The Instigator
qopel
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Is Science Compatible with Religion?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Citrakayah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,999 times Debate No: 30747
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (81)
Votes (4)

 

qopel

Con

No Bible verses
No new arguments in later rounds
No semantics

There are many people who claim that science and religion can co-exist. Science is based of facts that can be proven, while religion is based on faith.
An Atheist doesn"t have to accept science to be an Atheist. An Atheists doesn"t
even have to know a thing about science. You can be an Atheist by just not believing in God.
Science can"t prove there is no God, but science can prove things in the Bible are false.
Science has given us answers that directly contradict what the Bible claims. A
good example would be the story of Adam and Eve. The Bible claims Adam was created from a pile of dirt, and then, for some reason, God needed a body part, like a rib, in order to create Eve.
Evolution is a proven fact. It"s not "just a theory" as many falsely claim it is. A scientific theory, as opposed to the layman"s definition of a theory, is the highest form of proof that science has to offer. The entire fossil record that can be measured with various forms of radiometric dating, along with DNA and other scientific evidence, overwhelmingly proves that humans did evolve from lower life forms. Either it was a pile of dirt, or a long process of evolution. Only one of those has been proven true.
It doesn"t matter what people blindly believe. It matters how they think. Free
thinking Atheists don"t try to make people "believe" in science. They want others to consider the evidence for themselves.
Many falsely claim that science is a belief. Science isn't something you need faith
for. Every scientific theory is based on overwhelming, demonstrable, peer reviewed evidence that can be proven with experiments that can be re-created over and over again.
If anyone wants evidence for any scientific theory, it can be obtained. People
are not expected to read science books and blindly believe what they say, like the Bible. Most anything in a science book can be proven with experiments or a math equation.
The use of logical fallacies, and claiming science isn't true, will hinder a person
from being able to learn about what is really true.
It"s one thing to use God as an answer for things that we don"t have answers to,
yet. However, Creationists will insist that the Earth is no older than 6,000 years
old, that man lived with dinosaurs and that evolution is a hoax. Some will even go
as far as to suggest the Devil planted fossils in order to trick scientists!
Those who ignore the scientific evidence in order to continue to believe what
the Bible claims, without evidence, are being ignorant.
Citrakayah

Pro

My thanks to qopel for presenting this debate.

I would like to begin by noting the following:
  1. It is by definition impossible to test for the existence of any omnipowerful entity. Such an entity, if it did not want to be found, could merely alter your test data. Ergo, omnipowerful entities cannot be falsified.
  2. There is no scientific theory that states that omnipowerful entities cannot exist. We merely have excellent reason to think that life, the universe, et cetera arose without their intervention, and no reason to think that they actually have intervened at any time.
  3. Science does not have to affirm something to be compatible with it. For instance, science cannot make arguments as to the objective beauty of something, only as to whether or not we find it beautiful. But the concept of objective beauty is not incompatible with science.

Now, this enough would be sufficient to reject Con's argument, but I shall go further: The belief in an omnipowerful entity is not necessary for religion. For instance, I know animists, and animism is a religious worldview[1]. Shinto, meanwhile, is an animistic religious tradition where one of the creator gods ends up dying, and the other one fails to revive her successfully[2].

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Con

1 and 2 just prove that a God can not be proven to not exist.

That has nothing to do with compatibility.

My opponent's claim that "Science does not have to affirm something to be compatible with it"
Is true and his example proved it.

I will call myself a complete idiot when it comes to this topic, since I failed to consider
all religions. I might have had a better chance if the debate was about Christian religions, only.

I'll congratulate my opponent on a well thought out and executed response.
Citrakayah

Pro

Given that this leaves us with another round, how about we post funny cat pictures for round three?
Debate Round No. 2
Citrakayah

Pro

Unfortunately, I had technical problems when posting such pictures, and because I am a lazy bum I do not wish to go through the trouble of uploading them to an album.
Debate Round No. 3
81 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kris_barb 4 years ago
Kris_barb
You both arent making any sense at all. Religion is belief of the start of the universe?? So is science. Genie is claiming a peace index?? There is no proof or disproven case about the existence of god. What we have is proof of science coinciding with religion as stated in my previous responses.
Evolution as stated by Charles Darwin, (I presume is your resource) claimed in his last days of dying as 'speaking with god' not to mention throughout all of his studies he claims it's a theory and if there were facts to arise later on past his death (due to better testing equipment) then his theories could be disproved.
Now I'm not claiming there is a god or that Darwin was wrong.
What am saying is you clearly both are heading off on a tangent.
That is check and mate. Anything else would be ignorant to the fact of the matter being facts of the concision exist. The rest of your 'debate' is 'hearsay' and theoretical and has nothing to do with the question presented.
That's the end of the matter.
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
Yes, yes it is, religion is the belief of a beginning in our universe. Atheismo
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
2009 Global Peace Index.....Clearly shows a link between non violence and non theism.

Check and Mate "Morally superior and righteous b-i-t-c-h-e-s"
Posted by atheismo 4 years ago
atheismo
no it isnt, religion is about believing without evidence, science does not hing but give evidence for things religion can't.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Know it or not, they still aren't compatible with each other.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
However, we do about evolution. That is as factual as the rotation of the earth. What we dont know, is ultimate origins, before evolution.

Evolution is what happened after the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang is impossible to know for sure right now.

However, denying evolution wont make a god anymore real.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
kris, you are very profund with this statement here:

"Nobody knows or ever will know"...Did you get that from Captain Obvious? It sounds like something he would say :)

You are right, nobody knows. So lets all say I dont know and roll up our sleeves and keep looking.

Religion says, "you guys keep looking, we're done, we know that a slave supporting sexist made the trees and everything, it says in my holy binky book that the reason for everyhting is concerned with what I do naked"

If there is something more divisive, childish and unnecessary to mankind in the 21st Century than religion, it has Not been invented yet :0
Posted by Kris_barb 4 years ago
Kris_barb
Posted by qopel 4 hours ago
Either Man came from a pile of sand or he evolved. Those two concepts are not compatible with each other.

*^^^* for the record
Not true. Nobody knows or ever will know. We could of came from a trillion different events leading to our existence. Remember reality is a perception perceived only by the single persons reality. The only truth you will ever know, is knowing you will never know
Posted by Kris_barb 4 years ago
Kris_barb
My apologies genie. I tip my hat to you.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
I will report this if the name calling and abuse doesn't stop.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
qopelCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources-Pro Arguments-Concession Conduct - Concession (I tend to award conduct for concessions because it takes a certain degree of humility, one I would have thought impossible in the case of qopel)
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
qopelCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, though his position would be no stronger against the Christian religion (since modern science has Christianity to thank for existing).
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
qopelCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Con forgot "religion" did not imply a traditional God.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
qopelCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit