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

Science Disproves Religion

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: 4/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,245 times Debate No: 33022
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Hello! I'm new to this but I decided to start a debate about one of the the BIG questions: does science disprove religion? I will be arguing against, because I say that science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive and that neither of them cancel out the other. This debate will primarily focus on creation. I hope you will respect me as a person whether you agree with my views or not and not begin to insult what I believe in.

Round 1: Opening Statements
Round 2: Arguments for your point of view
Round 3: Rebuttal of opponent's point of view
Round 4: Closing statements

I'll start by clarifying what I, as a Christian, believe. Contrary to what I expect is popular belief, I, as well as many others, DO NOT take ALL of the Bible at face value. Although it is a verified historical document and much of it has been confirmed as true, books like Genesis, which deals with the story of creation, have been thought to be out-dated and not scientifically accurate. I agree with this, at least in part; I DO NOT believe that the Universe was created in 7 days or that it just popped into existence. Therefore I believe that science is as correct as what I believe as a Christian and that neither of them are mutually exclusive.

I look forward to an interesting and thought-provoking debate!


I would like to start by recommending that you stop referring to yourself as a Christian. For the definition of Christianity is this "Christianity is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings as well as the Old Testament.' Thus listening to everything the bible preaches, including the idea that the earth was created in 7 days. Rather refer to yourself as a theist.

Secondly it would have to depend on which religion you were talking about for instance there once was a religion that would not harm any creatures on earth and every where they walked they would carry a broom with them to sweep tiny creatures that might be hiding in their path that they did not want to kill. So one day the British came into contact with these people and found out about this religion, they took one of these people, put some water under a microscope and showed them the little organisms that they drank everyday. Needless to say this religion died out. The point is there are countless amounts of religions in the world and to say that science disproves all of them would be an uneducated assumption but if you are talking about the most popular ones like religion then yes it has.

The bible refers to animals just being put straight on the earth, this was disproved through the theory of evolution. The bible refers to the earth as being created before the stars this too was disproved through the big bang theory.

Debate Round No. 1


I'll begin by coming back at what my opponent said:
I still believe in everything that the Bible says, but just interpret it differently in the light of recent scientific discoveries, so therefore am still a Christian.
Just to clarify, I'm not an expert in other religions so this debate will be about Christianity. Thanks for pointing that out by the way; I forgot to mention it in my opening statement.
Again, I don't take all of what the Bible says literally, so I believe in the Big Bang and Evolution as well as God. Also, I will expand upon this in my argument.

Thanks for accepting the challenge and I wish you luck in the debate ahead!

Genesis Chapter 1 describes the world being created in seven days. As already stated, I believe that this is outdated and not scientifically accurate. I'm sure my opponent will argue that this is false; the universe took billions of years to form and develop! However, I consider 'days' to mean a measurement of time rather than the literal translation. The Bible was, primarily, written for people 4,000 years ago with no understanding of science or technology. How could they have understood that the entire universe, with all its scale and complexity, was created in a massive explosion when two atoms smashed together and then took 13 billion years to become familiar to them? They would have dismissed this immediately, turning to simpler explanations of how they came into being. The Bible was specifically catered for the needs of the people it was being written for! However, this does not mean it isn't relevant today, both as a valuable historical resource but as a guide for how to live well in a modern world corrupted by sin, greed and hate.

Secondly, the Bible does actually point to the Big Bang:

"And God said, 'Let there be light!'" Genesis 1:3 (NIV)

So what could this mysterious light be? The Sun? No, that was 'created' later, as stated in Verse 16:

"God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night" Genesis 1:16 (NIV)

Here, the "greater light" is the Sun and the "lesser light" is the Moon! There is no other answer; this 'light' was the Big Bang! Though defined as "day" to contrast with "night", I consider this to be merely to show that it was indeed bright; as bright as the day, by their standards, but, as we know, far brighter!

The Bible also seems to point to evolution; at first:

"And God said, 'Let the water teem with living creatures'" Genesis 1:20 (NIV)

and then:

"'Let the land produce living creatures'" Genesis 1:24 (NIV)

Evolution claims living things first evolved in the oceans and this is exactly what happened! The Bible is both scientifically accurate and watered-down enough to be understood through the ages!! Again, we can use 'days' as a measurement of time rather than a period of 24 hours, so the Bible remains to be scientifically accurate!

Therefore, science cannot disprove religion because, in my opinion, there are no 'two sides' of the argument; instead there is only one side, but many people only see half the truth. People need to stop thinking of Christians as thick and stubborn, refusing to accept science going along with an ancient book with no scientific value; instead, science needs to learn to accept the Christian views!


Ahhhh another "Evidentialist". Definitely a step forward for Christianity, instead of basing their opinions completely on faith they are wangling evidence to try and support Christianity.

Firstly I will start by asking you about how you would interpret this quote from the bible:
Mathew 7:6
"Don"t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw
your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample
them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Secondly, you can't say that the bible isn't scientifically accurate and then refer to it as pointing out Evolution and the Big Bang, you are contradicting yourself. Also the theory of all life starting in water is still a theory and has not been proven as fact yet. In-fact a new theory has just been proposed:

"How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory." New theory as how life on earth started; ";

Thirdly any sentence with more then three words can be interpreted in at least three different ways and so by that notion, if you really are too blind to see and really are stubborn to read the words on the page and interpret them as they were meant to be interpreted then theoretically speaking no science can not disprove religion, why? because you believe what you want to believe. A case study to prove my point:

Now you could say the same about me but it would be a lie I grew up as a Christian but I approached everything with an open mind and because of the evidence before me I am now an Atheist.
Debate Round No. 2


I'd like to begin by pointing out that this is a debate. As you'll recall from my first statement I said that the previous round was for arguments for your point of view. Your complete ignorance of this fact and the inability to produce any arguments to support your side just shows your incompetence and lack of ability to debate. Nevertheless, I will commence with my rebuttal, as per my opening statement.

Your "opening statement"

Animals were put directly on the Earth

That statement is false; Genesis actually claims that God said:

'"Let the land produce living creatures'" Genesis 1:24

Your "argument"

Your first point.

To quote you:

"instead of basing their arguments on faith they are wangling evidence to try and support Christianity"

So, if the evidence is, as you say, "wangled", why do you place your faith in it? Also, just to point out your glaring lack of experience or skill, how would you interpret the evidence, seeing as you failed to mention that in your statement?

Matthew 7:6

I don't see how this quote is relevant to the argument, however I interpret it as, "Don't give what you value to people who won't appreciate it."

Your third point

The Bible's literal translation is not scientifically accurate, however digging beneath the surface reveals the true nature of what it is trying to say. This has only been capable in the last few years after vast leaps in our understanding; as I pointed out people 4,000 years ago would have dismissed it as "too complicated". Also, your "latest theory" is still a theory. What evidence do you have that it is more credible than the current theory of evolution?
I would also like to point out page you posted a link to does not exist.

The Bible should be interpreted exactly

Really? So how would you interpret this quote from Daniel:

'"It will be for a time, times and half a time."' Daniel 12:7 (NIV).

I'd also advise you to read Daniel 8:1-14 and then explain to me whether it should be translated literally.

You believe what you want to believe

Yes, as a matter of fact I can say the same for you. You refused God because you saw other evidence, but why can't you see that the two can be together? Seeing as you, apparently, went to church as a child it would have been others who would have convinced you to become an atheist. In any case it would not have been your "open mind" but the influence of others. So you, too, believe what you want to believe.


I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but I'm not stubborn. in fact, I could go as far to say the same thing to you; you refuse to believe a God could exist, while, according to your debate, there is no evidence to disprove God's existence.


While I have produced much evidence to support my claims, my opponent has brought up no evidence to support his claim and has given weak rebuttals, all of which have been countered.

Vote Pro.


SyhrOwen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


It seems that my opponent has forfeited the last round after being challenged to actually debate rather than, to quote him, "wangling evidence" to support his claims. He has produced absolutely no evidence to support his claim and has not even attempted to counter my rebuttals. In any case I have a little bit more to add to my rebuttals.

Animals were put directly on the Earth

The definition of "produce", from is:

1. to bring into existence; give rise to; cause: to produce steam.

Therefore God did not just place animals on the Earth; they were created by the Earth.

You believe what you want to believe

Just to add to my point; just because you want to believe something doesn't mean it's not real. To quote the immortal Dumbledore, from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2:

"Of course it's all in your head, Harry. Why should that mean it's not real?" - Professor Albus Dumbeldore (Michael Gambon), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

The point I'm getting at is that God would make you believe it is real. What would be more effective; a dream of an angel or an angel itself? A dream means only one person would "see" it; if it was "real", how many people would? Actually seeing an angel would produce irrefutable proof of God's power, but that's not how God works. Belief in God is based on faith so that only those worthy of the kingdom of Heaven will reach it. And, just to link this back to my quote, God would put the dream in your head so that, to all intents and purposes, it is a genuine message from the divine and is therefore "real".

Closing Statement

As I have already pointed out, my opponent has absolutely no skill at debating and has produced no evidence to support his claims. On the other hand, I have produced numerous arguments to support my claim and successfully countered all of his points. I was looking forward to "an interesting and thought-provoking debate"; I'm afraid to say I'm disappointed.


SyhrOwen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Jegory 4 years ago
Ok, thanks for the advice :D
Posted by 4saken 4 years ago
Jegory, if someone forfeits a round the debate will not show up on the home page.
Post such debates in this thread:
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Good luck on your first debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.