Chabel Khan Posted almost 3 years ago Is having science vs religion debates productive? Budimir, I know you from another froum. Nice to see you around! I think the debate about religion is important. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are interesting examples when it comes to attacking religion for their erroneous portrayal of human origins. They believe if religious folk believe in an afterlife or a soul, it cheapens this life and makes humanity inherently filthy and needs to be "cleansed". We also need to go back to the basic principle that the person who makes assertion X needs to prove it. The religious people make the assertion X that god exists. Irreligious people say, "Prove it. Science, the disciplines that generate empirical evidence, has not given us a conclusive answer." It is true that the data is inherently agnostic, and most atheists agree, on a cosmic level: yes, some higher being may have created us. But, when it comes to the cultural incarnations of such, Vishnu, Allah, Ra, Zeus, of the Abrahamic god, it seems so self-evident these are fables passed down through nomads. Benevolent god? You could point to the pain and supposed 'evil'. There are many ways of attacking premises of a conception of god. So, certain conceptions, yes, we can thoroughly smother with criticism to the point it seems very unlikely like gremlins, ghosts etcetera. The "First Cause", no, science wont speculate on that. Most rational atheists wouldn't either.