Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science

Did I behave inappropriately? It is the first debate I accepted, does that call for a deduction of points? "I am arguing that science should progress religion instead of religion dictating science" Definition: Religion: (1) The belief in a God or group of Gods. (2) An organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a God or group of Gods. (3) An interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group. Belief: (1) A state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or some thing. (2) Conviction of the truth of some statement or reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on the examination of evidence. (These Definitions were pulled from Merriam-Webster.com) Science should not be required to progress religion as religion (the belief in a God), only requires a belief, which can be defined as a state of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. Science has yet to prove or disprove a God or Supernatural being. Religion can be defined as a belief in God, do you expect people to not believe in a God until it is proven by science? As for the last part of the statement, "instead of religion dictating science". 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. Science, not religion, is taught in public schools, so can you please explain to me how religion is dictating science in the United States? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I gave an example of this in Round 1. There I said that many people still believe in Young Earth Creationism, which has empirical evidence to be untrue." Can you explain how the belief in Young Earth Creationism is an example of religion dictating science in today's society? Origins still have not been explained through science. This allows for people to have beliefs on origins which could give rise to religion. Do you have any issues with the reasoning I just presented? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The flaw that any religions people fall into is that they actually deny reality in order to justify their beliefs" Please elaborate on this further. How do religious people deny reality in order to justify their beliefs. Has science fully explained our origins? If your answer is yes, please present these facts as scientific evidence. "Imagine if people still believed in Greek Mythology" Some people still do, but the majority of the world does not. This concept has nothing to do with the debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the day the Catholic Church's belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth due to a Bible passage saying it as so." The Catholic Church is based on Christian beliefs. Nowhere in the Christian bible does it say that the sun revolved around the earth. Am I mistaken? If I am, can you please cite the passage wherein this piece of science is revealed. Based on this mindset, has there ever been any mistakes in the history of science? The statement you provided still does not strengthen your argument. 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. If religion dictated science, people would still believe the sun revolved around the earth, but that is not the case. Do you have any issues with the statement I just made? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One has to remember that if God created everything, then God's nature can be found in what he created. To deny God's creation is to essentially deny God. This is how science progresses religion and this is why religious people must stop denying reality for the sake of holding on to their own religious beliefs" This statement is well written, and it sounds reasonable. Which God are you talking about? There are different Gods, if we are talking about the Christian God and the Young Earth Model, not all Christians believe in a young earth. Some people view the days of creation as periods of time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Not that my arguments and examples have been made it can be logically concluded that my opponent has gone way off topic, accusing me of things I never claimed and is trying to argue against a point I never made nor am arguing for." Pardon my initial response in round 1. As you mentioned, round one was for acceptance only, therefore nothing mentioned by me should count towards the debate. Are we good with that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "To clarify once again, I am arguing that science should be used to progress religion" 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I will bring up some arguments in regards on how Religion has progressed science: "The first incorporated hospital, Pennsylvania Hospital, was established in 1751. It is from these early church-and community-sponsored hospitals that today's hospitals have evolved." (1) Hospitals have used science to advance medicine. Some credit to the evolution of hospitals in the United States can be given to the church and the practice of religion. I would like for all of you to remember that a practice of certain religions calls for helping others. Do we have any issues with the source or information I provided? There are numerous scientific facts that can be found within the Christian Bible. Some include.... 1. Earth's free float in space. 2. Invisible structures such as Atoms. 3. Reveals the Earth is Round. 4. Oceanography (ocean currents). Inspired Columbus to search for these currents. 5. Radio Waves. 6. Entropy. 7. Water cycle. 8. First Law of Thermodynamics. 9. Ship Dimensions. 10. Meteorological Laws. 11. Air Mass. 12. Earths Rotation 13. Laws of Hygiene. 14. Fat intake. 15. The immune System 16. One common Ancestor. 17. Origins of Sexes. Here is a list of some scientists who believed in the bible. Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay. Geology, Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz. Astronomy: Kepler, Galileao, Herschel, and Maunder. The Bible is a Historical document, as of today, no scientific evidence has disproved the Bible. If you like, I can provide passages for each one of the bits of science that is found within the bible. I can also provide information on the scientists that believed in the bible. From the information I have gathered on your initial argument , it is clear that you believe religion should not dictate science. However, it is obvious you are basing your reasoning on the misinterpretation of the bible. There have been misinterpretations, and I do not deny that fact. However, they were merely misinterpretations. Scientists still have trouble understanding so many things in this universe. Christians can also have trouble understanding the bible since the Bible is filled with metaphors. I await your response. (1) http://www.vhi.org...