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

Religion and Science do NOT go together

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Mikegoya has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 517 times Debate No: 96628
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Many right wing religious fundamentalists in the U.S.A, and around the world, try to claim that science and religion can live in tandem. In this debate, I will be providing evidence as to how this is not possible, how science and religion quarrel over almost every matter that is a discrepancy from the other belief.

Pro will argue that this is not true; that religion and science can live in peace and in harmony together in an environment which allows both parties to be content.

I believe that in today's growing scientific society, it is religion that needs to be dispelled, or at least pushed aside so as not to hinder scientific progress in the 21st century.


I would like to separate these "Religious" folks into two categories: Those naive group of so called "core" religious folk who would like to stick to the old practices that were formed in a time without modern science, and the other, larger, group that is open to scientific change and the like.

Let me now take you back to the Ancient times... I recommend that you buy yourself a game called "Sid Meier's Civilization", and as you play through the game, you'll see the huge technological advances of Civilization over the ages. Now, this is only a game you might say, but it is based off of fundamental historical facts. What is similar about all these civilizations?? They all held very strong beliefs in some sort of deity, or 'God' figure, and they achieved some amazing technological feats. The colossus of Rhodes, the Pyramids, the Wheel. They even discovered how to heal blood clotting in the brain.
But still, this is not enough. If you might not remember your history very well, these huge and awe inspiring structures that were built so long ago were mainly built for certain reasons; those usually being related to religious practices.
Debate Round No. 1


During the Dark Ages, scientific repression was at an all time peak. In a Euro-centric world, feudalism ruled, with a king at the top, and religious figures also high on the authority scale. Religious superstition and regional phenomenons were used to explain basic things like weather and thunderstorms. In this society, lacking any scientific enlightenment, schloars like Bede were attacked by religious, for making now correct statements on things like the shape of the Earth being round.

Nowadays, post Enlightenment period, with society now roaring thanks to the advancements of science, religion again challenges scientific fact. With Islamic extremists in the Middle East now aggressing on scientific knowledge, religious apologists of the opposite, in the Bible Belt of America, religious superstition and evangelism is growing doubts to scientific knowledge. In a world without religion, creationism no longer disputes the almost scientifically proven evolution by natural selection. Stem cell research goes forward, abortion clinics don't have the constant death threats of pro-life bickering religious, and no people think the Earth is flat.

This is just one religion ruining the Earth in its ways. What about Islamic extremists violating the ability for people denying God, in pursuit of science? What about the Islamic moderates who stand by and simply say, "That's not us, those are the fanatics!" when there is nothing to be fanatical for... if the Quran was not followed to the letter.

I feel like Con's separation of religious people into two groups actually aids my argument. Why separate a group of people who follow the same beliefs, with varying degrees of moderation? Sure, some aren't carrying rucksack bombs into war, but they still house the beliefs that allow for the extremism to grow from, because from moderate beliefs stem extremism. This is obvious in politics, everyday life and especially religion.

The ancient civilisations Con explained also fail to show, aside from the Ancient Greeks, how the other civilisations were in any way religious AND scientific. Con explains architectural monuments dedicated to religious purposes, but this does not prove religious-scientific alliance. If anything, it is showing architecture aiding the progression of religion, not science, therefore the argument is invalid.

Religion prevents scientific advancement, and is arrogant about being an obstacle to the progression thusly of man and womankind.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by zookdook1 2 years ago
Pigney you're suggesting that the religion is more important, or the correct 'conclusion' and that science leads you there?

Because as far as science is concerned, that's not right.
Posted by Salvador_Dali135 2 years ago
I wand to know FACTS. That is why religion is associated with the word BELIEF. Which would you trust more FACTS or BELIEFS.
Posted by Pigney 2 years ago
See, the problem with this whole debate is that everyone thinks that religion complements science, when in reality, science compliments religion.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Science explains the natural world without ever using religion to explain. Religion is used to justified the supernatural realm. Sometimes religion uses science to explain and sometimes denounces science explanations. Science is based on reason and intellectual honesty, religion is based on faith and belief.
Science is right even if you don't believe, religion is wrong even if you do believe.
The more you know the less you believe.......................................
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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