CreateDebate


Debate Info

57
66
True False
Debate Score:123
Arguments:113
Total Votes:144
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (44)
 
 False (51)

Debate Creator

Dermot(5359) pic



Religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress

The majority of people accept Evolution as fact as the evidence in support is overwhelming, I came across this interesting piece from the pew research center it makes for rather sad reading .....

Wow , going on the posts from the Christians that waded in the case is damning proving certainly on CD the naked hatred This group of so called Christians display to anyone who chooses a different path , anyone that was banned was banned for brute ignorance and a failure to debate the topic

Of all the major religious groups in the U.S., evangelical Protestants are among the most likely to reject evolution. According to the Center’s Religious Landscape Study, a solid majority (57%) of evangelicals say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. (About half of Mormons and roughly three-quarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses also reject evolution.) These views are largely mirrored by the positions of large evangelical churches, as well as, in many cases, by majorities of their members. For instance, majorities of those who affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention (58%) and the Seventh-day Adventist church (67%) reject the idea that human beings evolved over time. By contrast, much smaller minorities of mainline Protestants (30%), Catholics (29%), Jews (16%) and the religiously unaffiliated (15%) share this view.

True

Side Score: 57
VS.

False

Side Score: 66
3 points

If there's one thing I learned when I studied history it's that Christianity hindered medicinal development massively. This was because they were in power and they didn't like the necessary research methods. So we only got breakthroughs when people did it secretly. We could have had a cure for cancer by now. This was during the dark ages and then the time after that (cannot remember it's name at this time).

It is likely they will hinder evolution research until it eventually gets through to them that it's a thing. Of course they don't have the power they once had, which is good.

Side: True
2 points

You're right they do not yield the same power as they once held even as a child the Catholic Church in my country had a say in absolutely everything and their power and influence affected everyone ; thankfully they are now like a toothless dog as the people no longer put up their nonsense .

Side: True
TruthPrayer(26) Disputed Banned
2 points

No one wants to hinder evolution research. We want evolution research to unfold, because research refutes evolution.

Side: False
Vermink(1944) Clarified
1 point

The middle ages (duh), I remember now. Their reason being they didn't like people dissecting dead human bodies, which is why the first advances in medicine were wrong due to them being based around a pigs anatomy. This was performed by Galen, a Roman.

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

Atheists never started any hospitals nor schools. Why? Because atheists are ignorant and have to be told what to do, because their cranial brain functionality is impaired

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

What do you mean ' started ' ? Atheists are ignorant and have to be told what to do , really ? what a childish outburst and you think atheists are brain damaged ?

What's really hilarious is you come on site and spew your bile and call yourself Christian , you're a hypocrite and too cowardly to present a decent argument so go the same route as the other hate filled christians on this debate .

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
0 points

I guess you failed history, because Christianity is what gave us all the hospitals and the religious leaders were all the doctors.

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

Nearly everyone was Christian iduring the during the Middle Ages one hadn't a choice really so your point is ?

Side: True
2 points

No one said it better than James Madison: "Religious bondage shackles the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."

Carl Sagan said: "It is better to grasp the Universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Evolution is a fact of the Universe, to argue against it is delusion.

Side: True
brontoraptor(20736) Disputed Banned
2 points

So believe a mythological and magic nothing created consciousness. That's the stupidest concept known to the human race.

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

I agree so why are you posting it up ?

Why don't you ask people what they believe instead of telling them what you think they believe ?

It's amusing to think your worldview is informed by the 10 commandments which were dictated to Moses by a voice emanating from a whirlwind and you call atheists stupid 🤔

Side: True
1 point

No, they believe that rocks and dirt suddenly had a conscious awareness and did not like be immovable so they consciously decided to spend billions of years evolving. Not their their sake, but so that the atheists might live today.

Side: False
1 point

Great Sagan quote and hits the nail on the head ..................

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

Yet, recent studies have proven that atheism is a mental illness that 2% of the world suffers from.

Side: False
AlofRI(1840) Clarified
1 point

"Studies" are done by anyone that wants to do them. That "study" (I doubt there were more than one), was, I'm sure, done by one who had a "mental illness" that would have led him/her to that conclusion WITHOUT a "study". A "preexisting condition", if you will. I think you will find that few Atheists feel they are "suffering", .....unless they have some "God given illness". ....;-)

Side: True
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

Only an idiot like you could come up with that .....................

Side: True
1 point

It does, in many cases. But only to those who don't value progress all that much. Beyond that...paying more attention to certain things "breeds" ignorance of other things. No one is immune from that.

Side: True
Dermot(5359) Clarified
1 point

Maybe it's not that they don't value progress but they just see progress in a different way , one can think of many examples both historically and recently as in stem cell research where religious thinking attempts to impede progress .

The majority of religions are regressive and divisive I've yet to hear any decent argument demonstrating how religions are progressive and inclusive .

A sizeable amount of the worlds population are Muslim and their particular set of Bronze Age beliefs has done tremendous damage in impeding Muslim scholars and enlightened individuals in Muslim dominated countries .

Side: True
atypican(4875) Clarified
1 point

Not everyones version of progress is desireable to others. Not every evolutionary adaptation is guaranteed to improve our condition. Whose vision of progress should these "religious" people you think are so stupid buy into?

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

Oh yeah, like atheism and homosexuality are inclusive and not divisiveness. Grown a better argument. Also, if you think that rejection of evolution theory is your basis, then present evolution facts or even tested and verified theories. It is not that religious people do not accept evolution, it is that religious people are intelligent enough to accept science since science is a religious discipline. Evolution theory rejects all scientific principles.

Side: False
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

Progess? England, Italy, Spain, France, India, and the United States, all have religious basis and all have progressed. Like the US, we started as a Christian nation and formed a Christian constitution, and now we are the most powerful nation ever known. A Chrisitan majority. Perhaps, the ignorance lies in the atheist nations who keep peddling backwards.

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
2 points

Most powerful nation ever known 😂😂 not with idiots like you running loose

Side: True
AlofRI(1840) Clarified
1 point

Rome, in ITS day was as powerful as we are today, they controlled more of the world than WE ever have. The Mongol and Ottoman Empires were also powerful. None of them were Christian. WE, are only ONE of the countries in the world with the capability to destroy civilization. "Power" is a relative thing. Ignorance lies in the idea that ANY "god" will protect U.S. from ourselves!

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS made it "perfectly clear" (If I can be Trumpian about it), that WE WERE NOT, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. I hate to burst your bubble but, THAT is NOT an "alternate fact"! When we take the oath of office, MOST place their hand on the Bible and swear to "uphold the Constitution", we do NOT place our hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible! (THAT would be "peddling backwards"). Also, it would be JUST as legal to be sworn in ON the Constitution, as Teddy Roosevelt was, INSTEAD of the Bible.

The founding fathers did not exclude the word Christianity from the Constitution by mistake, they did not exclude the Christian God from it by mistake, they did it, as James Monroe stated: "...to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." Obviously, they have only been partially successful in that endeavor. Christians are constantly trying to take over the country against the founders wishes.

Side: True
TruthPrayer(26) Disputed Banned
1 point

It has always been religious countries that have advanced and progressed. Often atjjiests are ignorant because they do not wish to admit that their basic premise is flawed.

Side: False
outlaw60(12301) Clarified
1 point

Religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress

Roman Catholic Church

Italy is a Christian country, some 88 per cent of the population belonging to the Roman Catholic church, although only around a third of these regard themselves as 'active' in religious terms.

Did you notice Darwin ever said anything about the religion of it's home country or ever refer to the heading of the post as it applies to Italy ?

Side: True
1 point

"Religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress"

Most certainly in Muslim Nations but you Leftist love the Muslim Faith !

So what is your point here ?

Confusion on Religion is a place the Left lives ! Amazing to watch how contorted you Leftist get when it comes to religion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: True
1 point

Identity Theft I believe is the Basis of Religion ignorance and impedeeding progress . People Take on The Roles, Identity and Persona of the Characters of The Bible. While Missing The point of the Manuscripts and What is MEANING in their Content.

. Please Visit My Website

................ CLICK HERE NOW. http://electxrextheelectriclion.nfshost.com/) )

_

.

Side: True
2 points

Where to even begin?

Let's start with the readily apparent: Darwinian Evolution, being a scientific hypothesis, is incapable of being rationally regarded as irrefutable fact. It follows, then, that anyone believing it to be such holds an irrational belief, and either doesn't understand the scientific method or chooses to ignore it.

Further, the fundamental premise of this debate is flawed: it assumes that, because a good many religious persons reject Darwinian Evolution, that they also reject the entirety of science (thereby being ignorant and, apparently, impeding scientific progress), the implication being that rejecting a particular scientific hypothesis is equivalent to rejecting science as a whole. As one learns when being taught the basics of science, this is absurd; a scientific hypothesis can be rejected for a multitude of reasons (such as insufficient supporting data or significant data to the contrary), and in doing so, one makes no statement whatsoever about science as a whole; in other words, science is not doctrinal.

Even if the above were entirely false, the argument presented in the OP is fundamentally flawed: on top of the aforementioned issues, it implies that acceptance of Darwinian Evolution is the cornerstone of all science, a self-evident absurdity.

Unfortunately, pointing this all out yet again will, in all likelihood, prove ultimately fruitless. Assuming the original poster responds, I expect more of the same circular reasoning built on baseless assumptions.

Side: False
excon(7484) Disputed
1 point

Hello L:

I suspect evolution is true because biology is based on it, and modern medicine is based on biology. You take medicine, don't you??

excon

Side: True
LichPotato(362) Disputed
1 point

Claiming biology to be entirely based on Darwinian Evolution is absurd. The only relevance the latter has to the former is an explanation of origin; it's not a prerequisite for anything relating to the actual study, particularly in regards to medicine, other than possibly history.

Even if some magical correlation does exist between Darwinian Evolution and medicine, it still doesn't imply causation; the two are not equivalent.

Side: False
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

WHAT? No one some accept evolution, because your argument is nonsense. The study of biology and human biology have no connection to evolution, but evolution theorists have tried to use it as a crutch to stand on.

The are two parts to evolution: one things are evolving and two things started evolving 14 billion years ago. That means thst the theory is that non-biological matter evolved into biological matter, which is not biology. Also, with songularites, mcromechanism, black holes, and space time vs earth time, there is a huge hole in the theory of a 14 billion year evolution process.

Side: False
JusticeOne(20) Disputed Banned
1 point

You have it backwards. Evolution tries to use biology. They jse four legged animals, fish, birds, rats and try to find a common core. It is carbon, oxygen and the earth. We all belong to the earth dust family.

Side: False
outlaw60(12301) Clarified
1 point

EXCON did you evolve from the Planet of the Apes ROTFFLMMFAO !

Side: True
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

The start is normally a good place .

Evolution is not a hypothesis and who mentioned irrefutable fact ?

Here is a little piece from new scientist ,

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

No , I never stated what you claim as in if one rejects Evolution one also rejects the entireity of science so why are you lying ?

The stats I posted are from PEW research center and demonstrate the ignorance I speak of .

Yet again more lies where did I say the acceptance of Darwinian Evolution is the cornerstone of science ?

Assuming I respond ?

That's funny considering our last encounter where you claimed that the scientific community refused to acknowledge or give a fair hearing to creationist rebuttals of Evolutionary theory ; I think you will find the circular reasoning will be entirely yours as deliberately lying to make your position seem justified has not worked either .

Feel free to post up,your usual counters from answers in genesis or have you a new source ?

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

What is funny is that you present evolution as a fact and what you believe, thrn you only post what others believe. You dance around fact and theory, and accept their defense as a fact. A fact is a fact, it does not morph into another thing because evolutionist wish to claim it. When we ask for science evidence and fact, we are not asking for the opinions and defenses of scientist's. We want the studies, the scientific process and the peer review.

Evolution is mythology and not even a hypothesis. You are unaware of the origin. Evlltuionmuputh was revitalised in the 19th century to combat the spread of religion. Odd. But, where did it come from? Greek mythology. The Big Bang theory was proposed as an alternative the Genesis creation, but Greek atheist GOAT herders. Then they introduced speciation which was already forumjjkated in Greek mythology, centaurs, menataurs, mermaids, etc.

I bet you think that Columbus arrived in America in 1492. He did not. So, do you know why they teach that lie. Learn why they teach you lies and you will begin to understand the evolution lie

Side: False
JusticeOne(20) Disputed Banned
1 point

Posting opinions that you pulled from the internet somply amounts to you finding others of your atheist religion to support your opinion. The difference between us who went to college and you who did not, is that we learned to think.

Side: False
LichPotato(362) Disputed
1 point

"Evolution is not a hypothesis"

Its substantiating evidence is circumstantial at best (seeing as the scale on which it allegedly takes place precludes observation), and has several fundamental flaws (my favorites being the lack of any evidence, despite our vast body of knowledge, of a species' ability to mutate into a dissimilar species and experiments attempting to substantiate Abiogenesis failing, particularly under theoretically optimal [and, quite frankly, generous] conditions). A scientific theory, which would be the next step up from a hypothesis, is a hypothesis substantiated by the bulk of current data. Seeing as current data is largely either indifferent to it or discredits it, one cannot rationally claim it to be a theory. It follows, then, that it's a hypothesis.

"and who mentioned irrefutable fact ?"

Perhaps I should have been more clear with my wording: any concept is inherently refutable; my meaning of the term "irrefutable" was "rationally irrefutable", which, while redundant (seeing as a fact is, by definition, an objectively verifiable piece of information [or sound logical extrapolation thereof]), would be somewhat more clear.

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."

This alleged scientist's own statement contradicts their point; if facts and theories are two exclusive concepts (which I have no disagreement with), then how can Darwinian Evolution be both? It's rational suicide.

"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."

There most certainly is. For example, when I make the statement "the vast majority of the ocean is comprised of water", objective observation by numerous persons dictates that it is indeed an absolute certainty.

"The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world."

Mathematics and logic are themselves abstract concepts, and therefore capable of objectivity, but they can (and are) both soundly applied to reality as we know it. If a mathematical or logical proof is entirely unrelated to reality (as this alleged scientist appears to be claiming must be the case), it is meaningless and therefore irrelevant to science. And yet, such proofs are the very backbone of science. It follows, then, that mathematical and logical proofs are capable of directly correlating to reality, and since they are in fact objective, it follows then that objectivity can be applied to reality.

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. "

Ah, I see. Here we hit the common issue of Darwinian Evolution vs Natural Selection (often referred to as "Macro- vs Micro-evolution", though I find the former to be much clearer). This argument is, depending on its usage, what is often referred to as a "bait and switch": it begins with a factual definition of a term, such as "Evolution is an observable phenomenon; animals have been seen adapting to their surroundings via mutation" (in this statement, "evolution" refers to the process of Natural Selection, which is an objectively verifiable phenomenon), and then abuses the equivocality of that term in an attempt to substantiate the concept expressed in the alternate meaning with the objectivity of the concept expressed in the original meaning, in this instance abusing the term "evolution"'s two meanings of "Natural Selection" (the observable phenomenon) and "Darwinian Evolution" (the unsubstantiated hypothesis). In short, the fact that these two concepts share the same name (though one is typically capitalized while the other isn't) does not make them equal in validity.

"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry."

The only possible basis for this claim is historical evidence, in this case being the great taking of liberties regarding baseless assumptions with the fossil record.

"No , I never stated what you claim as in if one rejects Evolution one also rejects the entireity of science so why are you lying ?"

That's a necessary implication of your argument; your claim is that "religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress", clearly relating to science. Your only substantiation for this claim is that particular religious groups are particularly likely to reject Darwinian Evolution. Assuming you would also claim your supporting evidence to be directly related to your claim (which I'm sure you'll agree to), it follows that you're claiming a relationship between rejecting Darwinian Evolution and "breeding ignorance and impeding progress". My point was simply that that claim, which is necessarily implied in your argument, is absurd.

"The stats I posted are from PEW research center and demonstrate the ignorance I speak of ."

I don't particularly care about the statistics; as I pointed out, they bear no relevance to your central claim. Ironically, even now, you're coming ever closer to explicitly claiming a (nonexistent) relationship between rejecting Darwinian Evolution and rejecting science as a whole.

"That's funny considering our last encounter where you claimed that the scientific community refused to acknowledge or give a fair hearing to creationist rebuttals of Evolutionary theory ; I think you will find the circular reasoning will be entirely yours as deliberately lying to make your position seem justified has not worked either ."

I certainly would if you pointed it out in a rational manner, rather than simply repeating the same baseless claims and accusations over and over again.

"Feel free to post up,your usual counters from answers in genesis or have you a new source ?"

Your apparent obsession with my (admittedly lazy) use of that particular source is somewhat confusing; is that the only legitimate criticism you found of my statements, and are therefore clinging to it, or have you simply added it to your aforementioned list of baseless claims and accusations?

Side: False
1 point

It is in fact a hypothesis at best. When you try to aplly the scientific method to it, it falls apart. A bone is 300 million years old, because someone said another bone found there was.

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

Jesus rose from the dead because someone said 👌😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Side: True
1 point

Mao and Stalin were atheists. They killed 100 million people. So that's how that works. Secularism took hold, and now the west gets a suicide bomber every couple of weeks.

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
3 points

Mao and Stalin never once said they were killing in the name of Atheism if you disagree post up statements where they claimed they were killing in the name of Atheism .

Atheists hold a position on one thing and that's a lack of belief in a god and nothing else no matter how hard theists try to assert the opposite .

Yes we now have suicide bombers every couple of weeks who by your own admission claim to be Muslim thus religious demonstrating the point that religion can breed ignorance and impede progress 👌

Thank you for proving my point by your example .....

That pesky logic keeps tripping you up buddy 🙀🙀👌

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

Sorry, when did we last have a suicide bomber in America that was Muslim. If we look at suicide bombers in Muslim cojjntries then of course they are Muslim. We have had suicide killers in America, like Omar Mateen, and he was gay. Jim Jones was also gay and atheist and he led 1000s to suicide and he also gave some of his followers AIDS. Also, Muslims do not kill in the name of their God, they kill in the name of not being colonized by Americans and Europeans. Mao and Stalin rejected religion and killed people who kept following their religion, so yes they did kill in the name of atheism.

Side: False
1 point

Atheism breeds ignorance and impeded progress. That's why the West is going down the tubes and being passed by other countries in education, technology, the family, and basic morality.

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

Banned for failure to address what was actually asked and then contradicting yourself in your second post proving you're a troll

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

The argument presented is a lie in and of itself and contradicts itself. It says that Evangeical Protestants are the most likely to reject evolution, at 58%, but Jehovah Witness reject at 75% and Seven Day Adventist reject at 67%. Also, your premise is that evolution is a proven theory, when in fact it is based on Greek mythology and rejection of the scientific method.

Side: False
JusticeOne(20) Disputed Banned
1 point

That is. It a good reason to ban a poster. Ypu seem to be tryjng to manufacture an outcome.

Side: False
1 point

This is true. Atheism rejects science and tries to promote evolution as a fact. The progress of the West is based on religion.

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

Evolution is fact except to knuckle draggers like you ..................

Side: True
1 point

Atheism is not science. Science does not support evolution. Evolution is a mythological idea that came out of mythology and how the universe works.

Side: False
JusticeOne(20) Disputed Banned
1 point

I agree. What you say is true. Atheim is the issue. That is why atheism accounts for only 2% of the world.

Side: False
1 point

All that has to asked of you Darwin did you evolve from an Ape ? ROTFFLMMFAO !

Side: False
1 point

Hey Darwin do you have a problem with the Bill of Rights most notably the 1st Amendment?

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

Don't live in the US buddy so couldn't give a flying fuck

Side: True
outlaw60(12301) Clarified
1 point

Religion in Italy is characterized by the predominance of Christianity and an increasing diversity of religious practices, beliefs and denominations. Most Christians in Italy adhere to the Catholic Church.

So are you saying the Christians that adhere to the Catholic Church there in Italy have a problem with evolution ?

Side: True
1 point

Darwin you are from Italy so why are you so concerned with American religion ?

Religion in Italy is characterized by the predominance of Christianity and an increasing diversity of religious practices, beliefs and denominations. Most Christians in Italy adhere to the Catholic Church.

What you got to say now Darwin ? Are you misinformed about the religion of the home country you claim to be from ?

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

I'm concerned about how backward a fair proportion of American Christians are , your second point makes no sense at all

Side: True
outlaw60(12301) Clarified
1 point

Religion in Italy is characterized by the predominance of Christianity and an increasing diversity of religious practices, beliefs and denominations. Most Christians in Italy adhere to the Catholic Church.

Are Italian Christians backward in their thinking when it comes to evolution ? Address if you can

Side: True
1 point

Religion in Italy is characterized by the predominance of Christianity and an increasing diversity of religious practices, beliefs and denominations. Most Christians in Italy adhere to the Catholic Church.

Religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress so is that happening there in Italy ?

Come on Darwin time to explain your confused state or is it you are not from Italy ?

Side: False
1 point

.

If Religion was based on - All Fact and Truth - Then it would still be used to Control others in order to maintain control of Power - and Step on People.

Side: False
1 point

People use all sorts of weapons to harm others. They even use Checkbooks and pens to commit crimes that harm others. Identity Theft.

Side: False
-1 points

The angry hateful site bigot once again creates debates insulting Christians. You don't even live in America but here you are trying to judge American Christians.

You are no better than KKK member spewing their hatred towards Black people.

IGNORE!

Side: False
Dermot(5359) Disputed
1 point

I never actually insulted Christians I posted up what is fact by the highly regarded Pew Center , also I'm not judging American christians I'm posting what you detest most which is facts .

You also demonstrate beautifully the mindset of the type of knuckle dragging hypocrite the article makes reference to .

It's a bit rich a numbskull like you calling others racist and bigots when you post your venom on site on a daily basis , if an original thought ever entered your poisinious cranium it would surely die of loneliness

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

You actually took facts and thrn lied about them. You claimed that Evangelical Protestants, which I am not, since there is no such thing as an Evangelical protestant or Pentecostal Protestant, are rhe mkst likely to reject evolution. You said that like evolution was supposed to be a fact thing. Also, the Pew Center cited Jehovah Witness and Seven Day Adventist as more likely.

Side: False
Vermink(1944) Clarified
0 points

It's funny you write this just to put a point on the Christian side yet don't actually put anything to disprove what's been said. Do you not know how to defend your religion?

By the way. Christianity is the same in all countries, you all follow the same book. However I have yet to believe you've actually read it with how you speak to people on here.

Side: True
FromWithin(6310) Disputed
2 points

It's always laughable watchng bigots trying to excuse their obvious bigotry towards Christians.

Side: True
JustTruth(127) Disputed Banned
1 point

What makes you think a Christian should defend their religion? In fact, Christianity is quite different because it is an individual relationship. Funny, you atheists make this claim, but you all collectively and without fact to knowledge follow evolution.

The question is the factual basis of evolution, which you are clueless.

You beleive that humans evolved a 200 million year old Triassic rodentia, but you do not even know why.

You believe that the oldest four legged hiiman ancestor is the 500 million year old four legged worm.

You also believe that nonliving matter evolved into living matter.

You also beleive that evolve is going on now, but that it has stopped.

I do not believe that you have ever even read a science book. By the way, this debate is about evolution and not what is read in a Bible.

Side: True