The Instigator
Ray314
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
GMan7112
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Can science and religion co-exist in the manner that one is not contradicted by the other?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 514 times Debate No: 73147
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Ray314

Con

Hello world! This is my first time creating an account and debating on this website - I would like to discuss many things regarding science, religion and much more. I oppose the idea that science and religion can co-exist in the manner that one does not contradict the other; for many reasons. Science and religion both date back a long time ago, and each with there unique purpose. Religion was more of a method to keep people in line - children were indoctrinated to a religious belief at a very young age where they'd believe anything they were told, *cough* Santa Clause *cough*. There religious believes usually could not allow you to think of something else or 'question' their religion - for example: the idea that if you do not believe in his/her god/goddess you will suffer in hell/other types of eternal suffering, now, do you think people would want to question their religion? I didn't think so. Summary about religion: faith in a deity AND religious beliefs - disregarding evidence or facts, claiming that lack of belief will cause eternal suffering (to keep people in line - stopping them from questioning their own religious beliefs), claiming superiority with belief, ex: go to heaven (eternal pleasure) or you gain spiritual enlightenment or eternal life and so on. Lastly, and above all: Placebo. Religion works like a placebo, - "Oh, there is a great and powerful lord who will grant me eternal happiness in fluff clouds and send bad guys in eternal fire with torture and agony" Imagine how happy you would be if someone said you will live forever with joy and with an all powerful being who loves you, while you dance around in fluff clouds? Now, that is religion.

Here comes science. Admitted, back then people have made some huge SCIENTIFIC (although I don't really classify this as 'scientific') mistakes. Example: rocks slow down because they are tired, or the earth is flat, disk-shaped, egg shaped (it's not an egg, the spherical shape is different), and many more. Here's the fun part: science at most times, is not stubborn, it changes since there will always be more ignorance than knowledge. Science changes because of demands for knowledge, curiosity, and improvement in technology which allows us to observe where we've gone wrong. Religion on the other hand is stubborn to the extreme. Given set religion, preferably one that is most common and referred to: Christianity, the bible did not change a bit, in fact its translations to other languages are extremely accurate, BUT, they as science begins to contradict many *cough* Noah's ark *cough* things in the bible, people begin to change interpretations of quotes like, "it said, in Isaiah 40:22: "God stretches out the heavens like a curtain." - PROOF, PROOF THAT WE KNEW THE UNIVERSE WAS EXPANDING FIRST, AND SCIENCE ONLY KNOWS IT NOW, TAKE THAT SCIENCE!" Religion is dying, and science is making sure of it, more and more observations show that the earth is not as 'young' as a puny 6000 years, but billions of years old. And that a magical sky-daddy aka: God, created the earth in 6 days, rested his ___ on the 7th and was like *Bam* Here we are: Heavens + earth + man + garden of Eden + woman + serpent that talks to the woman to make her sin (sexist) oh and the beloved: tree of knowledge. Now, tell me, do you not see that obvious contradiction? If god truly wanted Adam/ Eve not to disobey him, why would he make that delicious apple on a nearby tree where a snake could just tell Adam and Eve it is good and you won't die? well technically they didn't die and in my opinion knowledge is good, but clearly the bible failed there, god was mad that the humans: Adam and Eve now have knowledge, what's bad about that? This just sickens me to think that people actually believe this, and I actually have a bible for reference you know... There is scientific evidence like fossils, carbon 14 dating, cosmological red-shift and many more ways scientists can assert: the universe and the earth are not 6000 years of age. If you took your time to read this I probably made mistakes, but thank you, now if anyone would like to challenge my arguments, feel free! As always, thanks for reading! Cheers!
GMan7112

Pro

Hello and good luck to you! I hope you don't mind how I format mine, I don't see a formatting guide on this.

I have found a few flaws in the opening logic.

1. Religion was not merely a tool to keep people in line. Look back to the early days of Christianity- in the Roman Empire. During this time, Christians were severely oppressed because they would put God before anything. So much for keeping people in line, huh? But wait, there's more. When Jesus performed miracles, died, etc., then people must have seen it? We do, after all, have records. Now, people may argue that the people who wrote the Bible falsified these accounts. But let's look at their lives. 11 of the 12 apostles were executed and the last one died in exile. All they had to do to live was confess that they had lied. Not one of them did.

2. Scientific facts do go along with religious beliefs. Excuse me for relying a lot on Christianity, but I am most familiar with it. Now there are several things that the Bible said that science confirmed hundreds of years later including:
The world is round
Ocean currents exist
The universe expanded like the Big Bang
One should wash their hands in running water and soap
One should not wear mixed cloths (These have a tendency to conduct lots of static electricity and be uncomfortable)
People may then argue that evolution does not agree with religion, to which I reply: is there any more evidence for evolution? There is actually far less evidence for evolution than God; therefore this theory must be reexamined. In addition to this, it is not mainstream beliefs that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Most of us believe it is much older.

3. You mentioned how science contradicts Noah's ark. Can you elaborate on this?

4. The creation story has nothing that science contradicts. Just because it may seem unlikely does not make it incompatible with science. You also bring up how God is sexist. Why is that?

5. God planted the Tree in the Garden and allowed in evil to allow free will. Can we be free if we have no choices?

6. The problem with Adam and Eve attaining knowledge was not bad in and of itself. What was bad was that they disobeyed God, giving sin to the world. Also, there would have been no bad if Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil- if they always did what God said, there would be no evil for them to do.

7. Once again, I would like to say that most people do not believe the Earth is 6000 years old. That is not the mainstream.

Also, this was to be a debate on scientific compatibility with religion, not on the validity of religion itself. Nowhere in any of your arguments besides the "earth being 6000 years old" deal do you assert that science is incompatible with religion. The burden of proof rests on you to prove that science is incompatible with religion but as of now you have not.
Debate Round No. 1
Ray314

Con

Ray314 forfeited this round.
GMan7112

Pro

GMan7112 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ray314

Con

Ray314 forfeited this round.
GMan7112

Pro

So I guess I win?
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Religion is true not because it has been scientifically proven to be true, rather it is true because the truth was revealed by god. Science focuses on the pursuit of knowledge rather than established knowledge, systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. If a scientific axiom is found to be incorrect it will be discarded. If religious dogma is found to be inaccurate those making such findings will be called heretics. When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it. Faith pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant. Science has done far more to both explain the world around us and help us improve our condition than millennia of religion
Posted by GMan7112 2 years ago
GMan7112
Regardless of personal beliefs on religion, this debate is not about the validity of religion but about its compatibility with science.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Without stipulation, Pro wins as an argument. whether he looses by points or not, by default Pro wins this debate.

Science is the factual truth. Therefor it can.

Modern accepted "scientific" theory does not and cannot however.

this debate should eb clarified.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Religion explains nothing that would be called credible, only credulous. Belief does not make something true.
Posted by JackOfDiamonds 2 years ago
JackOfDiamonds
Religion explains what science cannot
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
One is tangible and explained through reason, science explains the natural world, The other is intangible and explained through faith, religion explains the supernatural world. The religious often use science to try to explain there beliefs. Science never uses religious faith to explain anything. A religion is true only if you believe, science is true whether you believe or not. Science is based on intellectual honesty, religion is based in dogma.
Posted by GMan7112 2 years ago
GMan7112
Technically speaking science is not a religion it is a mythology, unless you pair science with another belief (by science I am not referring to evolution or the Big Bang but actual physical science)
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
science is a religion
No votes have been placed for this debate.