The Difference Between Science and Religion - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Difference Between Science and Religion
in Religion

By Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts

Some say that science and religion are both belief systems. The problem with this thinking is that it is completely wrong for one very simple reason.

Religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood.

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:

Do you understand how an internal combustion engine works or do you believe in it?


PlaffelvohfenAlexOlandZombieguy1987ZeusAres42AlofRIethang5
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    I would like to add something: Even if a scientist is not sure about a theory or a hypothesis but thinks there is a good chance that it might be true, they still do not say they "believe" in that idea. "Belief" means that you are sure of something. This is also a very fundamental distinction between science and religion. Science admits that there are things unknown to us while religion fills that gap with random information. This is the reason religion attracts a lot of people. The majority can't be content with not knowing so they rather accept false information.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • maxxmaxx 85 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe@Dr_Maybe i think if one went far enough back into the past one may find they were both attemps to explain the unknown, it is possible that religion was mans first attempt at science, trying to explain cause and effect; yet over time religion and science separated. it is almost obvious that religion or what led to religion came long before any ideas of science. we may never know but it is probable that science is a branch that stemmed from the original ideas of religion: trying to find what the world was about.
    AlexOlandZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 501 Pts
    On the surface, I think both religious people and scientists share a mixture of both understanding and beliefs about what they understand and believe in.

    Beneath the surface, however, there is the "why" is it that each believes what they believe and the answer I will give here is that it is because one is grounded in pure blind faith whereas the other has its roots in an accumulation of theoretical knowledge and/or practical application. 
    AlofRI

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AlofRIAlofRI 267 Pts
    @AlexOland I agree with some of what you said, but, if I just "believe" a fact is a fact, I am not necessarily SURE, I just believe it to be true. 
    If I'm not SURE, religion will not fill that gap. I AM sure that religion is not fact.... I just don't believe it to be true.  
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @AlofRI You seem to be confusing two different definitions of "belief".

    "Not believe" means lacking a belief in something therefore you can indeed say that "I do not believe in religion but I am not sure." like you have explained. Because "not believe" is not the same thing as "disbelief".

     But just "believe" means "accept". You cannot say "I believe you but I am not sure." because you would be contradicting yourself. You cannot both accept what someone says and not be sure about it. 

     I think you are mixing up the two definitions of "belief": 
    1- accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
    2- hold (something) as an opinion; think.

     We use the second one in our daily speech. But we usually use the first one in philosophy. For example, if you say: "I believe that god exists." or "I believe that the holy book is true." nearly no one will think you are using the second definition. But if you say: "I believe we've already met." everyone will understand that you are using the second definition. 
    AlofRI
  • John_C_87John_C_87 207 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe ;

    Do you understand how an internal combustion engine works or do you believe in it?
    There is nothing to believe the internal combustion engine does not always work. When working? We believe it to work. When not working? We believe it to be broken and it then needs to be fixed. Education and science are a part of religion a person simple see's as working in a state of shared beliefs open to the public. Faith does not hold this same visible state of working in a shared public principle learning faith in science is created in simple believable form of sharing.

    Example: Something that is painful to touch and burns is hot, something painful to touch and freezes is cold. However all things can be either just hot or cold and the difference is simple measurable, or beyond measurement. In truth faith is what might just define a science and religion much like a temperature does with hot and cold. Shared belief is the united state.
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe

    >Scientists don't believe in something like the science of evolution, they understand it.

    Tell me, did scientists "understand" blood letting? Did they "understand" the Piltdown man?

    How about the atom being the smallest unit of matter that could be divided further? Did they "understand" that too?
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts

    Here is a simpler example.

    Two plus two equals four, do you understand that or do you believe in it?


  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe

    >Here is a simpler example.

    One which better allows you to dodge the logical error in your argument?

    >Two plus two equals four, do you understand that or do you believe in it?

    How are those things mutually exclusive? I believe in and understand the principle that the equation is built on.

    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it. They believe, just like everyone else.

    The distinction you are trying to make is fakery.
    Plaffelvohfen

  • Here is a simpler example.

    Two plus two equals four, do you understand that or do you believe in it?

    To be fair, you can't really make a blanket statement referencing deductive proofs in mathematics as being analogous to all branches of science.


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ethang5 ;

     That is the point. Scientists do not "believe" in ideas because, as you have shown, they can turn out to be wrong. 

     Scientists understand the ideas and it is irrelevant if these ideas representative of reality or not. You can still understand Newton's laws even though they are wrong. Ideas are (scientifically) just our guess at what the universe might be, they are models. 

  • I'm pretty sure it's still currently agreed by if not all then definitely most physicists that Isaac Newton's laws from 1 to 4 are actually right; not wrong. These are well established scientific laws of physics and have been for more than the last century now.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.


  • Generally speaking, in a lot of sciences a concept is what's known as a hypothesis, and they need to understand this in order to be able to test it to see if it is either true or false. 

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

     Newton's laws are approximately right. But we are absolutely sure that they are technically wrong.  

     Well, it's not really fair to call them all "wrong". The real issue is with the second one: F = ma. I know that laws one and three have some issues as well but I do not exactly remember why.
    ZeusAres42
  • AlofRIAlofRI 267 Pts
    @AlexOland ;

    I believe you believe that I am confused. I don't believe I am. I don't believe, that's MY belief, and I am not confused at all about it …. believe me.
    AlexOlandPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @AlexOland

    You are being equivocal on the meaning of the word "understand" as used here.

    If, for example, I say I "understand" how an internal combustion engine works, it cannot be true that I think little horses prance inside the engine to give it power.

    What I understand may be my fantasy, but it is not how an internal combustion engine works.

    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it if the concept is supposed to explain a phenomena in reality.

    >it is irrelevant if these ideas representative of reality or not.

    It is very relevant. Perhaps it may be irrelevant for theoretical scientists, but not others.
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @AlexOland

    >That is the point. Scientists do not "believe" in ideas because, as you have shown, they can turn out to be wrong. 

    Belief is possible even when they are wrong.

    >Scientists understand the ideas and it is irrelevant if these ideas representative of reality or not.

    Untrue. You are being equivocal on the meaning of understand here.

    >You can still understand Newton's laws even though they are wrong.

    But I do not understand the reality the laws are supposed to explain. The point is to understand the reality, not just a concept.

    >Ideas are (scientifically) just our guess at what the universe might be, they are models.

    That is why for theoretical scientists, understanding the concept is enough, but for others,  no.

    If I say I understand, for example, the internal combustion engine, "understand" means I can explain the reality, not just the concept.

    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality.
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    >Generally speaking, in a lot of sciences a concept is what's known as a hypothesis, and they need to understand this in order to be able to test it to see if it is either true or false.

    I get that, but we can understand a concept or the reality it is to explain. I understand a concept only when that concept is correctly representing reality.

    For example, if I think the internal combustion engine runs because nature abhors a vacuum, I may understand my concept very well, but I do not understand internal combustion engines at all.

    Concepts are supposed to correctly define reality
    ZeusAres42
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts
    So do you guys think that science could exist without math?
  • The difference is primarily that Science and Religion do not share an epistemological status, and that is what the "faith in science" statements tend to suggest, in that sense these statements are wrong...

    It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.

    And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life. 

    Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.

    So why do so many people believe otherwise? It turns out that while science and religion are as different as can be, folk science and folk religion share deep properties. Most of us carry in our heads a hodgepodge of scientific views and religious views, and they often feel the same—because they are learned, understood, and mentally encoded in similar ways. 

    Many religious beliefs arise from universal modes of thought that have evolved for reasoning about the social world. We are sensitive to signs of agency, which explains the animism that grounds the original religions of the world. but this perspective is incomplete...

    There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

    To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

    Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

    People defer to authorities not just to the truth of the religious beliefs, but their meaning as well. In this article, the philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls these sorts of mental states “credences,” and he notes that they have a moral component. We believe that we should accept them, and that others—at least those who belong to our family and community—should accept them as well.

    None of this is special to religion. Researchers have studied those who have strong opinions about political issues and found that they often literally don’t know what they are talking about. Many people who take positions on cap and trade, for instance, have no idea what cap and trade is. Similarly, many of those who will insist that America spends too much, or too little, on foreign aid, often don’t know how much actually is spent, as either an absolute amount or proportion of GDP. These political positions are also credences, and one who holds them is just like someone who insists that the Ten Commandments should be the bedrock of morality, but can’t list more than three or four of them.

    Many scientific views endorsed by non-specialists are credences as well. Some people reading this will say they believe in natural selection, but not all will be able to explain how natural selection works. (As an example, how does this theory explain the evolution of the eye?) It turns out that those who assert the truth of natural selection are often unable to define it, or, worse, have it confused with some long-rejected pre-Darwinian notion that animals naturally improve over time.

    There are exceptions, of course. There are those who can talk your ear off about cap and trade, and can delve into the minutiae of selfish gene theory and group selection. And there are people of faith who can justify their views with powerful arguments.

    But much of what’s in our heads are credences, not beliefs we can justify—and there’s nothing wrong with this. Life is too brief; there is too much to know and not enough time. We need epistemological shortcuts.

    Given my day job, I know something about psychology and associated sciences, but if you press me on the details of climate change, or the evidence about vaccines and autism, I’m at a loss. I believe that global warming is a serious problem and that vaccines do not cause autism, but this is not because I have studied these issues myself.

    It is because I trust the scientists.

    Most of those who insist that the Earth is 6000 years old and that global warming is a liberal fraud and that vaccines destroy children’s brains would also be at a loss to defend these views. Like me, they defer, just to different authorities.

    This equivalence might lead to a relativist conclusion—you have your faith; I have mine. You believe weird things on faith (virgin birth, winged horse); I believe weird things on faith (invisible particles, Big Bang), and neither of us fully understands what we’re really talking about. But there is a critical difference. Some sorts of deference are better than others.

    It’s better to get a cancer diagnosis from a radiologist than from a Ouija Board. It’s better to learn about the age of the universe from an astrophysicist than from a Rabbi. The New England Journal of Medicine is a more reliable source about vaccines than the actress Jenny McCarthy. These preferences are not ideological. We’re not talking about Fox News versus The Nation. They are rational, because the methods of science are demonstrably superior at getting at truths about the natural world.

    I don’t want to fetishize science. Sociologists and philosophers deserve a lot of credit in reminding us that scientific practice is permeated by groupthink, bias, and financial, political, and personal motivations. The physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that the essence of science was “bending over backwards to prove ourselves wrong.” But he was talking about the collective cultural activity of science, not scientists as individuals, most of whom prefer to be proven right, and who are highly biased to see the evidence in whatever light most favors their preferred theory.

    But science as an institution behaves differently than particular scientists. Science establishes conditions where rational argument is able to flourish, where ideas can be tested against the world, and where individuals can work together to surpass their individual limitations. Science is not just one “faith community” among many. It has earned its epistemological stripes. And when the stakes are high, as they are with climate change and vaccines, we should appreciate its special status.

    ZeusAres42AlexOland
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    edited July 11
    @ethang5

    "If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it if the concept is supposed to explain a phenomena in reality."

     I do not think you understand what science is. The way you come up with an "idea" in science is this:
    1- You guess how the universe might be working and make a model. 2- You try to reason out what would happen and what wouldn't happen if said model was true. 3- You make experiments.

     If the results of the experiment are the same as the idea predicted, then we say that this scientific idea is "true". And the model which this idea presents is "correct". What scientists do, is understand these models. Something does not need to be completely real for you to understand it. The rules of tetris for example, is entirely fictional. But we can understand those rules perfectly.

      Scientists do not understand reality directly. Human perception does not allow direct observation. A scientist can only understand the universe partially. But, the thing is, science is never completely wrong. 

     The best way to realize this concept is to just look at the development of the atomic theory: 1- They are little, indivisable balls. 2- They are little + charged balls. 3- They are little balls with + and - charges randomly spread all around them. (Raisin pudding) 4- They are little balls with a + at the center and have -es around them. 5- The -es must be spinning around the nucleus. 6- The -es actually exist as possibility clouds. 7- There also needs to be a chargeless particle... 

     I think this much is enough to explain my case. Realize how on each step the idea of an atom is not entirely "wrong" but rather incomplete? None of the ideas there might be representing our reality perfectly but they are all partially true. And that "partial truth" is slowly increasing.

     It is impossible for Newton's laws to be completely wrong. Because they are based upon proper observations. For example, his second law F = ma might not be true in the technical sense but that does not mean it doesn't hold any reality to it. The law states a relationship between force, mass and acceleration. And when we observe reality, we DO see this relationship. A law never turns out to be completely false. A) It turns out that it is incomplete  B.) The law becomes generalized into something else(meaning it wasn't actually a "law"). But in both situations, the relationship that the law states exists. 

     If there ever comes a time in which some well-constructed scientific idea turns out to be entirely false, then it is not only science that is doomed; our hope of being able to understand reality, even in the slightest, is gone as well. We understand the universe because it is consistent. If this consistency is destroyed, none of our understandings will function. But it seems that, at least for now, the universe is pretty damn consistent. And as long as this consistency exists, it would be idiotic to think that we will not gain anything by studying it. 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @AlexOland

    >I do not think you understand what science is.

    Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.

    I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.

    I've seen no one in this thread against science, but you atheists are defending science as if someone assaulted it. Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?

    The OP said, "Religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood."

    He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality. Until I understand how gasses cool when under negative pressure, I cannot say I understand the phenomena of refrigeration  whatever concept I understand.

    >Human perception does not allow direct observation.

    Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.

    The fact is., the OP's comment,

    "Scientists don't believe in something like the science of evolution, they understand it."

    Is tautology. Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.

    Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.

    The distinction the OP makes is imaginary. It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.

    Plaff is doing it, you're doing it, (you just happen to be more cultured than he)

    >Some say that science and religion are both belief systems.

    They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.
  • As I said before, science and religion both share a mixture of beliefs and understanding and an understanding of why they may believe some of the things they understand. It's not beliefs and understandings (or misunderstandings for that matter) where the differences lyes; it's what those beliefs are based upon which is where they lye.

    Now, in order to answer the question about the difference between religion and science one first needs acknowledge that there are two different kinds of religions collectively; Theistic and Non-Theistic and that there is a multitude of different branches of sciences. And a number of religions will share a mixture of differences as well as similarities with several different branches of sciences.
    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts
    Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument.
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts
    edited July 13
    Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument?

  • Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument?

    Care to elaborate on this? I myself am not a religious person but I fail to see how anything this thread is a reflection of religious people's arguments/views being solipsistic.

    AlexOland

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ethang5
    Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.
     
     Ok. 


    I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.

     You said: ' If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality. ' 
     I showed that this is wrong by explaining why science is never completely wrong. Science is a process. It slowly gets you towards a truth. You might never reach it, but that does not change the fact that you partially understand the universe.


    Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?

     Why can't you get past the silly caricature of "every atheist must have a silly caricature of the religious" in your mind? I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)


    He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality.

     He never said that. He said that science is meant to be understood. Even if he meant something else, I do not necessarily have to agree with what he meant. I just agree with what he said. 


    Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.

     Clearly on topic as you think a scientist needs to know the complete reality to say he understands something. How can we even know if we know the complete reality? 


    Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.
     This line proves that all that "wall-o-text" of mine was relevant and you clearly did not understand (or read) any of it.


    Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.
     Yes, scientists do not understand everything. That is indeed a correct piece of information.
     Yes, a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously. That is indeed a correct piece of information. 


     It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.

     Well, that may very well be OP's attempt (it did not seem like it in his post). But it is not mine. A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science. This is literally the distinction made in the post. The OP never claims that it is wrong to believe. He never claims that science and religion can't co-exist. Why do you have this silly caricature of "atheists should hate religion and worship science" in your mind?


    They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.

     Ah, the old "your actions prove my case" argument. It is an ancient technique used by many great philosophers. Thankfully, after many years of training and hardship, I know how to refute it by now:

     No. 

    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts

    Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument?

    Care to elaborate on this? I myself am not a religious person but I fail to see how anything this thread is a reflection of religious people's arguments/views being solipsistic.

    What she is saying is that you can not trust what you know.

  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts

    Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument?

    Care to elaborate on this? I myself am not a religious person but I fail to see how anything this thread is a reflection of religious people's arguments/views being solipsistic.

    What she is saying is that you can not trust what you know.


  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    The difference is how the anti religious ideologists, view science, and religion on the internet, itself?

    "The Difference Between Science and Religion"

  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts
    TKDB said:
    The difference is how the anti religious ideologists, view science, and religion on the internet, itself?

    "The Difference Between Science and Religion"


    Why restrict it to the internet?


  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    edited July 15
    @AlexOland

    Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.
     Ok. 
    I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.
    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality. ' 

    >I showed that this is wrong by explaining why science is never completely wrong.

    You did not show it to be wrong, you claimed that any degree of understanding is correct. That is untrue. A scientist cannot make a refrigerator for example until he correctly understands the concept. Partial understanding will not do.

    >Science is a process. It slowly gets you towards a truth. You might never reach it, but that does not change the fact that you partially understand the universe.

    Partially understanding a single concept is different. The universe cannot be understood, a concept can. And until you understand the concept, you cannot understand the part of the universe it explains.
    Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?
     Why can't you get past the silly caricature of "every atheist must have a silly caricature of the religious" in your mind?

    Not every atheist does, but most of the ones that troll religion boards do. I judged from the things you said in your posts. It was not an attempt to insult you.

    >I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)

    OK.
    He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality.
    >He never said that. He said that science is meant to be understood.

    Which is why I said "he did not mean....." Rather than "he said..."

    >Even if he meant something else, I do not necessarily have to agree with what he meant. I just agree with what he said. 

    And I disagree with what he said too, but base my disagreement on what he meant.
    Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.
    >Clearly on topic as you think a scientist needs to know the complete reality to say he understands something.

    Please be precise. A scientist needs to know the complete concept to say he understands the reality it describes. This is self-evident.

    >How can we even know if we know the complete reality? 

    Thank you. We can never know the complete reality, but we can sometimes know the complete concept.
    Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.
    >This line proves that all that "wall-o-text" of mine was relevant and you clearly did not understand (or read) any of it.

    I read it. And I know you think it was relevant and needed. Atheists like you tend to believe that others who disagree with you must be doing so out of a lack of understanding. Evolution seems to be a trigger for your type.
    Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.
    >Yes, scientists do not understand everything. That is indeed a correct piece of information.

    Thank you. As are all my "pieces" of information.

    >Yes, a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously. That is indeed a correct piece of information. 

    Which disagrees with the OP.
     It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.
    >Well, that may very well be OP's attempt (it did not seem like it in his post). But it is not mine. A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science.

    "A thing [like science or religion] can be believed and understood simultaneously"
    You may be contradicting yourself.

    >This is literally the distinction made in the post.

    And I called that distinction, imaginary.

    >The OP never claims that it is wrong to believe.

    I know. I did not say he did.

    >He never claims that science and religion can't co-exist.

    I know. I did not say he did.

    >Why do you have this silly caricature of "atheists should hate religion and worship science" in your mind?

    You can't figure out what I wrote, but know what's in my mind? What atheists should do is not my concern.
    They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.
    >Ah, the old "your actions prove my case" argument. It is an ancient technique used by many great philosophers.

    You image is very important to you isn't it?

    >Thankfully, after many years of training and hardship, I know how to refute it by now:

    >No. 

    I don't know what you think you're "refuting" or how the word "no" refutes it, but if you haven't guessed by now, I'm not one of your pc snowflakes.

    Give me logic, not PC emotionalism. Even you agreed that science and religion can be understood and believed simultaneously. You seem to have lost track of your argument.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • Most people do not understand what religion is and is not. Religion is assumed to have or take on the meaning of any beilief.

    First and foremost most people do not have an understanding of science, as science is assumed to be purely objective.

    Any position that is theoretical in science lacks any sufficient evidence that it would determinedit to be a fact.

    When you are dealing with theory you are dealing with religion.

    I can post a logical series of an assessment. Most of what people call science is religion as most are unaware that the majority of what people call science does not even have a basis for a theory.ive realized Jesus is God, there are also two scientific reports that confirm that.


  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ethang5

    You did not show it to be wrong, you claimed that any degree of understanding is correct. That is untrue. A scientist cannot make a refrigerator for example until he correctly understands the concept. Partial understanding will not do.

     I did not claim any degree of understanding is "correct". I claimed that it is a fact that scientists partially understand the universe. If partial understanding would not have done it, we would not be able to use Newton's laws to do anything because they are only a partial understanding of reality (F=ma is not a complete formula). But we did. Please go back to that "wall-o-text". You still have no idea how science works. We still probably do not have the complete understanding and we will most likely never have it. 

     
     Partially understanding a single concept is different. The universe cannot be understood, a concept can. And until you understand the concept, you cannot understand the part of the universe it explains.

     Partially understanding the universe is still understanding the universe. If you learn one thing about a topic, even though you do not know everything about that topic, you would understand that topic better. For example, nearly no one knows everything there is to know about math. Does that mean no one understands math? Go back to that "wall-o-text".

     Not every atheist does, but most of the ones that troll religion boards do. I judged from the things you said in your posts. It was not an attempt to insult you.

     So you accept that you were wrong to accuse me of having a silly caricature of you in my head? Well, an apology would be better but I guess that would be asking for too much.

     
     >I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)
    OK.

      Okay to what exactly? You accused me of having a caricature of you because you thought I knew you were religious. I actually did not. This should have been the part where you realize that you made a mistake. But you are not even able to admit something as simple as this. So you try to get back at me with "OK" which makes no sense as what I said has direct corralation with your accusation. 

     Learn to admit your mistakes.

     
    And I disagree with what he said too, but base my disagreement on what he meant.

     You still do not explain the relevance though. I agreed with what he said. Why are you bringing up your idea of what he might have meant when we are arguing? I already explained what parts I agree with. What he meant has no relevance to our debate. I would like you to admit this mistake of yours as well.

     
     Please be precise. A scientist needs to know the complete concept to say he understands the reality it describes. This is self-evident.

      It is in no way self-evident, it is wrong. This is further proof you did not read it. Partial understanding is still - by definition - understanding. And that "wall-o-text" proved that what they were doing was indeed gaining partial understanding instead of being completely wrong. 


     I read it. And I know you think it was relevant and needed. Atheists like you tend to believe that others who disagree with you must be doing so out of a lack of understanding. Evolution seems to be a trigger for your type.

     Again, you connect it to atheism for no reason. Even though you just read that I exposed you for the same mistake a moment ago. This shows what kind of person you really are. There are people who value opinions and there are people who do not. That has no relevance to belief or lack of belief. 

     
     
     Which disagrees with the OP.

     Doesn't. I actually explained why it doesn't in that "wall-o-text" but you just choose to ignore it I guess. 


     "A thing [like science or religion] can be believed and understood simultaneously"
    You may be contradicting yourself.
     
     A thing CAN be understood and believed simultaneously. This doesn't mean that understanding implies belief. How did you even reach this conclusion?
     
     You can understand how quantum mechanics work and you can also believe that it works exactly that way in reality. You are capable of doing this. But science is not meant to be believed. You CAN believe it but it would be a mistake to do so.



    You can't figure out what I wrote, but know what's in my mind? What atheists should do is not my concern.

      You literally wrote this:  "It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism."

     There is no way that I cannot figure out what this means. It is obvious what it means. You are literally saying that we are trying to make science the ' realm of atheism ' and leave religion out. I object to that saying "no that is not at all what we are doing" and your response is:
     
    "What atheists should do is not my concern."

     This response somehow makes sense to you?


     
    You image is very important to you isn't it?

     ... it's a joke. Believe me, I am not trying to flex on the 4 people that are reading my arguments (it might be even less than 4).

     
    I don't know what you think you're "refuting" or how the word "no" refutes it, but if you haven't guessed by now, I'm not one of your pc snowflakes.
    Give me logic, not PC emotionalism. Even you agreed that science and religion can be understood and believed simultaneously. You seem to have lost track of your argument.

      You claimed that our actions prove your case. I realized that this was just an empty claim so I just said "no". What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

     Why would I think you are a pc snowflake? What does that have to do with anything? You are being really weird.

     I am giving you logic. I am not giving you "PC emotionalism" (which is obviously a different and a real branch of emotionalism, really important distinction there). It is just that you are not really good at understanding logical arguments. 

     Science and religion can be understood and believed simultaneously. But science is not meant to be believed as it is a process. Science is literally the process BY WHICH you get closer to truth. Believing in what science says does not make sense and goes against what science is. Believing in it means that you think it will stay the same, it means that you think it is stationary. But science is dynamic and changing by definition. 

     You seem to understand not a single thing that is being said.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts
    ethang5 said:
    @AlexOland

    Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.
     Ok. 
    I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.
    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality. ' 

    >I showed that this is wrong by explaining why science is never completely wrong.

    You did not show it to be wrong, you claimed that any degree of understanding is correct. That is untrue. A scientist cannot make a refrigerator for example until he correctly understands the concept. Partial understanding will not do.

    >Science is a process. It slowly gets you towards a truth. You might never reach it, but that does not change the fact that you partially understand the universe.

    Partially understanding a single concept is different. The universe cannot be understood, a concept can. And until you understand the concept, you cannot understand the part of the universe it explains.
    Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?
     Why can't you get past the silly caricature of "every atheist must have a silly caricature of the religious" in your mind?

    Not every atheist does, but most of the ones that troll religion boards do. I judged from the things you said in your posts. It was not an attempt to insult you.

    >I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)

    OK.
    He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality.
    >He never said that. He said that science is meant to be understood.

    Which is why I said "he did not mean....." Rather than "he said..."

    >Even if he meant something else, I do not necessarily have to agree with what he meant. I just agree with what he said. 

    And I disagree with what he said too, but base my disagreement on what he meant.
    Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.
    >Clearly on topic as you think a scientist needs to know the complete reality to say he understands something.

    Please be precise. A scientist needs to know the complete concept to say he understands the reality it describes. This is self-evident.

    >How can we even know if we know the complete reality? 

    Thank you. We can never know the complete reality, but we can sometimes know the complete concept.
    Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.
    >This line proves that all that "wall-o-text" of mine was relevant and you clearly did not understand (or read) any of it.

    I read it. And I know you think it was relevant and needed. Atheists like you tend to believe that others who disagree with you must be doing so out of a lack of understanding. Evolution seems to be a trigger for your type.
    Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.
    >Yes, scientists do not understand everything. That is indeed a correct piece of information.

    Thank you. As are all my "pieces" of information.

    >Yes, a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously. That is indeed a correct piece of information. 

    Which disagrees with the OP.
     It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.
    >Well, that may very well be OP's attempt (it did not seem like it in his post). But it is not mine. A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science.

    "A thing [like science or religion] can be believed and understood simultaneously"
    You may be contradicting yourself.

    >This is literally the distinction made in the post.

    And I called that distinction, imaginary.

    >The OP never claims that it is wrong to believe.

    I know. I did not say he did.

    >He never claims that science and religion can't co-exist.

    I know. I did not say he did.

    >Why do you have this silly caricature of "atheists should hate religion and worship science" in your mind?

    You can't figure out what I wrote, but know what's in my mind? What atheists should do is not my concern.
    They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.
    >Ah, the old "your actions prove my case" argument. It is an ancient technique used by many great philosophers.

    You image is very important to you isn't it?

    >Thankfully, after many years of training and hardship, I know how to refute it by now:

    >No. 

    I don't know what you think you're "refuting" or how the word "no" refutes it, but if you haven't guessed by now, I'm not one of your pc snowflakes.

    Give me logic, not PC emotionalism. Even you agreed that science and religion can be understood and believed simultaneously. You seem to have lost track of your argument.

    Your biggest failure here is that the fact remains, religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood. That will be true whether you believe it or not.
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts
    Most people do not understand what religion is and is not. Religion is assumed to have or take on the meaning of any beilief.

    First and foremost most people do not have an understanding of science, as science is assumed to be purely objective.

    Any position that is theoretical in science lacks any sufficient evidence that it would determinedit to be a fact.

    When you are dealing with theory you are dealing with religion.

    I can post a logical series of an assessment. Most of what people call science is religion as most are unaware that the majority of what people call science does not even have a basis for a theory.ive realized Jesus is God, there are also two scientific reports that confirm that.


    I'm not addressing your post because it's just more religious solipsism, I'm addressing your username:

    If Jesus is god wouldn't that mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant?


  • religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood. That will be true whether you believe it or not.

    Your statement seems very generic. However, this is how I like to try and approach this issue: Religion is meant to be followed, and religion will involve beliefs about things relative to that religion which will rest on pure faith alone.

    Science, on the other hand, will also be followed but also studied, and entail beliefs based on probability and/or based on an accumulation of theoretical knowledge and/or practical application.  A scientist will or at least they should understand what it is they're studying or practicing. A Medical Physician, for example, is a medical scientist, and Medical Physicians do not make diagnoses based on a whim! A Medical Physician may say something like "I believe this is the most likely case" but of course further tests will need to confirm a diagnosis. Their beliefs, however, will not be based on faith; they will rest upon good reasons, a degree of evidence and understanding. 


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @AlexOland

    >You still have no idea how science works. We still probably do not have the complete understanding and we will most likely never have it.

    I said complete understand of particular concepts, not complete understanding of the universe. It's no wonder that scientists belief that they knew already was what most blinded them to new knowledge.

    We can never know the complete reality, but we can sometimes know the complete concept.

    >For example, nearly no one knows everything there is to know about math. Does that mean no one understands math? Go back to that "wall-o-text".

    I will not do anything that stupid. Most know the mathematical concept of conservation. That is what we can know, not all of math. You aren't a teacher, and aren't qualified to be one.

    >Your biggest failure here is that the fact remains, religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood. That will be true whether you believe it or not.

    What science or religion is "meant" to be (by whom?) Is irrelevant. The OP concluded, 

    >"Some say that science and religion are both belief systems. The problem with this thinking is that it is completely wrong..."

    This is untrue. Both science and religion are belief systems. Concepts in both can be believed and understood at the same time, and we will never understand either one completely.

    You were so busy trying to pretend to be a teacher, you list sight of the argument. Take down that silly and inconsequential wall-o-text.

    We debate here, we do not preach.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 87 Pts
    ethang5 said:

    This is untrue. Both science and religion are belief systems. Concepts in both can be believed and understood at the same time, and we will never understand either one completely.

    You were so busy trying to pretend to be a teacher, you list sight of the argument. Take down that silly and inconsequential wall-o-text.

    We debate here, we do not preach.
    The math of your argument:

    https://youtu.be/Zh3Yz3PiXZw



    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • Why can't the two coexist?
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ethang5

    I said complete understand of particular concepts, not complete understanding of the universe. It's no wonder that scientists belief that they knew already was what most blinded them to new knowledge. We can never know the complete reality, but we can sometimes know the complete concept.

     I see. You forgot that you said this:

    "If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it if the concept is supposed to explain a phenomena in reality."

     You claim here that in order to understand a concept, it has to be completely representative of reality. If it is not, then you couldn't have understood it. But then you say that: 

    "I said complete understand of particular concepts, not complete understanding of the universe."
     and
    "We can never know the complete reality, but we can sometimes know the complete concept."

     You point out that there is a distinction between understanding a concept and understanding the actual universe. So here you admit that a complete understanding of particular concepts is possible without having a complete understanding of the universe. Meaning even if the concepts are not exactly what they are in the universe, they can be understood. Or in other words, in order to understand a concept, it doesn't have to be completely representative of reality. 

     Now let's look at what we have:
    - in order to understand a concept, it has to be completely representative of reality.
    - in order to understand a concept, it doesn't have to be completely representative of reality. 


     I will not do anything that stupid. Most know the mathematical concept of conservation. That is what we can know, not all of math. You aren't a teacher, and aren't qualified to be one.

     You did not answer my question. Me not being a math teacher has nothing to do with the issue. 


     Welp, you ignored all of my other points but okay. 


  • Just one thing I would like to point out is that why I have respect for both mathematics and science, and while I also understand that one needs a solid grasp of mathematics in order to understand different aspects of different branches of science, the two systems are not purely equivalent.

    Mathematics rests on mostly deductive reasoning. Science, on the other hand, rests largely on inductive reasoning as well as on a degree of deductive and abductive reasoning. 



    In their purest form, right at the core, all science, religion, and mathematics are all different from one another.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe

    >Your biggest failure here is that the fact remains, religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood.

    I did not contradict that. 

    >That will be true whether you believe it or not.

    Do you know what else will be true? That both religion and science can be believed and understood simultaneously.

    No one owns or created religion or science, so what each is "meant" for will be decided by each individual person using them.

    Reading comprehension can be tricky sometimes, I know.
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @AlexOland

     Now let's look at what we have:

    >- in order to understand a concept, it has to be completely representative of reality.

    That is not what I said.

    I said, in order to understand reality, one must understand the concept that explains that reality.

    >- in order to understand a concept, it doesn't have to be completely representative of reality. 

    True, it concepts that aren't representative of reality are useless.

    The purpose of science is to explain reality, not just form concepts. That should be blindingly obvious.

    The OP said, 

    >Science and religion both being belief systems is completely wrong for one very simple reason. Religion is meant to be believed, and science is meant to be understood.

    He was incorrect.

    Science and religion are both belief systems, and both can be understood and believed simultaneously.

    It is self-evident that this is true.

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ethang5

     I already proved that believing in science does not make any sense, so if you agree with simple logic you need to agree that science is meant to be understood and not believed. 

     Admitting that you are wrong can be tricky sometimes, I know. 
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ethang5

    That is not what I said.

    You said this:

    "If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it if the concept is supposed to explain a phenomena in reality."

     Which clearly states that if a concept turns out to be not representative of reality, it could not have been understood. So, yeah, that is exactly what you said. 


     True, it concepts that aren't representative of reality are useless.
    The purpose of science is to explain reality, not just form concepts. That should be blindingly obvious.


     Firstly, you agree here that the concepts do not need to represent reality to be understood. So you have already contradicted yourself.


     Secondly, I have already proven that the concepts slowly get more and more accurate. This is what I was talking about when I was saying that scientists gain a partial understanding of reality, in that "wall-o-text". 



     Science and religion are both belief systems, and both can be understood and believed simultaneously.
    It is self-evident that this is true.


     It is true that they CAN be understood and believed simultaneously. 


     But it is not true that science is a belief system. I have already proved that this could not be the case when I showed that science was changing and dynamic by definition.


     I do not think you understand what "self-evident" is. You can't just call anything you are unable to prove "self-evident" and claim that you have a point. You do not have any arguments. All you have said here has already been refuted. You have started to contradict yourself. Stop it already. Learn to admit that you have made a mistake. 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @AlexOland

    Boy, your goodbyes sure are extended. 

    That is not what I said.

    >You said this:

    "If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it if the concept is supposed to explain a phenomena in reality."

    The "it" above refers to the reality,  not the concept. You took the sentence out of context.

    >Which clearly states that if a concept turns out to be not representative of reality, it could not have been understood. So, yeah, that is exactly what you said. 

    No Sir. You claimed I said,
    >- in order to understand a concept, it has to be completely representative of reality.

    That is not what I said.

    >True, it concepts that aren't representative of reality are useless.

    And what would be the point of understanding useless concepts? So obviously my "it" was referring to the reality, not the concept.

    The purpose of science is to explain reality, not just form concepts. That should be blindingly obvious.

    >Firstly, you agree here that the concepts do not need to represent reality to be understood. So you have already contradicted yourself.

    You are still confused. Why would I point out that useless concepts can be understood? I do not care about concepts that do not explain reality.

    >Secondly, I have already proven that the concepts slowly get more and more accurate. This is what I was talking about when I was saying that scientists gain a partial understanding of reality, in that "wall-o-text". 

    Not all concepts get more and more accurate. Many are ditched and contradicted. You are welcome to your wall-o-text, just don't post it to me. I'm not a student of yours, thank God.

    Science and religion are both belief systems, and both can be understood and believed simultaneously.

    It is self-evident that this is true.

    >It is true that they CAN be understood and believed simultaneously.

    That is what I said homer.

    >But it is not true that science is a belief system. I have already proved that this could not be the case when I showed that science was changing and dynamic by definition.

    What does changing and dynamic (redundant) have to do with it being a belief system? Has the definition of science changed in the last 200 years?

    >I do not think you understand what "self-evident" is. You can't just call anything you are unable to prove "self-evident" and claim that you have a point.

    That both science and religion can believed and understood  simultaneously IS self evident. Do you disagree?

    >You do not have any arguments. All you have said here has already been refuted. You have started to contradict yourself. Stop it already. Learn to admit that you have made a mistake.

    Lol. You came back after two goodbyes to beg for a win?

    I don't think you even know what the argument is. You seem lost  the fact that reality and the concept which correctly explains it are different things.

    And just like a paranoid atheist, you somehow interpret belief as a threat to science, and are wasting your time defending what needed no defense. And poorly at that.

    >I already proved that believing in science does not make any sense,

    Remember when I told you that you weren't the judge here? You proved no such thing. Telling me that science was "meant" to be understood is not proof that science is not a belief system, not in the logical world anyway.

    Do you believe in the scientific method? Do you believe science is the best path to truth? Do you believe that what science is - changes?

    Your comments here show you believe in science as much as any
    Acolyte believes in his religion.

    >if you agree with simple logic you need to agree that science is meant to be understood and not believed.

    "Meant" by whom? And how does that person or thing prohibit people from believing in it anyway?

    Whatever science is "meant" for has no baring on what people do. And your claim that science is "meant" to be understood is tautology. Unsupported tautology.

    >Admitting that you are wrong can be tricky sometimes, I know.

    Never for me, as I am so rarely wrong. You will just have to earn your points through debate and not simply declare yourself winner.

    That image you have in your head of being this great debater will have to be adjusted. A premium membership you get with money, debate wins require intelligence and experience.

    One does not automatically give you the other.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ethang5


    The "it" above refers to the reality,  not the concept. You took the sentence out of context. 

     Nice try. It is pretty apparent what the sentence means. But luckily I found another sentence where you say the same thing with different wording:
    "I get that, but we can understand a concept or the reality it is to explain. I understand a concept only when that concept is correctly representing reality."

     Hmm... let's look at that more closely:

    "I understand a concept only when that concept is correctly representing reality."

     Now, will you admit that you said something false?


     You are still confused. Why would I point out that useless concepts can be understood? I do not care about concepts that do not explain reality.

     Is Newton's laws useless? It doesn't correctly represent reality. It is incomplete. Nearly all of science is probably incomplete. 


     Not all concepts get more and more accurate. Many are ditched and contradicted. You are welcome to your wall-o-text, just don't post it to me. I'm not a student of yours, thank God.

     Science slowly gets us towards the truth. If you want to object to this, good luck. You are not a student of mine, thank god.


     What does changing and dynamic (redundant) have to do with it being a belief system? Has the definition of science changed in the last 200 years?
     Belief is the acceptence of something... Now, let's think about it a little bit. If something is defined to be constantly changing, does it make any sense to accept it to be true the way it currently is? 

     Does it make sense to believe that our current understanding is absolute? When the method we are using to reach that absolute understanding is one where we only discover partial truths? This is not a hard idea to understand. If something is changing by definition, it would not make sense to expect it not to change and believe in it as it currently is. 


     That both science and religion can believed and understood  simultaneously IS self evident. Do you disagree?

    Yes, they

    CAN

    be believed and understood.

    But science is not 

    MEANT

    to be believed.


     I don't think you even know what the argument is. You seem lost  the fact that reality and the concept which correctly explains it are different things.

     And where do you get this impression from, exactly? Where have I claimed that those two things are the same? Nowhere. You just have no arguments left.


     And just like a paranoid atheist, you somehow interpret belief as a threat to science, and are wasting your time defending what needed no defense. And poorly at that.

     You have already accused me of this and l have already stated that this is not my position. This is my line:
    "A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science."

     By the way, I am still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong to accuse me of these types of things. An apology would be really nice.


     Remember when I told you that you weren't the judge here? You proved no such thing. Telling me that science was "meant" to be understood is not proof that science is not a belief system, not in the logical world anyway.

     I did not only say it is meant to be understood and leave it at that. I explained why it is illogical to believe in it, I explained it again in this argument as well. You are ignoring it for some reason. 


     Your comments here show you believe in science as much as any
    Acolyte believes in his religion.

     How exactly does it show that? You always say things like these but never explain your reasoning. That is because they are empty claims. Just like how you accused me of having a caricature of you in my mind because you were a religious, while I did not even know that you were religious (don't forget that apology).

     Inductive reasoning works. The universe is consistent. I am open to the possibility that it might stop being consistent. But if that is true, we cannot understand literally anything. We understand the universe through patterns. You cannot say that "Oh, you believe in patterns" because the very concept of "belief" is even only defined in these patterns. 

     It is not unreasonable to ASSUME that certain things about the universe will repeat themselves. Might gravity just disappear out of nowhere? Yes! I am willing to accept that possibility. But at least for now, things are consistent. Planes fly, cars go, you can send me messages through the internet; science clearly works. 


     
    Never for me, as I am so rarely wrong. You will just have to earn your points through debate and not simply declare yourself winner.

    That image you have in your head of being this great debater will have to be adjusted. A premium membership you get with money, debate wins require intelligence and experience.

     Oh the irony... Oh the hubris...

     "I am rarely wrong."
    "...not simply declare yourself winner."
     I am surprised that you cannot see the apparent contradiction here. How did you decide that you were rarely wrong? 
    ---
    "I am rarely wrong."
    "That image you have in your head of being this great debater will have to be adjusted."
     I do not have that image. But you clearly have it. 

     I know that I am not perfect. I get angry when people cannot even admit their simplest mistakes. Like when you accused me of something and when I pointed it out, you ignored it. I was wrong to claim that the discussion ended and I have already won, I will give you that. I do not have a right to do that even if the other person is claiming something so obviously wrong, to me at least. I do not have the right to do that even if you are making these false and empty accusations.

     But I am really proud that I have never said something so obnoxious like "I am rarely wrong". I am proud that I can consider the possibility that I might be wrong even when I feel like I am sure of my thoughts. I am proud that I actually consider and think about other people's opinions. 

     PLEASE CONSIDER THIS: People have marked your arguments as "fallacy" 120 times and you still have the nerve to tell people that "I am rarely wrong". You just do not care about other people's arguments. You accuse me of thinking that I am a big debater or something. Look in the mirror. Seriously. Please be self-aware. I have debated a lot of people like you both in real life and on the internet. I am not claiming that what you say is wrong right now. I am just asking you to realize that you are being arrogant. I am literally begging you. Realize that you can be wrong. Realize that other people might be seeing something that you are not. And before you get defensive and try to explain to me why you are never wrong, please just stop consider what I am saying. This is not an attack. This is a suggestion. If you really think none of the things I have said here are right, just ignore it. 
     




     
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • ethang5ethang5 166 Pts
    @AlexOland ;

    The "it" above refers to the reality,  not the concept. You took the sentence out of context. 

    >Nice try. It is pretty apparent what the sentence means. But luckily I found another sentence where you say the same thing with different wording:

    "I get that, but we can understand a concept or the reality it is to explain. I understand a concept only when that concept is correctly representing reality."

    >Hmm... let's look at that more closely:

    "I understand a concept only when that concept is correctly representing reality."

    >Now, will you admit that you said something false?

    No, but I will admit I think you've been called anal before.

    I said, "..we can understand a concept, OR, the reality it is to explain..."

    If the concept you understand does not explain the reality, then you do not understand the concept that DOES explain the reality.

    I understand a concept (one that correctly explains reality) only when that concept (the one that correctly explains reality) is correctly representing reality.

    Otherwise what I "understand" is nonsense, and cannot be logically called a scientific concept.

    You are still confused. Why would I point out that useless concepts can be understood? I do not care about concepts that do not explain reality.

    >Is Newton's laws useless?

    Was it useful? Did Newton understand gravity waves? What invention or advancement did his law bring? Can you name one?

    >It  doesn't correctly represent reality. It is incomplete. Nearly all of science is probably incomplete. 

    Exactly. Which is why I said we can understand concepts, but never the entirety of reality.

    Not all concepts get more and more accurate. Many are ditched and contradicted. You are welcome to your wall-o-text, just don't post it to me. I'm not a student of yours, thank God.

    >Science slowly gets us towards the truth. If you want to object to this, good luck.

    I have not objected to that. Your faith is threatened so you are defending something not attacked.

    >You are not a student of mine, thank god.

    May His name be praised.

    What does changing and dynamic (redundant) have to do with it being a belief system? Has the definition of science changed in the last 200 years?

    >Belief is the acceptence of something... Now, let's think about it a little bit. If something is defined to be constantly changing, does it make any sense to accept it to be true the way it currently is? 

    No. But that is exactly what you are advocating in your claim that science slowly moves towards truth.

    >Does it make sense to believe that our current understanding is absolute?

    No. But if I posted a thread here calling abiogenesis evident-less nonsense, I would get you and the usual suspects insisting that abiogenesis is correct and the only answer. I'm not saying belief  in science always makes sense, I am saying that people like you do it unconsciously regardless of what science was meant for.

    >When the method we are using to reach that absolute understanding is one where we only discover partial truths?

    Tell that to the people who think Darwin was a prophet and not just mislead.

    >This is not a hard idea to understand.

    You must think it is, given your wall-o-text again.

    >If something is changing by definition, it would not make sense to expect it not to change and believe in it as it currently is.

    Do you believe birds are descended from dinosaurs? That quarks are indivisible? That nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

    That both science and religion can believed and understood  simultaneously IS self evident. Do you disagree?

    >Yes, they 

    CAN

    be believed and understood.
    But science is not 

    MEANT

    to be believed.

    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.

    I don't think you even know what the argument is. You seem lost  on the fact that reality and the concept which correctly explains it are different things.

    >And where do you get this impression from, exactly?

    Your comments in your posts.

    >Where have I claimed that those two things are the same? Nowhere. You just have no arguments left.

    What you say has logical  implications

    And just like a paranoid atheist, you somehow interpret belief as a threat to science, and are wasting your time defending what needed no defense. And poorly at that.

    >You have already accused me of this and l have already stated that this is not my position. This is my line:

    >"A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science."

    >By the way, I am still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong to accuse me of these types of things. An apology would be really nice.

    Ethan does not lie. Not even to please nice people.

    Remember when I told you that you weren't the judge here? You proved no such thing. Telling me that science was "meant" to be understood is not proof that science is not a belief system, not in the logical world anyway.

    >I did not only say it is meant to be understood and leave it at that. I explained why it is illogical to believe in it, I explained it again in this argument as well. You are ignoring it for some reason. 

    Those are different things that aren't mutually exclusive. Science may be meant to be understood, and it might be illogical to believe in it, but people still believe in it anyway. Even some scientists do.

    Your comments here show you believe in science as much as any acolyte believes in his religion.

    >How exactly does it show that? You always say things like these but never explain your reasoning.

    You came out of the gate preaching. Sermon=wall-o-text. You're defending science like a zealot though science has not been attacked. You see me as immoral (not just mistaken) if I disagree with you.

    All typical of the mindset of a "believer".

    >That is because they are empty claims. Just like how you accused me of having a caricature of you in my mind because you were a religious, while I did not even know that you were religious (don't forget that apology).

    You only claimed to not know. You did not have a caricature of me, you have a caricature of religious people. You did not need to know I was religious for the charge to be true.

    >Inductive reasoning works. The universe is consistent. I am open to the possibility that it might stop being consistent. But if that is true, we cannot understand literally anything. We understand the universe through patterns. You cannot say that "Oh, you believe in patterns" because the very concept of "belief" is even only defined in these patterns. 

    >It is not unreasonable to ASSUME that certain things about the universe will repeat themselves. Might gravity just disappear out of nowhere? Yes! I am willing to accept that possibility. But at least for now, things are consistent. Planes fly, cars go, you can send me messages through the internet; science clearly works. 

    No one said it did not. But is that a belief?

    Never for me, as I am so rarely wrong. You will just have to earn your points through debate and not simply declare yourself winner.

    That image you have in your head of being this great debater will have to be adjusted. A premium membership you get with money, debate wins require intelligence and experience.

    >Oh the irony... Oh the hubris...

    Lol. You take yourself way too seriously.

    "I am rarely wrong."
    "...not simply declare yourself winner."

    I was being humble. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

    >I am surprised that you cannot see the apparent contradiction here. How did you decide that you were rarely wrong? 

    Reality is not what I decide.

    >"I am rarely wrong."
    "That image you have in your head of being this great debater will have to be adjusted."
    I do not have that image.

    It is a good thing to get rid of any false images you have of yourself. I applaud your initiative.

    >But you clearly have it.

    And our debate clearly shows I should. But I try to remain humble. There is a God after all.

    >I know that I am not perfect. I get angry when people cannot even admit their simplest mistakes.

    I will not admit a mistake because you have decided that I have made one.

    >Like when you accused me of something and when I pointed it out, you ignored it.

    I only ignore things accidentally. Simply point it out to me and I will promptly address it.

    >I was wrong to claim that the discussion ended and I have already won, I will give you that. I do not have a right to do that even if the other person is claiming something so obviously wrong, to me at least. I do not have the right to do that even if you are making these false and empty accusations.

    That is big of you.

    >But I am really proud that I have never said something so obnoxious like "I am rarely wrong".

    As you should be. Lies are nothing to be proud of.

    >I am proud that I can consider the possibility that I might be wrong even when I feel like I am sure of my thoughts.

    Lol. You are so fair when you judge yourself!

    >I am proud that I actually consider and think about other people's opinions.

    Even when their opinions are false and empty?

    >PLEASE CONSIDER THIS: People have marked your arguments as "fallacy" 120 times and you still have the nerve to tell people that "I am rarely wrong".

    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.

    >You just do not care about other people's arguments. You accuse me of thinking that I am a big debater or something. Look in the mirror. Seriously. Please be self-aware. I have debated a lot of people like you both in real life and on the internet. I am not claiming that what you say is wrong right now. I am just asking you to realize that you are being arrogant.

    I like you, so I'll tell you, this is pathetic. Get off your knees.

    >I am literally begging you. Realize that you can be wrong. Realize that other people might be seeing something that you are not. And before you get defensive and try to explain to me why you are never wrong, please just stop consider what I am saying.

    I had no intention of explaining anything to you. I let the ironclad logic in my posts do my talking.

    >This is not an attack. This is a suggestion. If you really think none of the things I have said here are right, just ignore it.

    Ignored.

    Have a nice day!
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 303 Pts
    @ethang5

     I will only answer the arguments which I haven't touched on before. This is the last time I am writing to you. There is no point in arguing someone who cannot even admit his smallest mistakes.

    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. Because they are almost completly true unless the object has very large/small mass and is moving a significant fraction of the speed of light. Mechanical engineers STILL use it.


    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. 

     My claim was not "no one believes in science", it was "it doesn't make sense to believe in science".

     I am sure you will somehow try to lie your way out of this. I do not really care because I will not be discussing with you any longer.


     
    Reality is not what I decide.

     How did you decide that you being never wrong was a reality? 


      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. 

     Humble? You just said that you make absolutely no mistakes: 
    "I was being humble. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken."


     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. 


    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? 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. You do not care for feedback because if you did, you would not be able to call yourself "never wrong". 

     If you do not care about other people's arguments and you are sure that you are never wrong; why are you here? If you do not care about feedback, why don't you just create a blog and start writing there? Why does Ethan the almighty grant us their sublime presence when we are clearly not deserving? 

     
     I like you, so I'll tell you, this is pathetic. Get off your knees.

     Don't worry, I am already up. Some people are beyond saving. 
    ethang5Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch