• The Proof is in the Proof.

    I'm afraid science wins this one. Purely because we have material proof. We know that living beings evolve after time, we know (to an extent) that the big bang did in fact happen because of physical things and not the power of a higher being. Now, i don't mean to attack the opposition, but I'm afraid the proof they think they have, just isn't there. I once asked a deeply religious Christian why they believe the Bible is so sacred. The conversation went like this:
    Me: Why do you think the Bible is so sacred?
    Christian: Because it is the word of god.
    Me: Why do you believe the word of god is true?
    Christian : Because it is written in the Bible.
    You see its just a circle of false information with nothing to stand for.
    Wheres the proof that Jesus wrote he Bible? Is there a signature?
    As a steadfast atheist some might call my views biased and inconsiderate but go, research for yourselves and find proof.

  • I believe religion.

    There is almost no way anyone can prove anything about a God, or supernatural-all-powerful-being, existing. To find the actual answer of this, you'd have to go everywhere in the universe---and somehow, make sure there aren't any other dimensions! The way I (and anyone else with religion) know there is a God is through faith in this God. It would also be quite hypocritical against science if a bunch of atoms and matter just magically appeared, without some kind of all powerful being to create it! The Law of Conservational(?) Mass states that Mass can never be created or destroyed. How did the universe come to be without a higher being?

  • Afterlife and miracles

    When a scientist can definitively tell me what happens after I leave this world, I would have another opinion. God and his prophets have already given me that proof. My faith is proof that God exists and no scientist can take that away, nor can they explain where it comes from. They also have no explanation for modern day miracles.....Mere coincidence isn't good enough. Even the greatest of Doctors believe!

  • I pick "or".

    The question comes down to what one's a priori assumptions are, what ones main values are, and what threshold of proof one requires.

    A Priori Assumptions
    Religion: Reality is not primarily (or at least solely) physical.
    Science: Reality is primarily physical.

    Main Values
    Religion: Internal spiritual (psychological) and emotional experience
    Science: Knowledge

    Threshold of Proof
    Religion: Independently verifiable and observable proof is not a requirement for knowledge. An unrepeatable personal experience is sufficient. Faith can be sufficient, and physical proof may be irrelevant.
    Science: Independently verifiable and observable proof is a requirement for knowledge. Lack of repeatability may even constitute disproof. Faith and belief are irrelevant.

    There is room for both religion and science in the lives of most people. (That is not to say that everyone wants both.) Many people compartmentalize our lives, and then apply the assumptions, values, and proof requirements of religion to some aspects of living, and those of science to other aspects. Consider that the Big Bang Theory, 7-day creation story, theory of evolution as the origin of species, the world on the back of an endless stack of turtles, etc. are all just models through which to understand particular aspects of life and the universe. Most of us only operate with one model at a time, and only to work with a limited range of life, then we switch to another model. Newtonian Physics has limited applicability (even within the sciences).

    It is possible to have it all.

  • Science all the way

    Science is ever progressing, and unassertive. If science is wrong, than scientists don't cling to the wrongness and deny anyone else the opportunity to try and come up with the truth, they simply seek out the right answer. Science doesn't assert anything without evidence, and doesn't support anything that can't be proven wrong.

  • Science changes as the information becomes available.

    Science proposes theories that fit all the available evidence. Religion starts with "the truth" and cherry picks data that fits and makes weird excuses for the ones that don't, ignore it or call it "a lie of the devil". Religion will change it's position on science issues (the earth isn't flat or the center of the solar system) when denying the actual truth becomes too burdensome.

  • Science is proven, religion is what some people believed thousands of years ago with no proof if their beliefs were accurate

    Lets face it: religion has no proof of if the things that they believe in are accurate, but science does. The only "proof" that there is that "God" is real is what was written in a book a thousand years ago by ancient people who didn't even understand that the Earth was round, or that the Earth evolved around the Sun. People who believe in "God" are people who support concepts that were proposed by ancient people who didn't know any better. If they had written a book thousands of years ago about Evolution and The Big Bang Theory, everyone would believe that.

  • Science is proven.

    While I am religious myself, I accept that science certainly has done more than religion has. Science has allowed the human race to advance while religion, specifically Christianity is being exploited by some people to justify their political views. Furthermore, there are no such people who deny the existence of science. If religion was proven, there would be no atheists.

  • Even as a Theist...

    I actually believe in a god, but science trumps religion. I'm theistic mainly because I want to. I really don't have any support for my beliefs, it's just how I think the Universe SHOULD work, and how I hope it works. That being said, if there was any definitive scientific evidence proving the nonexistence of a god, I would certainly become an atheist. Science is backed by observable evidence and extensive research. (I hope my unorthodox beliefs didn't upset any theists/atheists. Please don't start a war in the comments).

  • Science is more accurate and can be proven.

    I realize that this argument has been told over and over but there is truth to it. When I was religious and devout, I was uneducated and would defend everything tooth and nail that involved religious practices. While a God can't be disproven, it can't be proven either. I do not believe that God is not real but on the other hand, science has done miraculous things for the world. Religion does more harm than good as well because it is a poison to the world. We have had millions killed in the Crusades and some during the Spanish Inquisition because there were people that did not want to follow Christianity. Battles over who is right and wrong are still going on today. We have religious extremists in other countries blowing things up in the name of their God. Not to say that there aren't radical scientists out there but they aren't blowing each other up because one scientific practice is being chosen over another. We live in a world where logic and reason go hand in hand with science. It does so much and it would be wrong to dispute it.

  • It makes sense

    I know, this is a little BS argument. I have got a lot more better ones. But
    science just makes sense. Everything ( almost ) is connected and interact with each and every other object as it is supposed to. You don't see it? Try to educate yourself on the matter and all will soon become apperent.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.