The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 Points

Is there a fundamental rift between religion and science?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,969 times Debate No: 35200
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (4)




Science has gradually come to replace Christianity as the " religion" of America. While it can be tempting to dismantle religion altogether and deem it useless to " logic" , I disagree because I think religion and science can coexist peacefully. Both religion and science are ways to explain nature in order to better our lives. Perhaps back in the old days religion was once upon a time used to explain natural phenomenons. Over the years, however, religion has taken a very different kind of role in society. It now seeks to explain not the physical nature that surrounds us, but the human nature. What is our purpose of being? What is our identity? What are our beliefs? Those are all important questions we ask ourselves on a daily basis, and they are fundamentally religious.
WHat I am about to say may upset a lot of people, but here it goes : Atheists( which we can generally assume believes in science) and religious fundamentalists are fundamentally similar. You can see them as almost two dogmatic people worshipping two different religious to the core. One side argues that religion must be followed because it is the word of god while the other argues that religion cannot exist because it is against the word of science. The two types of people( essentially the people stirring up all the debate on religion vs. science) both read to their " religions" quite literally and tolerated very little areas for difference.
Is there a fundamental rift between religion and science? I would say no. One seeks to explain the physical world and the other seeks to explain the mental world, which is a whole other dimension, but just as complex. In the ideal 21th century, these two would not butt heads. However, what two sides of the extremes make of religion and science, made them seem like natural enemies.


I accept

First, what is baffling about my opponents assertions is how science is the physical while religion is more mental, this simply isn't true when one considers psychology, where the mental realm and the sciences meets. Furthermore, as noted in one of his debates, Sam Harris does a marvelous job of displaying the differences between science and religion:

“Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain -- from cosmology to psychology to economics -- has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.”
R13; Sam Harris

(see video)

So long as it is true, as Harris notes, we don't have a problem with it, in fact for science it's even more exciting if we do not know. However, via neurology, we do know. The logic doesn't match up. And there simply exists no proof for god in the sciences, whereas religion relies mostly on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Case and point, religion = take at face value without critical analysis, call it "faith" yet no empirical proof
science = empirical proof, tests for validity, assumes nothing, and rejects faith based arguments.

There is indeed a fundamental difference between the two

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, I would like to clarify my previous statement regarding science being concerned with the physical world and religion being concerned with the mental world. I understand that this sentence can be perceived as saying science deals ONLY with physical phenomenons and religion deals specifically with psychological issues, but that was not my intention at all. Allow me to restate my statement : Science is primarily concerned with the perception of the world by making inferences and proving/disproving your hypothesis whether if the issue is MENTAL(as in psychology, which is a very important and legit field of SCIENCE) or physical( like physics) whereas religion deals with your spiritual being( purpose of life, identity, morals...etc) and other things that is personal to you and satisfies one on a spiritual level which science cannot explain. How do you identify yourself? WHat do you hope to see in yourself? Those are fundamentally religious thoughts, though the person him/herself may not be entirely /at all religious. This is the stuff that religion deals with .
Second of all, how one perceives the world is a very subjective thing. Of course, if you were to read LITERALLY from ONLY the Koran or the Bible , and then do a compare and contrast with the scientific feats accomplished today, science wins, hands down. THere would not even be a need for this argument in the first place. Yet we are looking into more then that. Be aware that the Koran and the Bible were written by PEOPLE long long time ago with limited knowledge of the world around them, and so not all things in the Bible and the Koran should be taken literally in today's standards. The value presented in those two books such as the advocate for philanthropy and mutual respect of one human being to another, however, prevails even in cultures all over the world today. Ethics, morality, and spiritual satisfaction( that cannot be satisfied by dopamine overdose) are the things science cannot explain.
With all due respect, I believe my opponent is arguing his stance the same way a religious fundamentalist would read his/her holly book, by literally following and reading into every little detail. I believe that is a superficial way of looking at the two. While it is true that if considered scientifically, religion would be a bunch of mumbo jumbo. However, religion does not ultimately seek to explain nature, but rather our spiritual being which is fundamental to our happiness.

Thank you.


Physical Versus Mental:
Thank you for the clarification, however, this does not change a thing. The fact of the matter is that every single religion has one trait in common: faith. Faith by definition is to literally believe in something in the absence of evidence, or in some cases (such as evolution) to ignore evidence outright. Science does not allow this to happen. It relies on the ability to empirically establish facts (or in other words, using the senses try to establish what is true or untrue by observation) showing a distinct seperation between science and religion. I say again, in which my opponent completely drops: religion=empirical data, tested, shown, proven. Religion = faith, unproven.

Spiritual Being:
Spiritual being is not scientific at all. There is simply no evidence for a soul, or any devine individual at all in which spiritualism seems to require. In fact, spiritualism has it's roots in a number of religions, such as Christiantity, Shikism, etc... And it seems to be pseudo-scientific by the fact that believers of spiritualism literally cherry-pick their ideology. Now to my opponents questions, how does one identify themselves? What hope do you see in yourself? Those are NOT religious thoughts, but rather psychological ones. Which again, can be empirically noted through neuropsychology. Something religion cannot do.

In actuality from the case of Perry V Schwarzenneger, it was found that Christian reform camps for homosexuals do not work. [] In psychology, we have in fact found that homosexuality is indeed normal, and an unchoosable occurance. This is one distinct way in which science and religion have butted heads. [youtube]/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

My opponent states: "Be aware that the Koran and the Bible were written by PEOPLE long long time ago with limited knowledge of the world around them, and so not all things in the Bible and the Koran should be taken literally in today's standards."

So then what can we take as literal and not? Again, this is exactly what I mean't when I noted the cherry-picking attributes spiritualism employs for it's justification.

He goes on:

"The value presented in those two books such as the advocate for philanthropy and mutual respect of one human being to another, however, prevails even in cultures all over the world today. Ethics, morality, and spiritual satisfaction( that cannot be satisfied by dopamine overdose) are the things science cannot explain."

But there remains several issues; I cannot accept --nor should the audience -- that by arguing this we consent to the idea that those religions are peaceful. That's a subject of much debate themselves, now I do not have much time to unpack this, but Christianity made huge apologies for the stuff they put people through throughout the centuries and even to this day ( Islam advocates killing Rushdie for exercising his freedom of speech along with a Danish satirist (, and

Secondly, ethics, morality was a philosophical notion, not a religious one.In fact the bible rips off Confucius' golden rule and claim it was Jesus of N. who used it....despite Con. living in Aincent China 400 years before Christ. Furthermore, Sam Harris in his own research also noted that ethics and morality can be scientifically validated.
He also notes this with spiritualism, but excludes deism and wishes to use only scientific data to examine (meditation for example) the effects of those acts on psychology of the person and self-awareness.

Finally, religion does not seek to spread happiness. It spread to impose control under one man who claimed to act on behalf of God. My opponent also concedes here by claiming religion is a bunch of crap due to science, which by his own admission shows he himself believes there is a clear difference between religion and science offically meeting my BOP.

Religions sure didn't make slaves, women, Galalaeo, or atheists happy ..

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you all, this has been a very productive debate.
My opponent argued that religions are dependent on blind faith whereas science the exact opposite. I, however, believe he is focusing on the wrong aspect of religion. I have mentioned it before, and I will say it again, religious books were written by people long long time ago and the events in the book may not necessarily apply to the situation we have today. The core principles, however, such as that of ethics and morality and the things that make our society a stable and peaceful and respectful one, remain the same. Ever wonder why the core ethics argued by people thousands of years ago still stand in today's society and believed even by many atheists?
While it is true that the science TODAY had not yet found a way to prove the existence of spiritual beings, it has not found a way to disprove it either. What humans know is so limited. People back in the middle ages can likewise argue against the existence of virus because it cannot be proven, but really, it is their limited abilities in SCIENCE at their time that prevented such statement to be proven.
When I say spiritual being, I meant one's self identification. The things that one asks him/herself that are fundamentally religious such as " who am I?" and " why do I exist on Earth?". Of course what each individual feels about this issue is highly subjective and therefore" unscientific" , however, one cannot deny that is an important question that we all face at one point/if not multiple points of our lives. THese are things that cannot be PROVEN scientifically. Can you prove that inhumane testing on animals is immoral? NO. To say that issue is immoral is an ethical and therefore religious thing.
My opponent also brought up a valid point to say if he shouldn't take everything religious books have said literally, how should he know what to and what not to believe ? That is an excellent question and also the point that many atheists have brought up over the century. My answer would be that he and many others should do some in-depth reading. Instead of blindly following what the Bible has said, think deeply as to the reason why the events are so. My opponent argued that by doing so is " cherry-picking" without realizing what he is doing can be perceived as " nit-picking". Religion was meant to make one a better person. It is a series of teaching. If perceived literally on an event-based sort of thinking, people from the 21th century today can find numerous things wrong with the Bible or the Koran. However ,a lot of the values demonstrated there stands true today. Not taking everything literally is not cherry-picking, but my opponent is arguing so without realizing that by calling it so, he is taking things too literally, and therefore nit-picking. My opponent was also wrong to argue that christianity was at fault for bringing wars and conflict to human kind. Religion was not at fault, it was the PEOPLE, who used religion to justify their own selfish means , that should be at the blame. Religion itself fundamentally does more harm than good. I would also like to bring attention to Buddhism, a religion my opponent has been quite ignorant of that preaches peace at its core. Buddhism is extremely tolerant of other religions and there has not been a war being waged in the name of Buddhism.
Religion is fundamental to all major philosophies we know today . Confusious, I believe, was influenced by Buddhism. Religion seeks to spread teachings on ethics. IT does not always seek to press down and impose. THAT, is something my opponent was not aware of.
Finally, I would like to clarify again that NOT everything in the religious books were meant to be taken literally. If so, we would not even be having this debate. It is the FUNDAMENTAL VALUES ideals that prevailed even to modern day that should be taken seriously. I am not saying that religion is a bunch of crap in the face of science, but if taken literally on an event-based conception, it can be. Religion has also motivated plenty of people to do plenty of good things that they otherwise would not have though of doing.

Thank you.



I've already answered this, we agree it was people who came up with morality, but that does not show the signifigance of religion at all. As a matter of fact, this shows that religion committs plagurism and should be erradicated as a result if anything. The principals they espouce were theft (see Confucius and Jesus argument in previous round) of the highest degree. Atheists do not use morality because religion says so, but rather because this was something great Greek thinkers came up with before christianity was even around.

Actually during that time they could clearly see the effects of a virus dependant upon the symptoms of the disease they had, and that remains the same today... even then this is rrelevant.


Spirituality is more a set of beliefs, I say it again, the self-identity stuff is psychological, not spiritual. Psych is a science, which my opponent essentially furthers my argument here. And subjectivity can also be a science in psychology.
Also, again I noted Sam Harris having the ability to use science in his book to empirically determine morality. (See above)


My opponent simply beggs the question here. I don't have to "look deeply" for my answers, the books state what they state, and while their times may have been different, the issue is science has shown us the errors of the bible, Quran, etc... for instance, the Gay reformation camps (my opponent never replies here) which religion values hetersexuals and harmfully try to force it down gay peoples throats. It doesn't work, and one example -- Kirk Murphy -- committed suicide because of it.

The Bible also calls for slavery, genocide (rapture), rape, torture, etc... Today, we value none of this. My opponent later commits a "No True Scotsman" by claiming it wasn't religion but people, but those people read the same thing I did and it does advocate for death, destruction, and tyranny.

Furthermore, Buddhists are one of the most violent religions ever; they just so happened to have lost their last war in the 1930's resulting in them lacking an army now. have been several wars, and civil conflicts (2008 anyone? or Buddhists themselves) launched in the name of buddhism.

Confucius' religion is a subject of debate, but he was spiritual. Big difference, however, even then correlation is not causation, his philosophy of ethics dealt with the human interactions via secularism (the golden rule!)

And religions blood-drentched past clearly shows they know nothing of ethics. They were not to spread ethics, but fear for worship.

Religion is the opiate of the people, Sicence, as Neil Degrass Tyson points out is true regardless of if you believe in it or not. That's the main difference, and no, religion does not make a fundamental element to philosophy, again, that's human interaction, not religion, ethics was around longer than religion...

Thank You!
Debate Round No. 3


With all due respect to my opponent, for he has demonstrated great critical thinking and analysis, I urge him to read through my argument very carefully. It seemed to me that he may have skipped some details in my previous arguments.
Ethics and morality, the fundamental bricks of every great society in the world, are based upon religion. Every society today that was once an empire or at least an enduring culture had a religion that was responsible and fundemental for many of its values. For many western nations it was Christianity, for those in the middle-east it could be Islam, and for those in Asia it could be Buddhism. Buddhism obviously came before Confuscious, and many of Confucius' ideas are congruent and derived from the religion.
It probably has not occurred to my opponent, that greek philosophers did not come up with the great philosophies on their own, but rather from their own culture, which is heavily influenced by their own religion. Here would like to point out again to my opponent that CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM ARE NOT THE ONLY RELIGION EVER TO HAVE GREAT IMPACT ON HUMANITY.

Despite the fact that people of the middle ages can clearly see the effects of virus dependent on symptoms, they do not know it was the virus that actually accounted for the various diseases because their technology did not enable them to actually see a virus. My argument was that the same may have applied to religion today. Perhaps it was our very own limitations in science that prevented us from seeing what we would call " spiritual matters" just like the limitations in science back in the middle ages prevented the people back then to be aware of the existence of virus, despite the miseries it had caused them.

Anyways, as stated, a lot of the fundamental ideas we have today occurred because of various religions( NOT JUST CHRISTIANITY OR KORAN). I disagree with my opponent that self-identity is all philosophical . The great philosophers my opponent have stated ( and whom I assume he esteemed) came up with philosophies regarding their very own identity after years and years of careful though affected by the their respective contemporary time periods which IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY RELIGION. You are not simply born with answers regarding your identity.

In conclusion, I would like to state once again that religion and science deal with a different set of well-being. Science ensures our physical well-being by exploring physical phenomena, whereas religion deals with a mental(spiritual- though not the type that my opponent thought, but rather self-identity and ethics). It is true that many sins have been committed in the name of religion or by religious groups, but it is not the religion"s fault, but rather what people choose to do with that religion. IS money the root of all evils? No.Greed, selfishness, and a closed mindset are culprits to much of the violence and heartache society experiences today.


Alright .. let's go back ..

Re: Morality

I've already answered this, this was never based on religion. The earliest known ethics philosophers (the study of morality by very definition .. apriori) were the Greeks, who where surprisingly secular society. Mainly, Socrates, and Aristotle. They were never based on religion, again as I showed with Jesus ripping off Confusius. My opponent wuold have to give a direct quote on Socrates and Aristotle outright admitting morality is based on religion to reverse my BOP. He has not. He has in fact committed a post hoc fallacy here. Even if I do grant that religion is older than morality (which for the record I do not) it doesn't mean religion is the basis (or cause if one permits) of morality. Not even close.

Re: Spiritualism/Virus:

We are not limited by our sciences today for proof of "spiritual matters" because there is simply no proof of God, or any form of spiritual correctness empirically speaking. Furthermore, this is backed up by the so-called "God-particle" and the 4-dimention space theory, and due to the B-theory of time (particles always exist) coupled with the law of conservation of mass (energy is never created nor destroyed)

In short, Quantum physics has already shown us that a God is simply unplausabile, dismissing any sort of "spiritualism" along with it (as spirituality is a religious institution) My opponent must employ conformational bias just to justify his view here, and is selectively trying to show a comparison between now and then between the sciences and religion. Problem is, he actually gave me my argument. He himself admits that religion and sciences are still mis-matched, and do not exist peacefully, rather science is taking over and winning. As science cures diseases, religion couldn't do, showing a fundamental difference.

Re: Self Identity:

I stated very clearly that self-identity is psychological not philosophical. (See here: Indeed, this is not religious or spiritual at all, this is scientific. Otherwise, my opponent would have to show how negative self-esteem for instance was a spiritual issue and not a mental one. He cannot, and even if he could he'd violate the scientific method (as it would be unfalsafiable and thus constitute a weak argument due to circular reasoning) My opponent simply rejects my argument on a bare assertion fallacy and continues to assert his own point of view. Objectively, and with all due respect to my opponent, this is simply wrong. Furthermore, my opponent seems to believe in the "blank slate theory" which is philosophical not religious theory of the mind and the congnitive processes a child goes through when born, again, not spiritual!

Re: Conclusion:

By my opponents own admission a "different set of well-beings" clearly shows that I have met my BOP at proving the fundamental idea of religion has been dismissed in todays world. For instance, slavery is no longer tolerated, and has been void of all justification in the scientific world, yet all religions at one point or another have justifed slavery themselves. Furthermore, evolution is another great example, espescially the monkey scopes trial showing the fundamental differences between religion and sciences, espescially in the classroom. They cannot co-exist peacefully, because religion is illogical, scientifically unsound, and empirically destoryed.

My opponent ends his argument with a rationalization fallacy; that it was not the religions fault someone else misinterpreted their works, however I shall quote several passages showing this is false, and gthat the Bible does call for murder:

- John 5:16, 7:1, and 7:13, all of which hate on Jews, and the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah which clearly was an attack on homosexuality

--Anti-semitism only stopped in 1964 as an offical doctrine by Christians

" Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)

" You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

" Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."(Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20)


Science is fundamentally different from religion. Without question. The things that religion provides, science can provide and do far better at providing it. Again, most of what my opponent asserts is psychological which is a science, and morality was around before religion. as philosophy. The fundamental difference lies in history (Monkey Scopes Trial), logically (falsification method, evidence versus faith) and morally (again faith versus empirically)

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4


As we are approaching round 5 and this is my last say on this subject in this debate, I would like to thank all participants for contributing to this debate. I thank my opponent as well and I really enjoyed the intensity thorough this discussion.

Christianity, if existent, would supposedly exist before Confucius. Also be aware that I am not saying that Socrates , Aristotle , or other great greek philosopher derived their ideologies from their religion. However, I am saying that they derived at least partially(without their consciously knowing perhaps)of their theories from the culture they live in, which IS heavily influenced by religious rituals. If one were to compare the greatest philosophers in the world, such as Confucius to Aristotle, one would soon observe their ideas, though similar in some parts, is heavily influenced by the culture they inhibit in. Confucius's philosophies are obviously more orientated towards Buddhism( I encourage my opponent to compare those two)than lets say Aristotle.
My opponent does acknowledge a point that I may have overlooked, however, regarding religion and morality. He could be right in a sense to say the innate morality does not necessarily derive from religion. However, he would be wrong to assume that morality was not affected by religion. Religion still heavily influences the morale of a society in ways that is not negligible to atheists and religious people alike. Each of the great cultures in the world is built upon a great faith (at least once upon a time ago), and that in terms builds the ethics and morality of much of our society today. This affects everybody, atheists and religious people alike. THAT, my opponent appeared to be blindsided of.

I would like to state again that just because science could not proof something at the present moment, doesn"t mean that thing is total mumbo jumbo. Although looking back, I see this part of the debate as slightly digressing from the original topic of discussion, I will answer this argument because I was apart of it during the last few rounds of debate.
Back in the middle ages, people would have thought you were speaking rubbish if you told me the reason for their sickness was virus and not the devil tormenting their souls. They could argue, as they probably would have if someone were to raise such a challenge to their beliefs at that time similarly as you raised a challenge to my statement - " It cannot be proven scientifically"(not to say that they would, but you can argue similarly either way)My point being, just because the science right now does not support supernatural does not ABSOLUTELY close all doors.

Self Identity
As stated in my previous statement in this debate, I do acknowledge now that innate morality( and I will now add self-identity) could be psychological. However, that doesn"t mean society and environment does not play a huge role in self-identification. Quite the opposite, actually. And since every great society existent today is based( at least awhile ago and perhaps now still) on a great religion. Religion is undeniably the fundamentals of all those great societies and therefore form the environment that shapes us all, religious or not. My opponent is wrong to simply reject that influence. Even the great philosophers are influenced by their environments, which are often times religious. The Greeks, although famous for their secular governance, still has a society where religion is very fundamental and important. That, has lasting influences on the people of that time.

Re: Conclusion
My opponent must have misunderstood my previous statement as to " a different set of well-beings". No way did I mean religious fundamentalism has been dismissed in today"s society , they do very much exist.
Every early civilization, religious or not, have justified slavery at one point. Even some human traffickers today( who are very much non-religious) have done bad, it has very little to do with whatever preach or religion . Their rationality( which my opponent so very much advocates)tells them that to traffic humans will earn them the biggest profits. Some traffickers have done it for their whole lives. Religion"s fault? Actually not. As stated previously, religion, like money, is a a set of undeniable power. Is power bad in nature? No.It is how the human choose to do with that power, that makes the real difference. He or she can use this power for the good, or he/she can use this power to benefit themselves by justifying wars and such.
For the last part of my opponent"s argument I will say again( though my opponent might find this redundant)that those of us in the modern world would have to be the judge as to what part of religion is justified and what part is not. Religion DOES form the fundamental values of many great societies, however, those books were written by people long before us and those people may have put in their own thoughts and opinions into their writing. At the end of the day, one would have to believe that religion is very important just as science is very important.
My opponent is again very ignorant as to most parts of the Bible/Koran/whatever example he chose to pick out the little phrases that were obsolete in today"s views. He, however, never seemed to be aware that most religions had good intentions. THere are numerous phrases in the Bible or the Koran or Buddhist scripts that have said good things about humanity and proper conduct that we still consider important today. If my opponent chooses to knit-pick, I suppose there is no way to convince him of otherwise. I do not mean to be offensive here, but as stated before, he is acting exactly as religious fundamentalists would. Humans were given the power to think for a reason, not just for pointing out obvious mishaps here and there, but also to distinguish what is valuable from what is not. Religion clearly does offer something valuable within their teachings.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. If we were to compare science and religion literally, science would win, hands down. No question about that. However, that is not what religion is all about. Religion, ultimately, is a mental system that was born with good, healthy intentions.
Many people today may have thought that they have outsmarted religion just because not every little fact of religion coincide with science today. However, that would be a superficial way of looking at things. One should use his/her knowledge of modern world to enhance the truth from the bad, not tarnish something altogether just because a few wrong facts. Many christians today believe in evolution and gay rights. Not all religious people are religious fundamentalists.
My Conclusion states again that I personally view Religion and Science as separate subjects that focuses on a different set of well-being. Science cannot replace religion(As there are things that even science cannot prove such as ethics of society. I am not saying that the existence of ethics cannot be scientifically proven, however, I am saying that the outcome of human ethics cannot be scientifically foresaw or hypothesized. Which if I remember clearly, is also an important of the scientific method), and religion cannot replace science. Yet at the end of the day, they are both explanations for how are our world came to be.


Thank you to the audience taking the time to read this debate.


My opponent simply ignores the fact that I noted correlation is not causation, and tries to add more premises into his argument to justify his point. Problem is, is that even partially an influenced ideology on the basis of religion cannot be proven, as I already noted that correlation is not causation, this argument is now irrelevant. Morality was founded on the basis of rational men, not on religion.

Furthermore, I never claimed that morality wasn't impacted by religion; indeed it seems that's not the case and I agree here, but my opponent made the bold assertion that morality was founded on the principals of religion, which is simply not true as I pointed out. In fact one can be perfectly moral and be without a religion, we call them atheists/agnostics.

Finally, my opponent asserts again that great cultures were founded on religion, which is untrue. The US is an excellent example of this, in which was founded on the basis of secularism and atheism, not the values of a religion.


My opponent simply committs an appeal to tradition, science was responsibile for this "head-butting" due to the fact that spiritualism claims to cure those people with the bubonic plague for example, but never really did, science on the other hand actually did. Science has cured small pox, yellow-fever, etc... Spiritualism has never cured anything, furthering my point that science and spiritualism are not compatable. This does close all doors, you cannot have a cure for small-pox when you believe that indeed it isn't small pox as observable, but the devil torturing someone as my opponent asserts.


My opponent simply claims that religion had a lasting influence on others, but never actually shows how or where within their works that it was influencial. This is simply a bare assertion fallacy as again correlation is not causation. Furthermore, as I have shown, while some people may choose to no doubt identify as a christian or a muslim for example, that is only a small part of identification of the self, in which the whole encompassing psychology is a basis of science. Science has shown, espescially through quantum physics how God is no doubt highly unlikely through the 4 dimensions of space, and B-theory of time.


My opponent clearly misunderstood my argument, the fact remains that in the eyes of compelling evidence, instead of stopping something like slavery on the basis of a lack of evidence for any other difference other than skin tone, it tried to justify it on grounds of gaining more followers to justify it's practice. Today, all scientists agree there is no difference between a black man and a white one. This was just one example that they butt heads. In fact the Pope even apologizes for this, and to Galaelao, for prosecuting him as well despite his evidence showing that science was right versus religion.

Clearly, religion and science are not interchangeable, they do not exsit together as science has shown us versus the doctrines of religion.

"My opponent is again very ignorant as to most parts of the Bible/Koran/whatever example he chose to pick out the little phrases that were obsolete in today"s views" <---this is uncalled for, yet ironically proves my point even further, the doctrines religion preeched didn't follow what science said, nor what it continues today to say.

Finally, my opponent states: "I have said it before, and I will say it again. If we were to compare science and religion literally, science would win, hands down. No question about that. However, that is not what religion is all about. Religion, ultimately, is a mental system that was born with good, healthy intentions."

First, I ask that this be a concession that science and religion are different, and cannot be together. Secondly, I also pointed out, that that mental system is NOT religion as my opponent pointed out earlier, but that of psychology.

My opponent then concludes that they both explain how the world came to be, which is a characteristic of both of them, but does not mean that they can live together peacefully, indeed this is not the case, as science is based on empirical fact whereas religion is on faith. As scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it "That's the joy about science, even if you don't believe in it, it's still true!" And furthermore, about morality, my opponent completely missed the point I had about science and morals being together, this was shown earlier through the public intellect and neuroscientist Sam Harris.

With this being pointed out. I ask that everyone vote for me :)

Fallacies of arguments, flawed logic, I think I have given the audience enough justification to vote for me.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
And there is the totally insecure narcissistic blowhard we have come to expect of devient.genie, where he shows lack of understanding and support for other people's beliefs and claims to be smarter than billions of people around the world.
Listen devient.genie, have no qualms with you. If you hate religion, that's fine. But as you said in our debate, don't cram it down people's throats. This little argument can be solved with a little reasoning on both parts. You won't see me throwing a Bible at you, and you don't have to keep picking on people for their beliefs. But if you really wish to continue, I am prepared.
Peter 3:15 " Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
Oz, Theres the frustration we were looking for little boy. Let it out. Show the world what happens when the shield of humility that you wear is kicked aside and the soft intellect of the religitard is exposed :)

DUH 3:5--Maybe instead of being born again, people should just grow up :)

DeathGames 22:2--Take your son, your only son isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you." (genesis 22:2)

I love people who are willing to kill their children. Willing to kill your child is awesome, it totally proves love :)

DevientGenie 3:45--Religion is a crime against human intelligence. The Genie is a Vigilante against such criminal activity :)
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
'Cause F*** you, that's why.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
Why are weeds here?
Posted by ItsOnlyMe 3 years ago
Why are humans here??? Because the weeds need the carbon dioxide....
Posted by ItsOnlyMe 3 years ago
Too bad we cannot ask Galieo, or Giodano Bruno,or Copernicus.....
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
Ok moron, why are humans here?

I say, lets keep asking questions, lets continue looking for answers, lets roll up our sleeves and see what evidence we have.

Religion says, why question lifes origins, what are you looking for, just ask us we are the religitards and we know for a fact that the reason the universe is even here is because a slave supporting sexist interested in infanticide, violent abortion, and rubbing poop in peoples faces did it.

leviticus 25:44-46

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

1 corinthians 14:34-35
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

hosea 13:16

The people of samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their god.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open

malachi 2:2-3

2 If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name," says the lord almighty, "I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.

3 "Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it.

Your Love in Poop,

The Morality Master

Yet the only evidence for this extraordinary claim is an old collection of filthy writings.

Well played :)
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
You know, I'm just about getting sick of your bull(S)(H)(I)(T). How about we have a little debate you and I? See what the rest of the people think instead of having a petty argument on the comment section where it will just be back and forth the whole time. Unless you're to chicken to back up your disclaimer with hard evidence. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well, extraordinary disclaimers require extraordinary evidence as well."
Now, onto what you said before.
What are you talking about with the education? I can barely understand what you are putting. Do you even look a your typing?
Homosexual marriage has been legalized, or so I hear, but that is not necessarily religions fault that it took a while. I know plenty of atheistic people who don't like gay people.
Who you calling lowly? I had no idea that insult was still being used, or was ever used. "OOH you're lowly." Wow, what a blast from the past. Next, I would also like REAL examples of religious leaders blocking Stem cell research. I'm sure there are, but what? What are they going to do? Does the fact that they don't like it stop scientists from developing this stuff? What, do we have mental powers that physically stop the progression of something if we don't like it? Grow up dude.
All you said about the Bible, that is its name, is that the morals are crap. Can you give an example? Please, beside the marks against homosexuality and marriage, which I already addressed, please by all means. Give me a specific example.
Hard evidence. Yes you do to need hard evidence. You are making these claims against religion and have backed it up with nothing but profanity. Get a life.
If you are so intelligent as you claim, I expect to see you on the battlefield of words, (B)(I)(T)(C)(H). I'll keep a thing open for you. Everyone else, tune in.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
Lies = telling children that the reason for the universe is an admittedly jealous freak who flooded the whole planet and drown his own children, or that they will face eternal damnation for doing something bad. It is weak for a grown adult to brainwash fear into a child :)

Interfere in education = states in 2013 that want to teach creationism alongside verifiable facts and evidence of evolution is school. We might as well teach them the stork theory alongside sex ed, idiots. You ever heard of Louisiana or Tennessee or those other states where family reunions are a great place to find a (f)(u)(c)(k) buddy?

Denying equal rights = Not allowing humans that are born with biological differences in sexuality the same rights in marriage. Only 12 states have grown up out of 50. Epigenetics, getcha some :)

Stem cell research is being blocked not by you and your lowly mouth, but by your religitard leaders who you help fund with your loyalty and money you drain on society piece of (s)(h)(i)(t)

Religion teaches morals? Maybe if you lived thousands of years ago. The book of filth that you suckle like a binky has the moral equivalent of (s)(h)(i)(t). Any 21st century human who needs a book to be moral is a drain on mankind as we strive to advance to a higher standard, you inept POS (f)(u)(c)(k)

Hard evidence? I dont need evidence, Im not the one making the claim, you and your religitard buddies are saying that there is a supernatural being in charge :)

Those who claim there are leprechauns need to provide evidence, I dont need to provide evidence that there are no leprechauns at the end of rainbows. Thowse who claim unicorns exist need to provide evidence, I dont need to provide hard evidence there are no flying horses.

Have you heard of A-leprechaunist, or A-unicornist? No, but there is Atheist, for concluding youre a clown :)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You think like a worm jumps and it sickens me that humans are so inept.
Posted by TheHitchslap 3 years ago

Who's debate is this?!?!?

Cut it out guys!
Don't make me spank you! ;)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: This is a very interesting topic. I think it boils down to PRO being able to back his argument up with multiple examples throughout history. The logic that there is not a fundamental rift between religion and science is called theistic evolution. Most of the catholic church accepts this now as well. Notice the beliefs that the bible teaches and that were embraced in early civilization have changed immensely. If you would have mentioned evolution during past centuries, you would have been killed on spot by the church, but now they have accepted evolution as a fact. Just that fact alone shows a fundamental rift within the teachings of the bible. It seems however that the church can interpret the bible any way they want, and mold the pages to agree with science. That is where people get the idea that there is not a right. When indeed the very foundation of Christianity will never co exist peacefully with science. Pro wins because he had more convincing material and supported it.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
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: The position Con seemed to keep emphasizing is that there is still some value to religion, and that it was developed with good intentions. By contrast, Pro kept focused on the differences between religion and science which seemed to be closer to the resolution they were actually debating. While he may be "nit picking" in Con's view, that is not equivalent to "cherry picking". The thing is that if that if something is claimed to be divinely inspired in its entirety and without error, then finding any error disproves that position regardless of how many cherries there are to pick. But again, the resolution wasn't "is the Bible true" it was "are science and religion essentially the same". Pro's answer that they are fundamentally different and incompatible was more convincing.
Vote Placed by THElittleRISK 3 years ago
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: Pro's arguments were clearer and more structured until Alyssa1 caught up in the last round. By the end of the debate Pro convinced me through various historical examples and solid rebuttals that there is a fundemental rift between religion and science.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
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: Oh god, when you get into this idea of "a spiritual being" as an argument, you've gone down the rabbit hole of foolishness.