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.
As for the question, science and religious belief are not mutually exclusive.
I disagree with this. Dawkins posts some good studies in The God Delusion which show the vast majority of senior scientists are not religious. They are opposing methodologies, which is why I argue they are not compatible. Science is belief based on evidence. Religion is belief based on lack of evidence.
Yes. Religion is more closely related to mythology than science. It's left over from when people could not understand natural happenings around them so a "god" was the only answer.
Today some say a hurricane is an "act of god" and a "miracle" is when that act of god puts one in a perilous position in that hurricane, and you are lucky enough to survive. "God" is the Coast Guard, the National Guard, even the Cajun Navy, etc. THEY grant the "miracles".
i wont compare science and religion because god is a belief and whether he exists or not is unknown but that belief in us instills hope but one must not be lost in these thoughts as they can turn harmful
Science doesn't "do" anything. It is simply the study of something. Examples? The science of women. The science of race car driving. The science of the human mind. The science of religion. The science of flight. The science of breeding dogs. Science isn't a thing. It can't produce anything. It's abstract like the number 2 or the letter A.
Science produced the computer you produced that falsehood on, bront! It produces life saving medicines every day, it lets us prepare for a hurricane because they can predict where it will hit! It develops the materials and engines that let us FLY! Religion produces WHAT?? Unprovable myths! (And places we can't find in the Universe or miles underground!)
....and you think science had nothing to do with the development of Doppler Radar?? You think Doppler Radar was a gift from GOD?? People create these things with their knowledge of SCIENCE, and with the materials SCIENCE has developed to make them possible! SCIENCE, LEARNED by people allows them to create these things! Go back to grammar school, apparently you missed something!
Nah, I don't think so, you HAVE to know better ... your brainwashing has taken hold of your senses. Use this as a wake-up call.
Your definition seems a little off the mark. While science is in fact an organized methodology used to study something, in this context the use of the term is broadly understood to refer to the body of knowledge science has generated rather than the methodology. As a body of knowledge, science can often be counter to religious beliefs. We are pitting accepted knowledge against accepted doctrine. This is a completely valid comparison.
Science does a lot, the fact that we are debating on this topic proves it does. Science was never meant to "produce" anything, it was made so that we can manipulate nature around us to fulfill our needs and understand nature better.
i believe that science and Christianity can co-exist and support each other when you look at scientific facts, and not made-up stuff to supress theism, they get along pretty well.
Definition of religion courtesy of merriam-webster
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
~~~
If we are to take "science" as being the scientific method, it is clear that science is actually a religion. A scientist who is not practicing the religion is hardly worth being called a scientist at all.
If we are to take "science" as being "the state of knowing"(definition courtesy merriam-webster), I would say that it is foolish to put too much stock into what you think you know.
Or as the famous wild haired wise guy once said, "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"
Science is not religion re - defining it as such does not change the fact that you're incorrect .
So science is defined now as '" the state of knowing " and that's it ?
Also it's foolish to place to much stock in what you think you know ?
Maybe you should stop doing it so ?
When quoting Einstein why do you take the part of the quote only to suit your agenda ?
He also stated in the same piece ...... This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world......
See that ..... human fantasy created gods in mans own image ... I agree and incidentally Einstein was an atheist
Science, that is, dutifully following the scientific method, is religion.
Explain to me how going through the scientific process isn't "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
The statement "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" is true independent of who said it. If its weight only came from the person who said it, it wouldn't be worth quoting.
As for you, your understanding of language is arbitrary because you are an atheist. You use whatever standards are convenient to your own personal aversions. If you cared about truth in the slightest, you would stop redefining language in order to make your superstitious thinking internally coherent and accept the authority of the dictionary.
The dictionary, I might add, is a source recognized as being neutral by just about anyone who isn't being deceptive.
No , it's not no matter how many times you say it .
Faith does not come into science , faith is belief without evidence which is the exact opposite of science , the quote is nonsense and you took it totally out of context .
To call me superstitious is a bit rich coming from a guy who believes in a super entity called god ;I told you before you're not qualified to talk about truths as you life path is avoidance of truths
Yes ,you like your dictionary definitions but how's that proof for a god ?
Lets be real. You haven't the faintest idea of what it is I believe. You aren't willing to learn because you think you already know.
I dispute your definition of faith. There is another definition you may not be aware of.
Courtesy of merriam-webster...
"something that is believed especially with strong conviction"
Evidence is something that leads to strong conviction. I believe that God is the ultimate reality. You think when I say that, I'm really saying "Everything you assume to know about god is the ultimate reality.".
I'm telling you exactly what the word means, but you aren't going to listen because you have embraced arbitrariness.
My avatar is Pepe the Frog. What do you think? Of course I'm trolling. I do not deny this, nor do I feel any shame from it. There is nothing wrong with trolling. You are disengenious. You can't claim to be an atheist and then at the same time claim to have standards.
Believe me, there is nothing you say that can get to me. I am thoroughly convinced that you are a loser. I can also tell you with sincerity that I don't care what you think. You deny the very spirit of truth, so I am not obligated to show you charity.
Believe me, I'm already convinced of your insanity. You think I don't know that you are trolling? You'll get no more food from me. Really, I don't have to talk to you anymore at all. By letting you say whatever you want, you already prove everything I'm saying correct.
You spend a long time typing a reply for someone who doesn't care proving you want me attention and approval , you're a coward a liar and a hypocrite and typically call yourself a ' Christian ' , seek medical help you cabbage
Science, that is, dutifully following the scientific method, is religion.
So you are in fact retarded? Science is the polar opposite of religion. Scientists measure things and then draw conclusions based on results. Theists draw conclusions and then look for measurements to support them, while simultaneously ignoring anything which contradicts their conclusions.
Why would that be necessary in order to debunk your claim that religion and science are the same thing? I don't need to be the one who defines language to point out that your language is wrong.
I'm using the dictionary, what are you using? Your personal feelings?
You can't debunk what I'm saying because you are wrong. That is why you have sunk to the level of calling me names. I assure you, it doesn't help your case.
Science over religion, mainly because it's foolhardy to object to that which we can directly observe (like the planets orbiting the sun) just because ancient religious documents told you something else.
But I want to emphasize that for the vast majority of people walking the planet these two things science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Most people accept the good which religion teaches and the good which science discovers and don't see why there is only value in an absolute of one over the other.
