.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just thought I'd mention I edited my comment directly above your most recent one. Might have edited it after you read it since you seemed to have commented nearly simultaneously as I finished editing, so you may need to re-read it to get my full meanings. I am done editing it, and if there's a mistake in it, I'll live with it now(that's my personal rule after someone has commented) and just correct it with a separate comment.
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: personal rule    separate comment   comment   mistake  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't think it is reasonable to claim this with certainty (I don't know if this is what you are trying to do. If not, you don't need to address my argument). As I said, a real world might exist or not.
And even if this real world doesn't exist, that doesn't necessarily prove we created our "personal universe". That would be the same mistake as saying a god needs to have created the real world. The truth is that we just don't know. Maybe we are gods, maybe we are not. Maybe we just existed as we are and there is nothing more to it.
But, as I mentioned, if there is indeed a real world then it would not be very unreasonable to claim that the real and the personal are connected.
And I also think that there is a very good chance that this "real world" exists. Because the third person perspective of science works really well. But I am not really sure about this point.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
The difference between science and religion is the belief that is publicly shared. The only thing noticed is for one reason or another people tend to be reluctant to look at and connect many things by their basic principle.
As for Gravity and Isaac Newton, Newton continued work started by Galileo Galilei an Italian astronomer and father of science. Isaac Newton was also an avid astronomer. Gravity is a motion, Isaac Newton addressed laws of motion with mathematics those laws had been incomplete. Mathematically there is no such thing as a gravity wave the basic principle that scientifically questions this in mathematics is the wave is said moving making part of a law of motion itself. The mathematic proof set by law of motion states: For all motion there exists gravity, inertia and centrifugal force.
Newton from work stated by Galileo formulated a new form of calculus which gave humanity the idea of mathematic Time, a complex mathematical statement which was the foundation for the clock along with the sun dial, time calculus can also be used to set a volume of space and eliminate Pi in algebra equation held by the circumference by all circle. The fundamental human benefit of Time was for observation of stars at night and not the travel into the same area as the stars known as outer space. This part of the work was left for others who would follow Newton’s efforts in calculus.
The calculus created can be translated so it can be used in outer space, it has simple not be done yet.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Isaac Newton    mathematic proof   observation of stars   laws of motion  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yeah, when debating with me, I generally am not claiming things with certainty. I'm very much a subjectivist, so just thought I'd let you know that for whatever position I argue for, it's more of me arguing that this position is "likely to be the case" rather than "For sure the case". The only thing I do know with certainty is the existence of my thoughts and thus, my "mind" exists in some form(what form it takes, I don't know with certainty, but I believe it takes the form of inside a human brain, but recognize there's a possibility I could be AI or something)
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Believing in something requires almost zero learning, you just believe it and that's it, you are good to go.
Science on the other hand takes study to understand so it's not easy, it's hard work and it can take a long time to achieve an understanding of it.
Scientists don't believe in something like the science of evolution, they understand it.
To illustrate this point I leave you with this question:
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I honestly fail to see what religion brings on the table that science does not. Some people claim that religion provides a spiritual side which science lacks, but science features psychology full of powerful techniques that provide a more than adequate substitution for spirituality, and are, in fact, much more effective, due to having been derived scientifically.
Religion is simpler than science, so it may appeal to people due to being easy to get into - but I do not think this is a case where simplicity is the right choice.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
People pick and choose the information they want to accept.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well, first, moral laws can be good or bad. In some societies, for example, blood revenge is seen as an obvious moral law, and this law has a potential to trigger civil wars - and has in various societies on multiple occasions.
Second, religion is not necessary for morals to exist. I have my own moral compass, for example, and I am not religious. My moral compass is based on the idea of paramount individual sovereignty, which I see as a necessity for individual happiness, and I do not think a society built around this idea would be too bad - in fact, the US was founded around this very idea, just with some extras.
Why can science not be used to come up with a set of morals that would work well in a society? Why is religion required for that?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: moral laws    idea of paramount individual sovereignty   obvious moral law   various societies  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sure why.It    set of moral laws   field   only subject  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra