@alexOland

>I will only answer the arguments which I haven't touched on before.

OK.

>This is the last time I am writing to you. There is no point in arguing someone who cannot even admit his smallest mistakes.

Or someone who doesn't agree with you that he's made a mistake. But you're always right, no?

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

>They were used. And they are still being used.

So you could not name a single advancement his law brought.

>Mechanical engineers STILL use it.

They use the equations that describe the law, not the law itself.

OK then. My point stands. What science was "meant" for (I'll assume you mean by the creators of science - whoever they are) does not dictate what people do with and to, science.

>Okay then, the debate is over. My position was this: "Religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood." which was stated clearly in the OP's first argument.

The OP also concluded that thinking of science as a belief system was wrong. My point was that it was not wrong.

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

I know, but you then continued on to claim that this meant science could not be a belief system. That did not logically follow.

>I am sure you will somehow try to lie your way out of this.

You think so because you believe there is something I need to get out of. Why you believe that is unimportant to me.

>I do not really care because I will not be discussing with you any longer.

I'll live.

Reality is not what I decide.

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

I said I was rarely wrong. And I'd did not "decide" it any more than I "decided" I have 10 fingers.

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

>The responses you get and the debate itself clearly shows that you do not have a right to have that image. 

As a liberal you may find this difficult to understand, but reality is not something we  "decide" on. It just is.

>Humble? You just said that you make absolutely no mistakes.

No, I said I was hardly ever wrong.

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

That is a famous joke. I am hardly ever wrong because I only debate subjects I know. Lighten up.

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

>I pointed out that you were wrong to accuse me of certain things. You never addressed it. 

I did. I told you I was not wrong, and hardly ever am.

People? Do you mean the contingent of idiots who go around marking every theist's post as a fallacy? I would be ashamed to have any of those dolts agree with me. I view their marks as proof that my arguments are correct.

>I have disagreements with people as well. But they rarely mark me as "fallacy". This happens even in discussions so sensitive, like child pornography. Do you know why that is?

Yes. Because you are an atheist PC liberal snowflake just like them.

>Because I actually make arguments and consider what people are saying. I do not accuse people and even if I do, I apologize afterwards. I am not arrogant.

Lol. You have quite  a rosy picture of yourself. You just called me a . But I think you're reading too much into the fist bumps of anti-theist dweebs.

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

Illogical, as my right/wrong ratio is not affected by feedback.

>If you do not care about other people's arguments and you are sure that you are never wrong; why are you here?

Did I say I do not care about other peoples arguments? Or are you projecting ?

>If you do not care about feedback, why don't you just create a blog and start writing there?

I will ignore that as it makes no sense.

>Why does Ethan the almighty grant us their sublime presence when we are clearly not deserving?

Who is "we"? I'm only talking to you.

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

>Don't worry, I am already up.

Good lad.

>Some people are beyond saving.

And you were going to save me? Lol. No, no hubris there at all.

@Dr_Maybe

Because I have as of yet, to watch the news, and to hear a news media outlet news story, about ANY anti religious individual, protesting a religious building, or a minister, preacher, chaplain, or a rabbi, in person, and was interviewed, while their physical protest was viewed by the news crew, and the people, who live in the same locality?

The predominant amount of anti religious protesting is done right here, via the internet.

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?"

Just like I have yet to see anyone protest Science, at a Science building? 

Or to defend Science from religion? 

@GeoLibCogScientist

 According to that logic, you accepted some axioms to form that argument as well. So how can you say with confidence that everything boils down to belief? You reached that conclusion through a certain set of beliefs. If knowledge is not possible, how do you hold the knowledge that knowledge is not possible?

 The problem with arguments like this is that they are almost always paradoxical and self-contradictory. We have to accept axioms to even realize we are accepting axioms. There is no other way. Well, it is not that we "have to" accept some things as true, it is that we already do accept a lot of things as true. That is just how we came into existence (or maybe there is another reason).

 Plus, I really do not think all of our senses can be just false. I mean, I do accept that there is a possibility that they are false but I think it is really improbable. The patterns we percieve are too complex, interrelated and harmonious - if you will excuse that word (though, I am indeed writing under observation) - to be entirely coincidental. 

 

@GeoLibCogScientist

  Firstly, I would like to say that you are very good at forming your arguments. Do not worry that you make simple mistakes because you are obviously a very talented - although, that might not be the right word - debater (Now that I look at it, maybe this statement makes me seem a little arrogant and I apologize if that is the case. After all, who am I to judge who is good at debating and who is not?). 

 I have no idea what your disorder entails so I will refrain from making any comment on that.  With "senses" I am just referring to how we observe the world. The thing is, our observations do seem coherent. We are able to make predictions as well. This means that we are most likely onto something. If our observations were just "wrong" we would not expect to see this coherence.

 It doesn't matter if we are in a simulation or not. Look at it from a phenomenalistic - or rather "first person" - standpoint, we have "senses". It is self-evident that our senses must at least "exist" in some form. Now, think of "vision". It is apparent that this is "something". And, through knowledge, we can predict what will show up in our "vision". It doesn't matter what this "vision" actually is in the "real world" - if such a thing exists. We are still able to succesfully predict what our "senses" will experience. This is how I view science if I have to look at it from a completely blank and personal perspective. 

 If a real world exists, our "senses" could not be completely irrelated to it. If a real world doesn't exist, then it is our "senses" that construct all of reality. In both cases science is still valid. And in both cases our "senses" are not false. 

 Again, can it be completely coincidental that we are able to predict what our "senses" will show? Yes. We might be just making a random prediction and it might be turning out to be true each time. But I think this is pretty improbable.

 We can also extend this reasoning to more complex and abstract thoughts. Because they still follow a pattern. I would suggest you watch this clip of Richard Feynman to understand exactly what I mean (I can't find the original source, the specific lesson containing this clip was deleted from the playlist that has his lectures. This is from a game):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Qa93JQxg4 

 The black-white part is what is relevant but the second part is also interesting.
 
 

 

 

@GeoLibCogScientist

>At any rate, my conclusion is this: everything boils down to belief: even science.

Then, though we have taken different paths to get there, our conclusions are the same.

Trying to now differentiate the basis for belief in science and religion is moot. It remains belief.

The OP was incorrect.

AlexOland said:

 It doesn't matter if we are in a simulation or not. Look at it from a phenomenalistic - or rather "first person" - standpoint, we have "senses". It is self-evident that our senses must at least "exist" in some form. Now, think of "vision". It is apparent that this is "something". And, through knowledge, we can predict what will show up in our "vision". It doesn't matter what this "vision" actually is in the "real world" - if such a thing exists. We are still able to succesfully predict what our "senses" will experience. This is how I view science if I have to look at it from a completely blank and personal perspective.
 
 

 

 

Yes, I've looked at it from this perspective before, and considered the idea that it may actually be logical to believe in a god: specifically that the self is. If we continue with what you're saying here, essentially the universe is what one's brain creates it to be.  Especially considering it is logical to view the universe from a first person standpoint as you're pointing out. If we do that, then the universe as we perveive it, which is the only way it is perceived that actually matters to us in our own personal "world/universe", then by definition we are the ones who create our universe, or the self is the creator of the universe - aka god.  This is the only theistic(or perhaps it's better viewed as a deistic) perspective I view as logical, otherwise as I stated previously, I'm rather anti-theistic.  Usually deism posits that god doesn't interfere in one's life, but if one is god, well it's self-evident one intereferes in one's life constantly, since we are ourselves. Indeed, that would make one omnipresent as well, since one can't escape or not be around oneself(though, side note here, since you said you know little about dissociation, the feeling that somehow I have escaped my body and am an outside observer of it, is a common symptom of dissociative disorders, and I have this symptom occasionally). And if we view the universe merely in the scope of what we are currently perceiving at that moment, we're also omniscient, in terms of that we know everything about the universe we have created from our senses at that moment. As we move around in the universe, our senses create more universe as we become aware of it.

@AlexOland

Just thought I'd mention I edited my comment directly above your most recent one. Might have edited it after you read it since you seemed to have commented nearly simultaneously as I finished editing, so you may need to re-read it to get my full meanings. I am done editing it, and if there's a mistake in it, I'll live with it now(that's my personal rule after someone has commented) and just correct it with a separate comment. 

@ethang5 ;

The difference between science and religion is the belief that is publicly shared. The only thing noticed is for one reason or another people tend to be reluctant to look at and connect many things by their basic principle.

As for Gravity and Isaac Newton, Newton continued work started by Galileo Galilei an Italian astronomer and father of science. Isaac Newton was also an avid astronomer. Gravity is a motion, Isaac Newton addressed laws of motion with mathematics those laws had been incomplete. Mathematically there is no such thing as a gravity wave the basic principle that scientifically questions this in mathematics is the wave is said moving making part of a law of motion itself. The mathematic proof set by law of motion states: For all motion there exists gravity, inertia and centrifugal force.

Newton from work stated by Galileo formulated a new form of calculus which gave humanity the idea of mathematic Time, a complex mathematical statement which was the foundation for the clock along with the sun dial, time calculus can also be used to set a volume of space and eliminate Pi in algebra equation held by the circumference by all circle. The fundamental human benefit of Time was for observation of stars at night and not the travel into the same area as the stars known as outer space. This part of the work was left for others who would follow Newton’s efforts in calculus.

The calculus created can be translated so it can be used in outer space, it has simple not be done yet.

@Sand

I honestly fail to see what religion brings on the table that science does not. Some people claim that religion provides a spiritual side which science lacks, but science features psychology full of powerful techniques that provide a more than adequate substitution for spirituality, and are, in fact, much more effective, due to having been derived scientifically.

Religion is simpler than science, so it may appeal to people due to being easy to get into - but I do not think this is a case where simplicity is the right choice.

@Sand

Well, first, moral laws can be good or bad. In some societies, for example, blood revenge is seen as an obvious moral law, and this law has a potential to trigger civil wars - and has in various societies on multiple occasions.

Second, religion is not necessary for morals to exist. I have my own moral compass, for example, and I am not religious. My moral compass is based on the idea of paramount individual sovereignty, which I see as a necessity for individual happiness, and I do not think a society built around this idea would be too bad - in fact, the US was founded around this very idea, just with some extras.

Why can science not be used to come up with a set of morals that would work well in a society? Why is religion required for that?