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.
Science is an organized collection of theories, mathematical calculations, and world views that tries to relate everything to an order of existence.
Organized religion was created in order to explain the given religion to the people.
The physical sciences was created in order to explain the given science to the people.
"What happens to a society when the official cosmology, the official picture of the world, is literally incomprehensible to 99.9% of people?"
There are more Christians than Muslims. Christians beive in one narative, and the Muslim s believe in another. They each have their religious figure heads.
There are many people that belive in Global Warming and some that do not. They each have scientists on their their side supporting their chosen narative.
If there is a God, where did God come from?
If there was a Big Bang, where did the stuff for the Big Bang come from?
The doors of knowledge are jealously guarded by a "priesthood/scientists."
In so far as we can say that the premises of the scientific method are based upon belief and that the reliability of induction is an assumption, science might be considered a religion.
Religion has no evidence of any kind but they have magical rituals, song and mythology.
Science has no evidence for its premises, but they have behavioral rituals which guide their scientific inquiry, there's popular science, and theses about their cosmological views.
Science has its rituals, songs and mythology, the only difference between religion and science is their epistemological bases. Scientists believe in reproducible evidence, religion believes in revelation. The fact that you think that science is better simply means that you favor reproducible evidence over revelation. It doesn't evolve into an argument that science is better... That is, unless you can argue that reproducible evidence is better than revelation.
Evidence is open to interpretation. The Big Bang theory is one interpretation of the evidence. String theory is another. And there hasn't been a test to prove either one ;)
I think even Christopher Hitchens called religion our first (and he said therefore worst) attempt at the sciences. I tend to partially agree with him, although I see religion as something that is continuing to evolve, along with humanity. One's religion is like their core ideology. Their set of truths that are accepted as self-evident, their hierarchy of values, their "ruling logic" or (perhaps) their theology. There is a social element to religion, and group identities are formed through coercion and/or commonly accepted narratives.
Even though I tend to agree with the Einsteinian view that religion and science are "branches of the same tree", I don't think it's proper though to consider science as A religion. Science, in it's broadest sense, consists of the tests we devise to test the truth of propositions. Religion in it's broadest sense consists of the fundamental propositions we have accepted to be truthful.
My controversial view is that everyone practices their own somewhat unique variety of religion, and that everyone utilizes a scientific method more or less rigorously.
I can't really countenance the idea of science as a religion given the motives of the scientific community.
However, I will acknowledged that to the layman, it may as well be another religion. Lacking the educational background and general faculties to properly reproduce experiments, review the methods used in others experiments, and analyze the conclusions drawn from the experimental data, the layman who believes in either science or any given religion is really just choosing which group of men they place faith in.
So generally speaking, science is not a religion- but to certain individuals, it is.
Religion is usually based off superstitious beliefs, where as science to the investigation of knowledge and fact. Though I don't really have a concrete religion, but even if you could call science a religion, it wouldn't be anything like any other religion in the world.
Maybe if you read about string theory and relativity and all the weirdness that it all entails, you would start to see that science expects us to accept much that is only theory (not proven fact). Religion also asks us to accept much that they can't provide proof for.
Granted that science is much more sophisticated, but there are enough similarities between science and religion to make me take note. ;)
Maybe if you read about string theory and relativity and all the weirdness that it all entails, you would start to see that science expects us to accept much that is only theory (not proven fact).
Science doesn't expect us to accept anything, science expects you to accept the evidence it supplies or not, it expects you to accept valid theories, hypothesis's, facts etc, as what they are. I'm sure there are some scientists that don't accept string theory, there are some scientists that may not even accept the big bang, (there might be a new competing theory to compete with the big bang). These theories you are talking about, have reasoning as to why scientists came up with them, even if some aren't concrete, science doesn't expect you to accept it concretely. Scientists will look for alternatives and question the theories we have now, not accepting them blindly. Anyways my main point is this, religion is based upon superstitious beliefs and science is based investigation of knowledge and fact, even through a bit of speculation. There is a big difference to what science has to offer to our understanding of reality and what religion has.
OK, don't take the following as an argument against your argument. Consider it more of a non-rigorous explanation of an idea that is not fully fleshed out.
Except for radical Islam, the religions of the world do not expect you to join them (i.e., They don't expect you to accept their teachings. They don't kill you for not believing.). This is why we have so many different religions. Religion is based on the fact that something does not come from nothing. Religion then speculates that there's a God.
Science would have us believe that the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance (fractions of a second) expanded into a universe.
I say that religion and science have much in common and that they may even complement each other. I mean..., what if God is not a being but rather that thing that science has been theorizing about all this time? ;)
Except for radical Islam, the religions of the world do not expect you to join them (i.e., They don't expect you to accept their teachings. They don't kill you for not believing.). This is why we have so many different religions.
You mean when Christians tell me that they are trying to spread the word of god to convert people it is because of their mission that their religion supplies them is a lie? Missionaries are lies? that doesn't surprise me much cause it is religion ;P seriously though, you don't think their isn't a radical Christianity, trying to impede on science's progress because they feel threatened? I.E. creationism? you don't think that there wasn't times Christians killed due to failure to convert? I.E. the discovery of america? I will admit that radical Islam seems a bit worse than fundamentalist Christians, but that might be due to the different countries than religions. Religions DO expect you to join them, this is why there is such a stubborness to religion, this is why religion frowns down upon the non-believers, this is why religion threatens those that don't accept it. Sure religion has accommodated to the modern world better now, but the same elements are still their.
This is why we have so many different religions. Religion is based on the fact that something does not come from nothing. Religion then speculates that there's a God.
Which is argument from ignorance, also god doesn't make anything make any more sense, simpler yes, but it doesn't make more sense of reality. Where did god come from? nothing? so we're back at square one, trying to figure out how something came from nothing. What did that really explain?
Science would have us believe that the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance (fractions of a second) expanded into a universe.
Yes, and there is evidence to support this... what's the issue?
I say that religion and science have much in common and that they may even complement each other. I mean..., what if God is not a being but rather that thing that science has been theorizing about all this time? ;)
Religion will ONLY hold back science, but science will always help religion adapt to the new things we learn. You see it is a compromise, science doesn't gain anything from religion, religion gains something from science though.
See!?!?! You're already taking this way too seriously. ;)
If this "evidence" (that the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance expanded into a universe) is so strong, why are there scientists with a different interpretation? I mean..., just the mere fact that there exists different interpretations supported by "scientists" leads me to believe that it is nothing more than just a more rigorous analysis and interpretation of the data than "God." And the fact that "science" has been wrong before leads me to believe that "science" will be wrong again. One could argue that once science sees the errors of its ways, it changes to accommodate new evidence. But in the past, religion has seen the errors of its ways and it has made changes to accommodate the new evidence (i.e., the Earth is not the center of the universe).
In my mind, the statement that (the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance expanded into a universe) is just as fantastical as "God did it." Their mathematical calculations and the implications of the math is just the scientists' bible. Scientists are the priests of this new religion called science ;)
See!?!?! You're already taking this way too seriously. ;)
What's wrong with that? what if I think you aren't being serious enough? (I don't I like how you keep the mood around here lightened) but my reaction to this is send in a complaint and I'll throw it in the trash ;P
If this "evidence" (that the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance expanded into a universe) is so strong, why are there scientists with a different interpretation? I mean..., just the mere fact that there exists different interpretations supported by "scientists" leads me to believe that it is nothing more than just a more rigorous analysis and interpretation of the data than "God."
What different interpretations of the big bang? There is only ONE big bang theory.
And the fact that "science" has been wrong before leads me to believe that "science" will be wrong again.
Are you talking about science constantly changing? which do you think is more likely to be true, something that is always changing in accordance to new data, or something that is never changing?
But in the past, religion has seen the errors of its ways and it has made changes to accommodate the new evidence (i.e., the Earth is not the center of the universe).
Yeah after killing people that disagreed with them over the years, to this day we still have an issue with creationism.
In my mind, the statement that (the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance expanded into a universe) is just as fantastical as "God did it."
Maybe so, but the difference is we have evidence, those who say "god did it" don't. This is prejudice, something sounds to fantastical as you put it to believe. You probably think us atheists are at the same fault but at least for myself our skepticism is applied to everything equally, our judgement towards god has nothing to do how ridiculous it sounds, it has everything to do with how ridiculous it is.
Their mathematical calculations and the implications of the math is just the scientists' bible. Scientists are the priests of this new religion called science ;)
Except math has the goal of coming up with completely objective, logical truths. It is basically another language for expressing logic, a code so to speak, being improved to express logic the best way it can. The bible, is a book of fables, big difference.
One Big Bang theory but it happens to be in competition with other theories like string theory.
Religion has changed and will change again.
Hitler didn't come up with his Master Race Theory on his own. Eugenics played a major role. And he killed lots of people with that theory. To this day we have issues with that theory ;)
Phrenology was considered a science. Maybe decades from now, stuff that we consider science may be considered ridiculous. BTW, I am not a creationist. And you do not apply skepticism to everything equally. For example, you do not apply skepticism to science; which is exactly what I am doing. ;)
So if math hints at the existence of a God, then you would believe in a God? ;)
One Big Bang theory but it happens to be in competition with other theories like string theory.
However, all these theories have mathematics, and/or evidence behind it.
Religion has changed and will change again.
very slowly however, and usually every change goes with the believers kicking and screaming.
Hitler didn't come up with his Master Race Theory on his own. Eugenics played a major role. And he killed lots of people with that theory. To this day we have issues with that theory ;)
That isn't a scientific theory, as much as it is a really dark philosophy, but even though there is science behind it, of how it could be done (as there is with anything) the desire and the support of eugenics isn't scientific, science doesn't support whether we should or shouldn't go through with eugenics, just how eugenics work.
Phrenology was considered a science. Maybe decades from now, stuff that we consider science may be considered ridiculous.
This is where your lack of understanding of science comes in. Science is merely a discipline towards investigating the truth, science is to knowledge as martial arts is to combat. Science won't become ridiculous, we'll just find better ways to go about science. Science is to investigating knowledge as art is to creating things of appeal.
BTW, I am not a creationist.
I know.
And you do not apply skepticism to everything equally. For example, you do not apply skepticism to science; which is exactly what I am doing. ;)
You sortive do, science USES skepticism, whatever science comes out with, science requires you to be skeptical of to some degree. So yes, you do apply skepticism to science.
So if math hints at the existence of a God, then you would believe in a God? ;)
hints, maybe, maybe not, depends. If you mathematically prove there is a god, then yes I will believe actually. Until then I don't buy it.
I don't see anything wrong with it, if a scientific experiment produces a result, allow that result to be seen, but don't try to hide the fact that the result could only be done once which is a crucial consideration.
ahhh I don't know what I really stand on that I am more biased towards it, but I haven't investigated it much personally. I sometimes wonder if global warming that we have isn't something bigger part of our's earth nature.
Religion just evolves. Religion wasn't actually considered religion when it began. It was an explanation for the unknown. The planets, the clouds, the rain, etc. Religion was the logical option when science wasn't around. As people became more intelligent, religions became less far fetched. Now science is a big part of our lives and has a pretty successful reputation among society. Religion needs to evolve in order to remain prevalent.
What people fail to realize is that all religions had a common starting point. They have their roots in what is now ancient logic... however, people are gradually starting to realize this and the atheistic and agnostic population is increasing, but religion is power... and to remain powerful, they need to evolve. In my opinion, that is why this new pope is saying that atheists can get into Heaven. A few years ago, you would have never heard something like that coming from the pope... but the atheist population is increasing and the church realizes they need to evolve. What we'll likely see is a different interpretation of the Bible as time goes on, so that it remains relevant to society's current state.
I find it very unlikely that science will ever find the answer to "what comes after death?" and as long as that remains a mystery, religion will be around.
I agree with you one hundred percent, but even as religion does adapt, it is still logically incoherent and can't be completely sensible logically. As we evolve, I truly feel that even though religion adapted, we have no need for it anymore. Religion does not stand on any basis of truth, only unjustified conviction and belief, we will eventually leave it behind anyway as we evolve intellectually. I think it will just happen very, very slowly over time.
You mean in the same way that Greek and Roman polytheism died out? Most Christians would disagree, but Greco-Roman polytheism evolved into what is now Christianity. Judaism as well, but it has some other polytheistic roots which can also be found in Christianity as well as Islam. The Bible itself is clearly polytheistic in certain parts... but the religions evolved. Our modern day interpretations are most likely wrong. One example would be the Great Flood. Modern Christians interpret that passage as being a true story of how God sent a flood because of the sins of man. God sent it because his "sons" had gone down to Earth and mated with human-women. They had children with these women and created a population of Nephilim (giants), which was steadily increasing, so God wiped them out with a flood. That was believable back then, but not so much now... so that story evolved into how we interpret it today. Nobody even mentions what the Bible clearly says the flood was really for... giants with deity-blood!
You mean in the same way that Greek and Roman polytheism died out? Most Christians would disagree, but Greco-Roman polytheism evolved into what is now Christianity. Judaism as well, but it has some other polytheistic roots which can also be found in Christianity as well as Islam. The Bible itself is clearly polytheistic in certain parts... but the religions evolved. Our modern day interpretations are most likely wrong. One example would be the Great Flood. Modern Christians interpret that passage as being a true story of how God sent a flood because of the sins of man. God sent it because his "sons" had gone down to Earth and mated with human-women. They had children with these women and created a population of Nephilim (giants), which was steadily increasing, so God wiped them out with a flood. That was believable back in ancient times, but not so much now... so that story evolved into how we interpret it today. Nobody even mentions what the Bible clearly says the flood was really for... giants with deity-blood!
The religion can only evolve soooo much, eventually it will all stop making sense eventually. Not in the same way as any other religion, I hypothesize that religion has entered a new phase. You see religion prior to then, died along with their societies and civilization, back then religion didn't have access to the entire world, so when a civilization went down, a religion went down, parts of that religion would survive, and the religion itself would be accessed by outsiders, and each new religion would be a regurgitation of the prior but more evolved. Now religion's constitution will be much, much significantly stronger, as religions have been able to spread across the globe. If for any reason America was to be wiped out or we crumbled Christianity would survive. As we are entering "the global age" as I like to put it, religion does to. However I still think that religion, and the supernatural are flawed enough to eventually be left behind, not soon but eventually.
What if there is no God BUT there is a life after death? Science tells us that there are 11 dimensions. Maybe we end up in one of those. I mean, dimensions are so bizarre that it makes life after death sound plausible ;)
Like I said, as long as the afterlife question remains a mystery, religion will stay.
In Westernized countries, atheism/agnosticism is slowly increasing... but Christianity is still the fastest growing religion and it is definitely the largest. In South Korea, Christianity is growing. Islam is growing in Britain... but from my personal experience, I've been noticing a lot of people converting to Hinduism and Buddhism, which is kind of strange because Hinduism is older than Judaism and Buddhism is older than Christianity. It's almost like the West and the East are swapping religions.
Like I said, as long as the afterlife question remains a mystery, religion will stay.
I just don't think so, I think eventually we will see no need to believe in an afterlife anymore. I still think that religion will eventually be gone.
In Westernized countries, atheism/agnosticism is slowly increasing... but Christianity is still the fastest growing religion and it is definitely the largest. In South Korea, Christianity is growing. Islam is growing in Britain... but from my personal experience, I've been noticing a lot of people converting to Hinduism and Buddhism, which is kind of strange because Hinduism is older than Judaism and Buddhism is older than Christianity. It's almost like the West and the East are swapping religions.
Culturally the east has been intruiged by our spirituality as we have of them. Our media oftenly uses their spirituality, as theirs does of ours.
Religions that are thousands of years old are actually growing right now. If religion were to die out, it would take a very long time. What do you think will initiate the decline in religion?
If religion were to die out, it would take a very long time.
I know.
What do you think will initiate the decline in religion?
nothing, it is in religion's nature, religion has never made any sense, the beliefs that make up it's basis have never made any sense. Religion will decline, even as it evolves and adapts because I honestly think that we guaranteed to evolve (intellectually) beyond religion. Religion will try to keep up, sooner or later though, religion will be left behind.
Do you imagine that, someday, science will be knocked off the pedestal and something else will take its place? Will science ever become ancient logic ;)
Really? So we are so smart that we have perfected the tools necessary to gain knowledge? There is nothing besides math? That is pretty arrogant..., especially when you consider our track record. ;)
I think science grows in a different way than religion. Different scientific techniques will become outdated, but science will evolve just as religion will. I think science is responsible for the evolution of religion though.
That's what you get when you try to mix politics with science- corruption. If they abandoned their political/religious motives and talked it through on a purely scientific level, they would reach the same conclusion.
