Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science

Please note that since my opponent posted an argument in Round 1 he will not be posting an argument in Round 3 in order to provide an equal number of arguments for both of us. If my opponent for some reasons chooses to respond to my arguments all of his arguments are to be completely disregarded. My opponent once again completely misinterprets the resolution, even after proper explanation and examples given by me. I am not arguing that religious people don’t agree with science. I am not arguing that God does not exist. I am not arguing towards a certain time period. I am not arguing that the Bible is false, ect. The resolution is to be taken as bare bone. Anything that is not part of this resolution is not part of the debate. Examples of my opponent misinterpreted the resolution or arguing against something never claimed: “Science has yet to prove or disprove a God or Supernatural being.” This debate is not about science disproving religion, or religious beliefs that science cannot disprove (such as the existence of God). This debate is about science progressing religion through scientific discovering which falsify religious beliefs. “I do not disagree with the notion that at one point in history, religion dictated science. However, in today's society that it not the case.” The resolution does not regard any specific time in history. Rather it covers a generally standpoint. The resolution is to be interpreted as Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science (At any point in time) since time was not clarified. In the same if I say “abortion should be illegal” then I claim that it should generally be illegal with the absence of a specific time period. “My opponent still has yet to present any type of argument relating to the topic of this debate. He is simply trying to explain his way around an issue without creating valid arguments based on today's religion, especially the practice of Christianity in the United States.” The only person here who has been going off-topic is you. Since my debate resolution did not clarify, by default it is a general standpoint. I am not arguing that certain religions are deluded, or am arguing against Christianity. Again, no specific time period was clarified so it goes as a general statement with no time period. “Now I will bring up some arguments in regards on how Religion has progressed science:” Everything under this argument was completely unrelated to the debate. Again, the resolution is Science should Progress Religion instead of Religion Dictating Science. Nowhere in the resolution do I deny that religion can progress science so nowhere must I defend against this argument. I am also not saying that religion dictates science, rather I am saying that religion shouldn’t dictate science. This is very important because a few words can change the entire context of meaning. In the same way, I could say a Christian shouldn’t support abortion. That doesn’t mean Christians support abortion, it just means that I think they shouldn’t. This being said, the entire argument is irrelevant to the debate. “Science should not be required to progress religion as religion (the belief in a God), only requires a belief” I am not arguing that science is required to progress religion. Rather I am arguing that science should progress religion instead of religion progressing science. Now onto my arguments and responses “Can you explain how the belief in Young Earth Creationism is an example of religion dictating science in today's society?” Perhaps it was not the best example considering YEC has technically been disproven but there is an exponential amount of empirical evidence against it. Fact is, by continuing your belief in YEC you are denying God’s creation and attempting to dictate science with your already near falsified beliefs. Science should rather progress religion in that by proving YEC to be untrue religious people can come closer to knowledge of God’s creation and the context of their beliefs. “How do religious people deny reality in order to justify their beliefs” Well simply imagine a man that believed lightning was the cause of a great flying sea horse god and denied all science in order to continue believing in what he believes. I am not necessarily saying that people do do this. The resolution does not state that people deny science in order to justify their beliefs. Rather the resolution states that people should not deny science for the sake of their beliefs. “Some people still do (still believe in Greek mythology), but the majority of the world does not. This concept has nothing to do with the debate.” Has clarified above, I am not arguing that people deny science for the sake of their beliefs. I am arguing that people should not deny science for the sake of their beliefs. “ Nowhere in the Christian bible does it say that the sun revolved around the earth. Am I mistaken?” It actually doesn’t even matter. The point of the example wasn’t in the historical facts, rather it was in the message. That message was that religion should not deny reality for the sake of their beliefs. “has there ever been any mistakes in the history of science?” There are no mistakes in science. There is only progress. “Does the Catholic Church still believe the sun revolves around the earth? No, the church does not believe that, therefore science progressed religion as you mentioned.” Concession. “If religion dictated science, people would still believe the sun revolved around the earth, but that is not the case” It is not the case because science progressed religion. Everything else I found to be overall irrelevant to the debate and had no need for a response. Conclusion My opponent completely and utterly failed to argue the religion should take precedence over scientific discovery where as I have given examples of how science has progressed humanity and evolved religion. This resolution has gone completely unscathed and has been affirmed.