CreateDebate


Debate Info

30
34
Yes No
Debate Score:64
Arguments:58
Total Votes:66
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (24)
 
 No (31)

Debate Creator

Atheistman(24) pic



Does science only support atheism and not religion?

Yes

Side Score: 30
VS.

No

Side Score: 34

Religion cannot be verified by empiricism. Science is based on empiricism. Therefore, religion cannot be verified by science.

Side: Yes
Axmeister(4325) Disputed
1 point

If my definition of empiricism is correct it means the following:

"Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."

At which case, does that mean science doesn't support evolution or the Big Bang Theory since we haven't experienced them?

Side: No
ChuckHades(3198) Disputed
2 points

Er, we have experienced them. Both evolution and the big bang theory have been observed, measured, and verified. The same is not true of religion.

Side: Yes
BlueShaman(3) Disputed
1 point

a) We have observed evolution, directly, and we have observed many of the earmarks [directly] of the big bang

b) If not immediately 'experienced', they can still be empirically tested via the scientific method. Religion cannot be, and is thus rejected, at least on a basis of scientific rigor.

Side: Yes
1 point

Religion is 100% made up, that is fact.

Side: Yes
Cynical(1946) Disputed
1 point

Such a closed-minded comment...

Side: No
Axmeister(4325) Disputed
1 point

Why is it that a majority of atheists are this stupid?

Side: No
1 point

They're not. 'Atheistman' is a troll account attempting to make atheists look like idiots.

Side: No
ryuukyuzo(605) Disputed
1 point

Actually, many religions draw upon well documented historical facts. They just place it alongside a bunch of other nonsense, is all.

Side: No
1 point

1. Science shows, via evolution, that species were neither made intact nor are they immutable, as indicated in religion's Bible.

2. Science shows that beings are complex, taking billions of years to form, so a Being cannot be the basis of all, as First.

3. Science finds no evidence at all of anything extra-, beyond-, or supernatural, and that is against a Being who is supposed to be everywhere, doing everything. Only the natural is seen, high and low, and near and far. Planets are not seen to suddenly stop and freeze in their orbits, for example..

Side: Yes
1 point

Science and religion are very nearly the same thing, in that both are an attempt to understand the world around us. The only difference is that we use the word "religion" to refer to those beliefs that we stubbornly continue to believe in long after science has found other explanations for. Religion, therefore, is necessarily not supported by science.

Side: Yes

Currently, science doesn't make any sort of predictions on God's existence. Why would it, science is the pursuit of knowledge by utilization of the scientific method.

For those that don't know this states that one:

1 Develops a hypothesis.

2 Devises a set of experiments to validate the hypothesis.

3 Records all data and sends it for independent peer review

4 Brings together all known data supporting the hypothesis

5 Develop a theory that can make predictions of future outcomes.

One can develop a hypothesis that God exists, but can't develop any experiments to record data to support it, so the trail ends there.

One can develop a hypothesis that God does not exist, look at all the relevant claims that are made to his power and then use empiricism to provide natural explanations for the phenomena, something akin to this has happened, indirectly, with the discoveries of Natural Selection, Relativity, Quantum mechanics and String Theory, the conclusions of which negate the God hypothesis at least on the scale of what is knowable now.

Atheism posits that a God doesn't exist, but to be honest religious beliefs are more of a scale, akin to the Kinsey scale of sexuality with polarised options at both ends, to describe people as agnostic is not sufficient, and anti-theist is a practice more than a belief system. Ignosticism seems on the face of it the most valid position to hold and is only giving a name to what most Atheists hold true.

Given that everything scientific is based on some assumption, as Kurt Godel thought us, there is a point at which the biggest assumption has to made.

We can only get closer to the truth, but Occam's razor precludes the God hypothesis at this stage. I'd rather be a spherical earth theorist that a flat earth theorist, though in essence we are both wrong, one is invariably closer to the truth than the other.

Side: Yes
2 points

Science doesn't support either. Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence for God, but at the same time that doesn't disprove God. While it's rational to be an atheist, science has only taken us as far as agnosticism at this point (and it's pretty much impossible to go past that point).

Side: No
youngidealis(50) Disputed
3 points

Actually, Science supports the atheist position (doesn't prove, only supports) by the evidence that we don't see a deity or a sign of some form of spiritual essence where we would expect to find such things. The lack of evidence can sometimes be evidence if evidence would be expected to be there. The majority of theological claims would suggest that there would be at least some objective evidence to support them, but there are none.

Side: Yes
ryuukyuzo(605) Disputed
2 points

Absense of evidense is not evidense of absense. It's rational to conclude that there is no God given the lack of evidense, but logic still supports the agnostic's position alone. It's unfortunate, but unless we find to way to measure all of reality and come up godless, there is always the possibility that God exists. I don't think this possibility is likely, but I can't deny its existence.

Side: No
liqy(1) Clarified
2 points

"The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others" -Bertrand Russell

Side: Yes
Baud2Bits(6) Clarified
1 point

The scientific method [ and simple logic] demolishes the holy books by proving that they are not the inerrant words of any being.

Once inerrancy is disproven, the book becomes irrelevant in any argument for the existence of a god.

The book is the only evidence for the existence of the god.

Therefore science can be used to disprove the evidence for the existence of the god.

Which means that anyone who proclaims the existence of any god must provide evidence outside their holy books.

Side: Yes
NivaZimel(135) Disputed
1 point

The book is only one evidence for a god.

The whole of creation is the visible evidence, since mankind did not create it himself. The evidence is that it was created by somebody way more intelligent (since man's designs copy nature in many things), and powerful (man can only create tiny bits of matter from energy in particle accelerators) as opposed to the whole of the universe.

Man knows how the universe was created--from energy--but the simple existence of the universe we did not create is evidence of a god, an intelligent and unseen higher power than we ourselves. To believe anything else is "inexcusable" and illogical

Side: Yes
BlueShaman(3) Disputed
1 point

While you are correct, for the purpose of scientific rigor, a claim without evidence should be immediately dismissed if untestable.

'Science' doesn't make a decision on, for example, the existence of God, but for the purpose of scientific endeavours, it would never be assumed that there was.

Side: No
1 point

That's why I say it's rational to be an atheist, even if it's not verifiable by science. If God is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable then even if he exists, his existence means nothing to us as our lives won't be affected by it.

Side: No
1 point

No, science is just the endevour to find out more. it is in human nature. it and religion may cross paths, but science's soul purpose is not to contradict it...

Side: No
1 point

Lack of evidence does not prove something to not exist. Up until 1492, the Americas had not been encountered by Europeans. But they still existed at the time.

Side: No
1 point

Its also worth nothing that until the mid-twentieth century science had not discovered the universe had a beginning, something the Bible had claimed for many centuries before.

Side: No
1 point

Nah!!! cummon people science has got hardly anything to do with any of em!!! I mean its neither supportin nor is it opposing! coz religious stuffs are all about one's believes maybe, they are not a part of one's rational self.

Side: No
1 point

It's not concerned with religious debate.

Science is about a demonstrable method that is concerned with the inner workings of things, what is fact, law, scientific theory, plausible, observation, etc.

It's comparing apples and oranges in a fruit platter where sometimes a bit of orange or apple extract leaks onto other opposing orange or apple.

(Vote up for my 5 word onomatopoeia?!)

Side: No

Science looks to quantify and qualify data that it can rationally explain. Neither atheism or religion can be scientifically proven or justified. I think the God of the Bible is horse shit, because the story doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean that there's not something out there that is God. I also find atheist to be just as arrogant and dogmatic as Bible thumpers. They want to take their belief and convince you that they're right.

Side: No

Science supports Wiccan practices and other religions that use meditation to focus energy because this energy is called bioelectricity and it can be mentally controlled.

Side: No
1 point

We can use Quantum Mechanics when considering the existence and nature of God, so science doesn't only support atheism but religion as well.

Side: No
0 points

No, in fact atheism can undermine science. For example, atheism teaches that science is the only logical option when considering explanations to life and its origins, on the basis that faith is required to be blind because it is not provable. However, there is a fatal flaw in this system. Science assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe. If this assumption is not made, it would be impossible to draw conclusions. But there is no current evidence for the rational intelligibility of the universe, making science require faith at its very outset!

Likewise, science is very incomplete. There are numerous gaps that can be exposed through a child's simple ponderings: "Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existence?" In this way, science is not able to support atheism.

Side: No
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
2 points

For example, atheism teaches that science is the only logical option when considering explanations to life and its origins, on the basis that faith is required to be blind because it is not provable.

No it doesn't. Atheism only preaches that there is no God. That does not mean it's 'pro-science' in any way. It just happens that many of the atheists of the world are also pro-science.

And by the way, nothing's provable, not really. It's all about the amount of faith you are willing to put into something. For example, there's no conclusive will be working tomorrow morning. I have faith that it won't. So in the morning I shall not put a chain on my leg before I walk outside. That's faith. There's just a big distinction between blind faith & reasonable faith.

Science assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe.

No, reasoning assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe. As I previously said, you put faith into everything you do. Without reason, we quite literally cannot make any sort of conclusion on anything in the world. So everyone assumes some things (as I said before), in everything they do. So I would not say this is an irrational assumption.

If this assumption is not made, it would be impossible to draw conclusions. But there is no current evidence for the rational intelligibility of the universe, making science require faith at its very outset!

As I said, science does require faith. However, if you want to become a complete skepticist, or a solipsist, or something similar, then you are very free to do so, but do not imply that science is irrational.

Likewise, science is very incomplete. There are numerous gaps that can be exposed through a child's simple ponderings: "Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existence?" In this way, science is not able to support atheism.

Ah, the God of the Gaps fallacy. I would pay very little attention to any claims at absolute proof, rational human learning requires that which is learnt to be dynamic, because, as I've said before, we should put our 'faith' in the most reasonable assumption, which can always change due to changes in evidence. So science will never be 'complete' (although you're talking more about philosophical questions, so it's somewhat irrelevant).

Side: Yes
2 points

Oops! You beat me to the punch. Glad you pointed out that all reasoning starts with assumptions.

Side: Yes
Troy8(2431) Disputed
1 point

No it doesn't. Atheism only preaches that there is no God. That does not mean it's 'pro-science' in any way. It just happens that many of the atheists of the world are also pro-science.

Alright, I'll revise my phrase to: Most atheists think that science is the only logical option when considering explanations to life and its origins, on the basis that faith is required to be blind because it is not provable.

And by the way, nothing's provable, not really. It's all about the amount of faith you are willing to put into something. For example, there's no conclusive will be working tomorrow morning. I have faith that it won't. So in the morning I shall not put a chain on my leg before I walk outside. That's faith. There's just a big distinction between blind faith & reasonable faith.

Well of course anything happening in the future cannot be proven yet. That is completely irrelevant. What you're referring to as 'reasonable' faith is not really faith by definition. In your example, you may not be aware of it, but there are many things that already point to the instance of you not working tomorrow morning. Events that happened today could bring about an increased possibility of this, making your prediction more credible.

No, reasoning assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe. As I previously said, you put faith into everything you do. Without reason, we quite literally cannot make any sort of conclusion on anything in the world. So everyone assumes some things (as I said before), in everything they do. So I would not say this is an irrational assumption.

If you put faith into everything you do, why is a faith in God then considered so irrational? If its only a conclusion based on an assumption and if assumptions are always made in some cases, why?

As I said, science does require faith. However, if you want to become a complete skepticist, or a solipsist, or something similar, then you are very free to do so, but do not imply that science is irrational.

I'm by no means implying science is irrational, I'm simply contesting that if atheists avoid faith in favor of logic, isn't science flawed similarly to religion in that regard?

Ah, the God of the Gaps fallacy. I would pay very little attention to any claims at absolute proof, rational human learning requires that which is learnt to be dynamic, because, as I've said before, we should put our 'faith' in the most reasonable assumption, which can always change due to changes in evidence. So science will never be 'complete' (although you're talking more about philosophical questions, so it's somewhat irrelevant).

But what makes assumptions reasonable? Is it really faith if you believe in something 'reasonable'? If evidence can be changed, what makes it credible in the first place?

Side: No
ravenwaen(12) Disputed
1 point

Atheism doesn't "teach" anything, especially not glorifying science. It is a rejection of theism, nothing more.

You say that "there is no evidence for the rational intelligibility for the universe"... Um, what? Yes, the universe is capable of being rationally understood, we do it every day. We can observe patterns, test hypotheses, and manipulate matter to get the result we want. There is no faith here.

The incompleteness of science is not a flaw, nor does it detract from it supporting atheism. You don't need to have an answer for everything in order to dispute a religion. Questions like "What is the meaning of life?" are irrelevant. Science doesn't support atheism by providing existentialist answers -- it supports atheism factually by showing that there is no evidence to support religious ideas.

Side: Yes
Troy8(2431) Disputed
1 point

Atheism doesn't "teach" anything, especially not glorifying science. It is a rejection of theism, nothing more.

Well I could have stated that more accurately. I am really just referring to what the majority of individual atheists think, not necessarily atheism as an idea.

You say that "there is no evidence for the rational intelligibility for the universe"... Um, what? Yes, the universe is capable of being rationally understood, we do it every day. We can observe patterns, test hypotheses, and manipulate matter to get the result we want. There is no faith here.

This is not understanding the universe. What about everything that does not contain patterns? Not all hypotheses can be tested. Manipulating matter can by no means prove the rational intelligibility of the universe.

The incompleteness of science is not a flaw, nor does it detract from it supporting atheism. You don't need to have an answer for everything in order to dispute a religion. Questions like "What is the meaning of life?" are irrelevant. Science doesn't support atheism by providing existentialist answers -- it supports atheism factually by showing that there is no evidence to support religious ideas.

How is it not a flaw? Until How can you dispute someone's answer to a question if you have no answer of your own? That's just cynicism. "What is the meaning of life?" is about as relevant a question as there can be to this conversation.

Side: No