Debate Info

8

12

They disprove one or the other

They do not

Debate Score:	20
Arguments:	22
Total Votes:	20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

They disprove one or the other (8)

They do not (12)

Debate Creator

Pachino951 (91)

Is science and religion opposite in nature and disprove one or the other?

Of course there will exist a vital conflict between the ideas of both religion and science. Does one cross paths with the other and ultimately interfere in its beliefs, ideas, and validity. Or, are they separate by nature, should not be mixed, and do not disprove each other whatsoever. If you chose this, you should believe that an intellectual can believe in religion as well.

They disprove one or the other Side Score: 8		They do not Side Score: 12
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

No arguments found. Add one!

ChuckHades (3197)

1 point

Science is based on empiricism, and cannot disprove religion .

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

1 point

Illogical and logical don't work together. Illogical cannot disprove logical. Logical disproves illogical.

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Micmacmoc (2260) Disputed

1 point

Neither can dispute the other with irrefutable proof.

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

nummi (1432) Disputed

1 point

Are you saying illogical can disprove logical?

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Micmacmoc (2260) Disputed

1 point

No; I'm saying something fairly close to the opposite.

I am saying that one cannot wholly dispute the other. Science cannot disprove religion, and religion cannot disprove science. Not completely.

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

nummi (1432) Disputed

1 point

Not completely.

Religion must be taken as a whole, that means all parts of it. Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

Religion is created by humans, if some parts of it are made up then all of it is, if some parts of it are illogical and pointless then the whole thing is pointless.

Now science, that is something constantly changing and advancing. Unlike religion that may not change, dictated by its rules (talking about the most prominent ones).

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Micmacmoc (2260) Disputed

1 point

I didn't say anything about all of the different aspects of religion though, did I?

All I said was that one cannot wholly disprove the other. For example, science cannot disprove everything about religion beyond all reasonable doubt, and religion cannot disprove science in the same way.

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

nummi (1432) Disputed

1 point

Read this again... "Religion is created by humans, if some parts of it are made up then all of it is, if some parts of it are illogical and pointless then the whole thing is pointless.

Now science, that is something constantly changing and advancing. Unlike religion that may not change, dictated by its rules (talking about the most prominent ones)."

There might be some scenes that could be tested right now (like stoning children to death, to see if they'd actually die...), but I'm not talking about them and, in fact, they mean nothing as the basis of it all is already an illogical nonsense.

But a very powerful being thus far cannot be proven nor disproved (that being would not be a god).

I doubt you'll get it...

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Micmacmoc (2260) Disputed

1 point

I doubt you'll get it...

Well, as I have previously said in a blatant manner one cannot disprove the other. I said nothing about stoning children to death (stoning people to death isn't my idea of fun and doesn't fill me with joy) and I think you realise this: "but I'm not talking about them and, in fact, they mean nothing". Unless you can say that science can explain everything in the entirety of the universe, or that religion can too, then you are mistaken. Trying to prove it instead of talking about stoning children to death would probably be a better idea.

It is true, somewhat, that the existence of God cannot wholly be proven, however, that is irrelevant in the scheme in things. But science doesn't disprove all of religion, and religion hardly disproves any of science.

Meaning that one cannot completely disprove the other and they were not intended for that purpose. Neither can explain everything about all of the universe.

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

nummi (1432) Disputed

1 point

Unless you can say that science can explain everything in the entirety of the universe, or that religion can too, then you are mistaken.

Science cannot explain everything yet, assuming we will one day get that far. Religion explains a lot but pretty much all of it is fundamentally flawed and wrong, and you have to consider the fact that a religion is supposed to be followed wholly, not pick some parts you like and disregard those you don't (if you did just that then what would be the point of a religion?).

Trying to prove it instead of talking about stoning children to death would probably be a better idea.

When it comes to disproving religion, simple logic will do. But you don't seem to know anything about that.

Neither can explain everything about all of the universe.

That's because our science isn't that advanced. Religion can never explain everything. If religion explained everything it would not be religion, it would be science.

Not to mention religion is a "way of life". Science is simply knowledge about existence. Comparing those two is not exactly smart in the first place.

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Micmacmoc (2260) Clarified

1 point

No, science cannot explain everything yet - and it will never explain everything. Religion may sometimes be somewhat flawed, but it explains things science cannot.

Science cannot always be used to disprove religion. That's all I said.

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

nummi (1432) Disputed

1 point

Religion may sometimes be somewhat flawed, but it explains things science cannot.

Using pure fantasy for explaining things as if that is how it is is not smart. It's stupid. Just because you can come up with something does not make it real, especially if there is no evidence to back it up. All you can say is that it is a theory, an assumption, that it might be so but might as well not.

Religion does not explain anything, it only gives rather stupid excuses backed up by literally nothing but feelings and emotion and more fantasy.

Science cannot always be used to disprove religion.

Science is backed up by evidence, observation, logic, etc. Religion has none of it and religion is in contradiction to a lot of which science provides.

You're not getting religion. It's either all of it or none of it. When it comes to religion you don't choose some specific parts of it, you take the whole thing. What would be the purpose of a religion if you only chose the parts you liked? It's exactly the same as simply coming up with your own stupid opinions. Meaning disproving something fundamental about religion proves the whole thing as pointless nonsense. It doesn't matter whether some scenes or things are possible, the whole thing should not be taken seriously and should be completely disregarded.

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Micmacmoc (2260) Disputed

1 point

Nummi, why are you ignoring me?

Forget the likelihood of either science or religion, we are currently talking about how one can explain things that the other cannot. Religion, regardless of proof, can explain things that science could not dream of being capable to explain. It is true that science is advancing but it will not be able to explain everything about the universe always. Religion cannot do this either, but it can fill in the gaps if they are put together.

They have to work together.

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

nummi (1432) Disputed

1 point

double post...

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

nummi (1432) Disputed

1 point

Religion, regardless of proof, can explain things that science could not dream of being capable to explain.

As I said, coming up with fantasy does not make it real. You can explain everything but that does not make it real. To have an absolute explanation that also reflects reality you need proof. Religion explains a lot but all of it is flawed and wrong (as I also said, the whole thing or none of it).

It is true that science is advancing but it will not be able to explain everything about the universe always.

About our universe, if we were to live that long, it could explain everything.

Religion cannot do this either, but it can fill in the gaps if they are put together.

Religion cannot do and never will do it, neither does it fill any gaps. Religion is nonsense, all of it (talking about the most prominent ones). Filling gaps with nonsense is idiotic. All you can do is assume that it might be or might as well not be, in lack of proof.

They have to work together.

They don't have to and they do not. Religion has no place in telling what is real and what is not, science does that. Everyone can come up with all kinds of explanations, but they need actual proof to claim them real, otherwise they're just delusional. Religion will never have proof.

You are the one ignoring me. I'm simply correcting your flawed statements.

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Micmacmoc (2260) Disputed

1 point

Nummi, your close-mindedness is not an excuse for dismissing religion. As I have said, regardless of proof, they have to work together. Religion may lack some satisfying proof in certain areas, but that is not the issue and is not something that you should focus on. What I am saying is that science cannot explain everything. You may think it can, but I strongly doubt it - anyway that is another debate that I am not yet disposed to participate in right now. If they do not work together then what they can achieve is limited. Regardless of proof, one needs the other to explain everything about the universe. Could you explain everything about the universe with just one of the two? No, you cannot. The future is irrelevant because the debate is in the present tense.

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

nummi (1432) Disputed

1 point

You deny reality, yet I am close-minded? Okay.

As I have said, regardless of proof, they have to work together.

That's a delusion. In a scientific world, there is no room for fallacies like religion, other than proving them what they are - fallacies, nonsense, idiocy, delusions, etc.

They do not have to work together, neither can they. They basically oppose each other.

Religion may lack some satisfying proof in certain areas, but that is not the issue and is not something that you should focus on.

Satisfying in certain areas? In that case certain means "all".

I'm focusing on all of it. Religion is not something you take into pieces, you take it as a whole or you're a hypocrite.

What I am saying is that science cannot explain everything.

Because it isn't that advanced yet. Just because science cannot prove or explain something does not mean religion has it right. Religion is nonsense, it can never be right.

Science means knowledge, of existence, basically.

If they do not work together then what they can achieve is limited.

Science has only one limit - existence. Religion's limits are dictated by it's rules which are made up by humans, and those rules include not changing anything about religion. Religion by itself is already limited. Science, basically, is not limited. In this sense they are opposites and cannot work together.

Regardless of proof, one needs the other to explain everything about the universe.

To explain everything about our universe all you need is science and all you need to do is to allow its advancement.

Religion has already said everything it has to say, there's nothing more to it.

Could you explain everything about the universe with just one of the two? No, you cannot.

No, because science isn't that advanced yet. And religion is simply idiotic, it explains nothing that is in accordance with reality. And what religion does explain, science explains much better in much more detail, and also disproves religion.

Religion can never explain everything, even with science if science was that advanced. Religion and science do not, can not, and will not work together. To think they could is a delusion. Religion is literally worthless, it only has a negative influence.

The future is irrelevant because the debate is in the present tense.

What religion does explain in its flawed way, science explains much better in much more detail and in accordance with reality.

11 years ago Side: They disprove one or the other

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

1 point

Well technically if you think about it, Do we really KNOW anything in Science? How many things in science can we DEFINITIVELY prove? I mean we can theorize and speculate, but can we can't definitively prove it. We can adhere to a set of theory's that seems the most likely and probably, but that is about it.

Same thing goes for Religion. You can't PROVE it. You are just believing on faith something to be true.

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

1 point

Well what religion doesn't really have is tangible material. Scientific theories can't really be proved, I agree with you on that, but they can be demonstrated through logical reasoning. But yes, after all, how can we be so sure

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

1 point

I don't think they do actually. I think that some great scientists have worked on this, on theology and have explained the fact that they don't. Most of them were mathematicians, and theologists at the same time, the one I know most of is Blaise Pascal. He tried to write the Apologie de la foi chrétienne but could not finish it, we have les Pensées though, the "Thoughts", which are a bunch of essays he wrote before he died. He thinks men are endowed with reason, with logic, but that at some point, they're supposed to open up their heart and find God and the Truth. He thinks that those thoughts are the ones which define our humanity and that a man without a thought would be a stone or a bully.

Science is amazing and has truly questioned the existence of religion over the years, but I don't think it has the power religion can have, the divine promise of an afterlife, of happiness, of blessing. And I think that logical / illogical opposition is quite groundless.

11 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

PhxDemocrat (13121)

1 point

I think Science and Religion can get along with each other and both can learn from each other.

8 years ago Side: They do not

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

Browse More Debates