CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
How do you know that the evidence is true? Michael Crichton from the book state of fear in, or so I am told, an effort to debunk the myth of global warming. Also, what does it matter what 'WE' believe in? 'WE' probably share both a great deal of opinions and a great deal of adversity - though it is for neither of us to decide for the other.
The only way to really know whether some claim is true is to read up on it from reliable sources. If you're not willing to do that (and most people aren't), then you should just trust the consensus of experts, because they're the most likely to be right.
The only thing that concensus proves is that many people think the same way. Seeing the condition of the world right now, I think that that train of thought could use a change in direction! You can read religion all you want, some will say it's true, some will laugh at it.
Well obviously experts aren't right 100% of the time. But they're right more often than anyone else. They spend their whole lives studying their subject. It would be foolish to not take them seriously.
Also religion is different because it's based on faith. Science is based on evidence and facts.
You are taking evolution as faith. I've heard of so many 'missing links' in my life that all turned out to be hoaxes that I could not even keep a straight face when trying debating about it. The 'Piltdown man,' ever heard of him? The top scientists in their field said he was the missing link. A few decades later, the truth came out that it was a gorilla's head attached to a man's jaw (or vice-versa). If the Big Bang expanded all matter in the universe, how did it get there? Which is more likely: that matter would form out of nothing or, that a supernatural being always existed (i.e. Does not experience time). Perhaps, if you tell me this: have you ever watched Start Trek Deep Space Nine? The wormhole aliens do not experience time, and many episodes are used to convey the significance of that. They can take somebody from the wormhole and drop him off 1,000,000,000,000 years in the future, and they would not have even known that the day changed. They do not experience time, and the way that the writers went about displaying that was phenomenal.
Evolution is based on facts, not faith. The fact that you think it's based on faith tells me you don't understand it very well and that you need to do some reading. No, I've never heard of the "piltdown man", and I don't really give a crap about him. Some trivial little thing like that isn't anywhere near enough to cast doubt on the theory.
As for the Big Bang theory, all it states is that the universe is expanding and therefore it must have started from a single point. It says nothing about what, if anything, existed before that.
Science is a study, and unlike a religion or a superstition, if it is proven wrong, it changes and adapts. That means science is incapable of being incorrect indefinitely. So I believe in science.
This debate has nothing to do with religion. Just because I am religious I have to be an uneducated and supersticiouse? Are you that narrow minded!? Are you? Try, try a little harder.
Superstition is by definition "a belief or notion, not based on knowledge or reason." Religion fits that perfectly. So yes because you are religious you are superstitious.
And I found it really funny that you were exclaiming how wonderful science is, yet you don't believe in evolution.
I know that your church thinks there is a god. I know that your church thinks prayer allows you to communicate with god. I know that your church accepts the entire bible and the book of Mormon as fact. I know that your church believes in spirits and souls.
So unless you can explain to me how those beliefs are based upon knowledge and reason and not just faith, they are superstitions and you are superstitious.
And yes I did find it funny. I audibly laughed when I read what you said. I found it funny because you claim that science is so amazing, yet you don't believe in something that over 99% of all scientists agree is true just because it contradicts with your superstitions.
While it is being narrow minded to stereotype people, it is difficult to imagine a religious person supporting science considering how science is completely destroying just about every single religion by use of facts and experiments to combat the crap that religion makes up.
I think we should believe in science rather than superstition. If religion is included in the superstitious category then I'd have to go with religion because I do not believe religion falls into that category.
Religion does fit the dictionary definition of superstition.
1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Not all religion fits the definition then. Take Christianity, the following of jesus christ,who claims to be the son of God, who was an actual man killed for daring to call himself a king in a land that already had a king after speaking out against the government and gaining a huge following. (sounds a bit like early day John Lennon) Or the Buddist religion based on the teachings of the supreme buddah. I think that you will find that most of the respected religions are based more on fact than superstition but do use superstition as a way of control. Alot of the stories that are told in the bible are written similar to the way aboriginals write dreamtime stories. The stories aren't actually what happened but is a way of getting a person to understand another way of thinking about something. And I am sure any priest would definitely argue the fact that he might be ignorant after all the years of study and a lifes devotion to his church. Alot of these priests also believe in science and study their churches teachings through science also. Also alot of scientists who were known athiests have become strong christians after their findings, as have church men become athiests through their findings. And I dont think you can quite put the miracles out there as magic, the supernatural or chance. And it certainly isnt a practice resulting from ignorance or fear of the unknown, for as you would know, church teachings, bible studies, books, the bible, and those annoying door knockers will do anything to inform you on anything you want explained
Let's Christianity for example. Christianity claims that there are such things as talking snakes, virgin births, resurrections, men who can live inside of whales, and souls. These are all superstitions. Tell me how any one of these things is actually based on rational analysis and how many of them are based upon "faith." And yes it is often is a result of ignorance or fear of the unknown. Many people are religious because they are afraid of death, so they want reassurance they will live on.
Not all religion fits the definition then. Take Christianity, the following of jesus christ,who claims to be the son of God, who was an actual man killed for daring to call himself a king in a land that already had a king after speaking out against the government and gaining a huge following. (sounds a bit like early day John Lennon) Or the Buddist religion based on the teachings of the supreme buddah. I think that you will find that most of the respected religions are based more on fact than superstition but do use superstition as a way of control. Alot of the stories that are told in the bible are written similar to the way aboriginals write dreamtime stories. The stories aren't actually what happened but is a way of getting a person to understand another way of thinking about something. And I am sure any priest would definitely argue the fact that he might be ignorant after all the years of study and a lifes devotion to his church. Alot of these priests also believe in science and study their churches teachings through science also. Also alot of scientists who were known athiests have become strong christians after their findings, as have church men become athiests through their findings. And I dont think you can quite put the miracles out there as magic, the supernatural or chance. And it certainly isnt a practice resulting from ignorance or fear of the unknown, for as you would know, church teachings, bible studies, books, the bible, and those annoying door knockers will do anything to inform you on anything you want explained
Not all religion fits the definition then. Take Christianity, the following of jesus christ,who claims to be the son of God, who was an actual man killed for daring to call himself a king in a land that already had a king after speaking out against the government and gaining a huge following. (sounds a bit like early day John Lennon) Or the Buddist religion based on the teachings of the supreme buddah. I think that you will find that most of the respected religions are based more on fact than superstition but do use superstition as a way of control. Alot of the stories that are told in the bible are written similar to the way aboriginals write dreamtime stories. The stories aren't actually what happened but is a way of getting a person to understand another way of thinking about something. And I am sure any priest would definitely argue the fact that he might be ignorant after all the years of study and a lifes devotion to his church. Alot of these priests also believe in science and study their churches teachings through science also. Also alot of scientists who were known athiests have become strong christians after their findings, as have church men become athiests through their findings. And I dont think you can quite put the miracles out there as magic, the supernatural or chance. And it certainly isnt a practice resulting from ignorance or fear of the unknown, for as you would know, church teachings, bible studies, books, the bible, and those annoying door knockers will do anything to inform you on anything you want explained
Not all religion fits the definition then. Take Christianity, the following of jesus christ,who claims to be the son of God, who was an actual man killed for daring to call himself a king in a land that already had a king after speaking out against the government and gaining a huge following. (sounds a bit like early day John Lennon) Or the Buddist religion based on the teachings of the supreme buddah. I think that you will find that most of the respected religions are based more on fact than superstition but do use superstition as a way of control. Alot of the stories that are told in the bible are written similar to the way aboriginals write dreamtime stories. The stories aren't actually what happened but is a way of getting a person to understand another way of thinking about something. And I am sure any priest would definitely argue the fact that he might be ignorant after all the years of study and a lifes devotion to his church. Alot of these priests also believe in science and study their churches teachings through science also. Also alot of scientists who were known athiests have become strong christians after their findings, as have church men become athiests through their findings. And I dont think you can quite put the miracles out there as magic, the supernatural or chance. And it certainly isnt a practice resulting from ignorance or fear of the unknown, for as you would know, church teachings, bible studies, books, the bible, and those annoying door knockers will do anything to inform you on anything you want explained
I am sure any priest or teacher of any of the major religion, after their extensive studies, pilgrimages, and life long devotion would argue that they are ignorant men, most being extremely well learned in alot of things other than just religion. Nor do they try to keep their followers ignorant but will push their knowledge on you any chance they get. There is no talk of Magic as such in buddism, christianity or hinduism, and I dont think you could rate miracles, healings or visions as MAGIC or Chance or a false conception, nor are they supernatural. I dont think a god was forced on a people using superstion, but was offered to an already highly superstitious people as an allternative. And alot of scientists who looked to disclaim the bibles teachings have been converted by their findings, as have some religious men been turned away from the church based on their scientific findings. That is why it is still a debateable arguement.
"Nor do they try to keep their followers ignorant but will push their knowledge on you any chance they get."*
They do not teach knowledge to their followers. They teach them religion. The things they tell have never been proven and therefore are not knowledge. They make their followers more ignorant.
And it doesn't matter what you call it. Miracles, healing, and visions are superstitious how can you not see that? "trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation"
superstitions are those belief which doesn't has any reasoning rather science deals with reasoning n proof.There are some superstitions yet to be proved but maximum are been proven.
superstition is the belief which has no reasoning rather science has reasoning behind it and proofs.There are some superstitions that are not proved but maximum have been proved by science.
Science, although evidence can be manipulated and tampered with. Superstition is a form of mind control so should not be encouraged. However there is alot of truth in old wives tales
Science is mostly a set of rules determining what we can prove and so know.
I could argue that the sky is purple, but it's not true
I could also argue that it's blue, and that would be true.
But if we had lived in a tomb for a long time and had lost knowledge of it's color over many generations there would be no way to tell, and science would shun both ideas as indeterminable. Not necessarily true or false.
Speculation outside the region of what we can know and prove is pointless because guess what:
Science makes the most sense insofar as consistency and rational coherence and is based on observation.
Superstition is the primative brain making all sorts of assumptions about the nature of existence and the world around a person which are totally unsubstantiated.
Please note that I am not advocating for this side.
Believe: hold something as a truth.
It seems to me that society should not believe either subsection of this debate. Superstition is quite fool hardy and has no real backing. Believing in science, however, would be to completely ignore the true meaning of science. Science is never meant to create a unifying truth; it is meant as a means to compile ideas about the world around us. Truth, from what I understand science to be, is never obtained through scientific study. Physical laws and scientific theories are not facts; they are outstandingly supported hypotheses. Further, science is not a single, completely unifying field. Behavioral science is a subsection of science, and it is a portion that I think holds no full bearing on complete life.
To summarize my ideologies, we as individuals should not believe in anything; we should look at each thing that is presented to us with skepticism.
This question is easy to answer science or the Church. Well on one hand science is backed up on the other hand people have died for there god or gods. If people are so willing to DIE for what they believe in there must be something behind it. The Catholic Church have executed the illuminate a science group and what did they do the science fools went underground instead of fighting like men or Believers.
"the Catholic Church have executed the illuminate a science group and what did they do the science fools went underground instead of fighting like men or Believers" ???
1.What exactly do you mean by "believers"?
2. this last statement supports the view that we should believe in science since they are "so willing to DIE for it". following your train of thought, if so many of the science group "the illuminate" were killed, then "something was behind it".. and thus, we should believe in science. According to your own logic that is.
Personally I think we should believe in science because it is a fact. Period. Makes it much easier than trying to find the reason why someone has to be killed.
TRUTH should not require the shedding of something so precious as a life.
Uhhh... life started from abiogenesis, the Big Bang has nothing to do with it.
Big Bang = expansion of all the matter in the universe, not the creation of it. The Big Bang happened because all that matter was extremely hot, and so the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics took over.
Abiogenesis is how life 'started'. But how did the matter that caused the big bang come to exist? It's like the Renaissance-aera belief that earth was flat and rested atop a turtle, which in turn rested atop another turtle, which rested atop another turtle. When asked what was at the bottom, the so-called 'learned' would respond: 'Turtles all the way down.'
Yeah, I know that "Turtles all the way down story."
The matter that caused the big bang didn't "come" into existence. That matter has always existed. Matter can't be created or destroyed, and so it doesn't need a beginning.
But how did that matter come to exist? When we speak about time we think of it in our linear format. Without the act of a supernatural being, that linear format would have existed for infinity. Also, how could matter, if I believe you about that, have formed a human? How could gases turn into a life form, which in turn creates a more advanced lifeform - continuing to humanity? The eyes are to complex, not to mention the brain.
A child of five would understand this - Send someone to fetch a child of five!
Once again, matter didn't "come to exist," it has always existed.
As for time existing for infinity: Yes, time is infinite. There's no problem with that.
As for abiogenesis, it's a complicated field, and we don't understand fully how life came from non-life, but it's not much of a leap of faith to think "Hmmm... not-very-complicated thing turns into slightly-more-complicated-thing which turns into slightly-more-complicated-thing ad infinitum."
You silly, silly creationist, how are the eyes/brain too complex? Read a science book! Read "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins! Stop throwing your ignorance around and do some research!
As for a child of five understanding it... it's not so much understanding as it is misunderstanding, and the misunderstanding of a five year old hardly helps your argument.
Gas is 'not very complicated thing' it is nothing. It is not alive. It cannot spring into being a life which, in turn, will create a more complicated life. I do not misunderstand it - indeed, I believe that, while I do not know the intricacies of it, I do understand it - and what I understand makes no sense.
It is like the singularity. Some cyberneticists think that someday computers will be smart enough to create a smarter computer which shall in turn, create even smarter computers. It cannot happen - a computer is only the sum of its programming. It can be programmed to learn - it can see, smell, hear, feel - but, if it has no programming for a certain smell, it will know nothing and will be helpless in identifying it. It cannot become smarter than it was programmed, and it can not program something to be smarter than it is.
Also, what proof is there? I believe that I mentioned the Piltdown man? I'm quite certain that I've heard of others. Much of the so-called 'evidence' was later proven to be fabricated. And only time will tell if even more of the 'evidence' being uncovered today is in reality a lie.
Who are you to say that the mind is not complex? The human body is the most complex thing ever discovered - I've never heard anybody who did not think so.
'A child of five would understand this. Send somebody to fetch a child of five.' is a quote from Groucho Marx (a comedian from the 30s, in case you are to young to remember).
You are having faith in the scientists to give you accurate, yet by your own admission incomplete information. Humans, by nature, are flawed. They cannot be perfect, nor can they create a perfect theory. They are always influenced by bias - in Richard Dawkins case, by his atheism and dislike of the religious. I've heard-tell of numerous evolutionary scientists who abandoned their beliefs in their old age when they realized that they had been chasing ghosts.
P.S. I've attempted to keep this listing as unreligious as possible. When speaking with Christian relatives, I've always told them that one cannot use religion in an argument against somebody who does not believe it.
Listen, it sounds like your argument is, "something can't come from nothing, therefore God had to create everything." My question would be what created God? If you say God has always existed then why not skip an unnecessary step and say that the universe has always existed. If you say God a beginning, then why not skip a step and just say that the universe had a beginning.
My argument was that if there is no supernatural force, than time always was and always shall be linear. If there is a supernatural being, he is outside of time and thus never had a beginning.
Your not quite right. As Einstein showed with his theory of special relativity, time is not constant for all observers, and therefore does not always flow linearly. If time is viewed as a deminsion, then, at the begining of the universe, when everything (including the universe itself, and all deminsions and forces associated with it) was compacted into a singularity time too would have been compacted.
It's impossible to say what happened at the exact moment of the big bang, and in fact impossible to say if time even has a meaning during the very very early universe. Therefore we have two choices: we can continue to create theories and test those theories, or we can make up some bronze age creater and say "God did it."
Listen, I don't know too much about science (though I have read some things). What I do know are the following:
Genealogy
Linguistics
Mythology
Film History
History
Religion (many)
Criminology
Psychology
Writing
Philosophy
Ufology
Sociology
Anthropology
Logic
etc.
While I am not saying that I have an in-depth knowledge of each subject, it is my professional opinion (based on a combination of the aforesaid studies, and others yet to be named) that life could not have started with the mixing of some type of promordial ooze. It is not in the least bit logical to assume that life could have formed from two mixing gases. And until the process has been both proven and repeated in a labratory, I will not believe it. I've read about scientists revoking their beliefs about evolution after spending a life time trying to prove it. Why? Because they realized that there is nothing to prove. Ever heard of the Piltdown man?
Hahaha, what are you 5? Thanks for listing a number of areas that have nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You might want to go ahead and cross logic off the list.
You have confused abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution is the well validated theory that describes the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is the theory that explains how early primitive life could have been created from non living compounds, early in earth's formation. Abiogenesis does not say that life came about from the mixing of two gasses. If you want to see a video explaining the actual theory click here. Scientists are still not at all sure about how life formed back then, but they have produced in labs some of the necessary components for life by replicating the conditions that likely existed early on earth.
I'm curious to know which scientists you have heard of that revoked their belief in evolution. Any scientist that says they have a "belief" about evolution doesn't sound like a scientist at all, because evolution is not something to be believed. It has been observed numerous times in nature (clickhereforexamples). In addition the fossil record very clearly shows life moving from more general forms, to more complex and specialized forms. This is confirmed when we look at genetics. Those organisms with more recent common ancestors share more of the same genes, and the tree of life created from only looking at genetics is the same tree of life that one would construct if they only looked at morphology, or embryology, or the fossil record etc...
In other words, there is no "belief" necessary, and I think the examples you gave are probably dishonest one. In addition, there are many, many scientists who also believe in god, and some of the leading evolutionary biologists are Christians. Somehow you have come to believe the evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive, when this is clearly not the case. This belief has forced you to defend a creationist viewpoint, and attack evolutionary theory even though you know almost nothing about the latter.
As far as the piltdown man scandal that you are referring to, many scientists were skeptical about the find from the beginning, and one persons lie does not change the fact that there have been literally thousands of legitimate discoveries of early human ancestors, and at this point in time we understand in great detail how man evolved.
Let me end by saying that your "opinion" means nothing, so long as it is not backed up by facts and reason. If Albert Einstein himself told me that lemon juice cures blindness, I wouldn't listen to him because that isn't his area of expertise and he provided no proof. So don't waste your time listing areas that you know about when none of them pertain to the subject at hand, however, even if any of them did your arguments prove your ignorance on the subject of evolution, and science in general.
I have literally dozens of sources from years of browsing the subject.
I do not type as fast as I think, and that often causes a mix-up of my thoughts.
I do not know much about evolution. I have thought about it and read about it and have always, and always shall, consider it purely idiotic.
Also, as I have stated other times today, I do not trust scientists. I have little faith for any human bastard that walks the earth. When they claim that non-life turns into life - that's when I know they have 'flipped their top,' so to speak.
I have literally dozens of sources from years of browsing the subject.
Which subject? Evolution? Would you like to provide a couple of sources to back up some of your points, or at least give actual reasons why you hold the beliefs you do?
I do not know much about evolution. I have thought about it and read about it and have always, and always shall, consider it purely idiotic.
To say that you will always hold a certain opinion just makes you stubborn. Whether or not you want to accept something as true will not change the reality of that thing. If you can't give reasonable fact based arguments to back up your points, then I'm not sure what you're even doing on this site.
Also, as I have stated other times today, I do not trust scientists. I have little faith for any human bastard that walks the earth. When they claim that non-life turns into life - that's when I know they have 'flipped their top,' so to speak.
Right now you are reading this on a computer, in a room illuminated by light bulbs, powered by electricity that travels through power lines from a power plant that uses either coal, nuclear, or hydroelectric power. At some point this week you are likely to drive in an automobile that uses a combustion engine, or perhaps fly on a plane. If you get injured, you will take medicine developed at a pharmaceutical company by chemists, or tested by biologists. If you get very sick, you will go to the doctor and be treated by a doctor who has years of training in human biology, and they will probably use on you very advanced machines created by biomedical engineers. In fact, since the very day you were born in a hospital your entire existence has been completely dependent on the discoveries and innovations of science, and this will always be the case unless you leave civilization on foot and live in the woods by yourself. So regardless of what you want to say, or what you refuse to believe, you trust science and scientists with your very life.
Listen, I don't trust anybody. I use people as sources in my debates against people like you. That does not mean that I trust them. I only trust myself because I am the only person I can be sure doesn't have an agenda.
I told you, I trust nobody. Not even Michael Crichton.
People come up with all these weird sources and say whatever the hell they want. I do not trust one word of it. For the sake of argument, I will accept it - but I never trust it.
I am a fallibilist. Here is what wikipedia says about fallibilism:
Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible.
I never said I was certain about any of this...for all I know I could be a brain in a jar, with some mad scientist manipulating me into thinking that I have a body; however, I think it is much more probable that the universe, as I view it exists, and that everyone isn't trying to trick me.
There is a difference between having a philisophical view about knowledge and being silly about what is and isn't true.
I'm not silly about what is and isn't true. I believe that no knowledge can be 100% without a doubt verified. However, for the purpose of debate, I accept (some) knowledge.
If you want to know how life began, I suggest starting with the wikipedia enties for abiogenesis, evolution, and since you asked about the big bang, that as well.
What you think as superstitions are not superstitions. They are logical facts. When they are followed from the time of ramayan, who are you to say them superstitions.
when you don't know the logic behind them, you consider them superstitions but when you come to know about the logic you consider them as science.
What you think as superstitions are not superstitions. They are logical facts.
When something is logical fact, it is a science, when it is not, it is a form of superstition.
Superstition is the belief in things for which there is no evidence, and often in fact evidence to the contrary. For example, the belief that witches cause impotence with spells and curses is common across Africa. There is however no evidence in support of it, and in fact much evidence to support that impotence is caused by the body, not magic.
When they are followed from the time of ramayan, who are you to say them superstitions.
The flat earth was believed in and followed since before the time of the Ramayan, but it isn't true.
when you don't know the logic behind them, you consider them superstitions but when you come to know about the logic you consider them as science.
There is no logic behind most superstitions, and those which do rest on logic have an invalid premise, which is the point.
