frame

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.





Time to stop religionizing science

Debate Information

After watching part of a debate with Chemist Peter Atkins (Author of "10 greatest ideas in science") and Theistic Scholar William Lane Craig (WLC) I have to say that I am with WLC on this particular occasion, and I am not a Theist. I would like to point out that just because I am not a Theist means that I think everything that Theists say consist of weak or invalid arguments and/or propositions. 

Anyway, in regards to the actual debate, Peter Atkins at some point said: "Where science leads philosophy follows."  WLC then replied with and I agree with this "That is just so naive of philosophy and science." While also an Atheist, on this particular occasion I will have to agree with WLC here. There is no denying that Peter Atkins has done a great deal in serving as a being a wealth of knowledge to at least amongst university students and other professors. However, from what I have read of some his stuff and watching some of this video debate it would appear that he does have some antipathy not only to religion but philosophy as well. 

Moreover, what I have observed is that a number of scientific public intellectuals do tend to use science in an epistemic ally loaded sense as if to get one over religion and/or philosophy. I contend that using science in this way is actually religionizing science which is very anti-scientific! 

You cannot logically make generic claims stating all science as some gospel phenomena! Hundreds of years ago all physicists believed that our planet was the centre of the universe and they had good reasons for believing this. We now know however, that this is not the case, and we accept that until proven otherwise. Whats more, is science is just "Physics;" there is a multitude of different branches of sciences such as biology, psychology, neurology, ecology, and so forth. 

The Scientist Nicolaus Copernicus is who I would say is the epitome of the true scientific mind. He had an element of doubt, he questioned things, and it is because of this we now know the earth is not the centre of the universe. 






Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    You interchange the words science and fact. That's a fallacy.
    People have been wrong , who call themselves scientists because the scientific method starts with a theoretical implication, if.

    If statements are not valid statements.to say I think or if, is a religious sentiment as it suggests a lack of knowledge and a subject as the condition for the following statement.

    I won't go into detail. Evolution has already been proven false, by a geneticist named David S. Thaler.

    Like I've said , the big bang isn't even plausible. The horizon problem and other problems
    Determine
    that's it's possibility is non-existent.

    You can't fit mass into zero volume.

    It's a simple understand of how three dimensions work. If you've ever used a 3-d modeling software you have to have 3 axis points to determine dimension.

    Also, the simple observation of a supernova proves the theory of the big bang false.

    Explosions happen under two conditions. Added energy, or lost nuclear power.

    Fission experiments determine the big bang is impossible. When you divide the atomic structure of a nucleaus you end up with two lesser degrees with equal mass that we're not equal to the original mass of the fissile material.

    You people need to stop and think.

    Jesus is God and Jesus is Lord.




    ZeusAres42THEDENIERPlaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    It's not up for debate. The ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC community has updated the scientific journal. 

    Even when things are thrown out you treat them as possible. That's called religion.

    Jesus is God and Jesus is Lord.
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • THEDENIERTHEDENIER 78 Pts   -  
    @jesusisGod777

    So the big bang is impossible eh?

    There are a few problems with your argument.

    First of all, mass cannot fit into zero space. You are definitely right, buuuuuuuut mass can be converted to energy by things such as the interaction of matter and anti-matter. Energy, funnily enough, can be fit into zero space, because it literally takes up no room. https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae159.cfm

    Next up: Explosions must have a cause. Here too you make a fatal mistake. The laws of science only apply in the universe as we know it. Therefor, back when the universe didn't exist, the laws don't apply. Yeah sure, a big bang can't just happen right now, but it didn't happen in an environment like the universe of right now. 

    Finally: some ridiculous semantics with what science is. Science research is based upon if statements (which are valid statements by the way). Science findings are not. Evolution is a fact. Mass is a fact. Where is the if statement in E=MC2? There is none. Furthermore, even though scientists have been wrong, it has also brought us farther as a species than any other way of understanding our world. The Catholic Church did not find out how to make the computer you're typing on. Science did. 
    You know what's really funny though? The fact that you still cite science, even if you're wrong about it. If science is so suspect then why allude to unexplained findings by a geneticist or about supernovas? If I may, I will hazard a guess. It is because these findings happen to agree with your beliefs. Perhaps you should take note of the findings of the "ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC" community rather than just those that you like. 
    Science either works or it doesn't. Cherry picking is a bit hypocritical.

    You need to stop and think.

    Jesus was a man and God isn't real.

    "It's not up for debate."
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42piloteer
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @jesusisGod777

    You say .....I won't go into detail. Evolution has already been proven false, by a geneticist named David S. Thaler.


    My reply ......Evolution is fact by you consistently denying such despite being corrected several times does not make it any less so.

    Thaler is a young  Earth creationist who's study has been dismissed by the scientific community at large. Also as I keep telling you if Evolution was proven to be false it still does not prove a god exists 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @jesusisGod777

    You say ......It's not up for debate. The ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC community has updated the scientific journal

    My reply .......Updated it?  But you said Thaler proved Evolution was false why would they update it then if it’s false and why have they not accepted Thalers findings and it implications ? 


  • WinstonCWinstonC 235 Pts   -  
    Peter Atkins at some point said: "Where science leads philosophy follows."

    I'm shocked that he would say this, as if the researchers' thoughts and perceptions are not what cause them to perform novel research in the first place.

    "The Scientist Nicolaus Copernicus is who I would say is the epitome of the true scientific mind. He had an element of doubt, he questioned things, and it is because of this we now know the earth is not the centre of the universe. "

    We learn in school specifically not to question things or have our own ideas and to repeat what the authority figure taught us. If you have a different idea or interpretation chances are your answer will be marked wrong (punished) while those that repeat are marked right (rewarded). This form of learning (conditioning) is very powerful and occurs for a prolonged period from an early age.

    Moreover, those that are good at repeating are disproportionately likely to go onto further education. This is because they are more likely to have the grades required. Good repeaters are also more likely to enjoy this activity, as it gives rewards (e.g. praise from teachers and parents) which would give them on average more motivation to seek higher education. Using similar reasoning, Noam Chomsky claims that academics are the most indoctrinated group in society.

    Thankfully we are moving away from this teaching style, though progress is slow.
    ZeusAres42
  • @WinstonC

    Also, if it wasn't for the ancient philosophers that asked questions then I don't know how else science would have come about that. History tells us that philosophy preceded science. 

    But yeah, the point is that a number of people including some actual scientists tend to actually talk in ways that seem as if they are making and/or implying blanket statements about all science being some gospel truth; this is akin to cult mentality; and it is not what true science is about. 
    WinstonC



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch