They absolutely do. Religious people make up the most anti-vaxxers, evolution deniers, flat earthers, creationists, and conspirists. Stop lying to yourselves, on a fundamental level religion and science contradict eachother heavily one can exist practicing both sure. But regardless, one can be tested, dated, and repeated. The other relies on fictitious multi-translated texts from thousands of years ago and first hand experiences.
20 
You get it! 🥹🥹 you have restored my faith in humanity!
10 How do you explain the genetic bottleneck that would have inevitably occurred as a result of the human population being reduced to 8 people after the great flood? We would certainly carry genetic markers indicative of that level of inbreeding
7 Science contradicts the Adam and Eve myth, which is core to the idea of original sin, which in turn is central to the entire doctrine of Christianity
3 They actually do.
3 Please explain
1 1 they kinda do tho. like if you believe every thing that happened in the bible, adam and eve and the talking snake, jesus walking on water, being resurrected, turning water into wine etc, a virgin getting pregnant. these are all scientifically impossible events and to believe that they really happened is to deny science.
-2 
#6 1wMutations. If the same God that could intervene and flood the earth then remove said water has that much power you don’t think he couldn’t add more mutations into the mix to ensure proper breeding?
1 #4 1wWe don’t know everything about the universe. Science is simply the study of the parts we have access to. A perfect example is the big bang. People say that disproves god but where did all of that matter come from in the first place? In religious context AND in science there are always exceptions to rules. Religious miracles are included in said exceptions. Does that make sense?
6 OP 1wSo your argument is handwaving God can do everything? Doesn’t that feel like a little bit of a cop out?
4 #6 1wThe entire concept of God is that he can literally do everything? The Bible states multiple times that his power is beyond human comprehension. Meaning we can’t even understand how powerful he is. How is that a cop out? Thats like me saying I have a box made of straw but no key. I can simply rip the box open to get to what I need inside. Is that a cop out simply because I have the power to commit said actions?
6 OP 1wCan he create a stone he can’t lift?
2 #9 1wthey can never answer literary paradoxes. Omniscience and free will, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Don’t even bother
2 thefeather 1wThis is such a flawed statement😭 You are referencing multiple different actions taken by PEOPLE. People also started the crusades, they killed Jesus, they make poor decisions on the daily. You are judging the scripture based on the actions of hypocrites that do not truly understand their own religion. Science is the study of our surroundings, it does not have all the answers similar to the gaps that religion can leave.
4 OP 1wScripture is also made by PEOPLE. PEOPLE who mistranslate, PEOPLE who tweak for control, PEOPLE who did these things under the guise of a supposedly omniscient god who grants free will (contradiction) and or an omnipotent god who’s supposed to be omnibenevolent and yet couldn’t intertwine goodness and free will.
13 OP 1wShit, I mean, if you wanna argue on the fundamental basis of scripture, I got a bunch of better arguments for this one vs science
3 #9 1wYes he can, not in the sense you are thinking however. You want me to say that if he can’t lift the stone then he is not actually all powerful, but if he can limit his own power then remove said limiter with a concept similar to Jesus would you accept that?God in human form)
5 #6 1wI’m not here to argue, however if you would like my position and possible explanations on parts of the scripture you’re welcome to ask any questions that would please you.
-2 OP 1whe didn’t remove that power as jesus. he would still be omnipotent just in refusal to use his power. an all powerful being cannot rid itself of power then once more regain power. that in of itself is also a paradox
4 #6 1wsame here
3 OP 1wmany atheist philosophers have a better grasp of theologic scripture than most devotees, nobody wants to ask questions, they want answers knowing those answers can’t be given within the confinements of logic.
8 thefeather 1wMany philosophers also subscribe to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, and other religions. The study of nature automatically concedes the fact that we simply don’t know everything. I have a degree in chemistry, and the one thing that it has taught me is that I know LESS than I don’t know. It’s intellectually arrogant for any of us to say that we know everything and are close to figuring out our universe whenever we don’t even have something as simple as the earth we live on figured out
-1 OP 1wYes it’s arrogant to say we know anything except for what we can prove. The more we learn the less we know, that’s exactly why people in the past who knew nothing gave themselves an explanation. Lightning being zeus or thor, the sun being amaterasu, the sea being a giant serpent or controlled by a god. Some people know so much they can’t fathom the idea of there being more, so they cope. Most people can’t accept that to all data and evidence there is simply nothing post death.
2 thefeather 1wWhile your argument is valid, it doesn’t contradict religion when using science just because religion cannot answer every question along with science. Do you see my point here? There are going to be holes and answers to questions that we simply do not know. Choosing which religion to follow is simply your interpretation of said data and what you want to place your faith into. Perfect example being jesus. If you believe he is God in human form you are likely a follower in christ. If you 1/2
3 OP 1wYes sure, but many people flat out deny science and proven fact in favour of religion
2 OP 1wIf you believe he is simply a prophet then you’d likely subscribe to Islam instead. However science doesn’t contradict the possibility of said faith. There is no scientific evidence that is hard proof of religion being incorrect. Otherwise people would have abandoned religion already.
6 thefeather 1wI’m not on the side of those individuals. I believe that both answer different questions. I don’t think that 80% of “Christians” even know 10 books in the bible. Theories in science are not proven facts, they are theories that have significant amounts of supporting evidence. The same goes for religion. We know a man named Jesus lived at one point and due to eye witness testimonies I have deduced that I want to place my faith into that philosophy.
4 OP 1wTrue, there is only science disproving what religion says and has said. And no, people won’t abandon their religion even if it’s disproven a thousand times over with science. There are still flat earthers today
2 OP 1wThoughts on the overwhelming absence of geological evidence supporting the occurrence of a global flood ever in history?
1 thefeather 1wI cannot explain the thought process of flat earthers, that was actually why I was hesitant to become religious in the first place was because of the catholic church stating and being wrong about it. I later realized that churches are governing bodies and have corruption similar to any other governing body changing my views. However, I’ve never met a pagan and those used to be EVERYWHERE
0 OP 1wif the testimonies in question are the supposedly 500 witnesses to his resurrection i’d like to remind you that a single person said there were 500 people there not 500 individual testimonies. Because of this it could be heresay. Also there are two types of theories, scientific and conceptual. Theories like evolution are testable, supported by data, and refined over time
2 thefeather 1wThe testimonies I am actually using in this case are the followers of christ when he was alive. Mark, Matthew, luke, and john. They are early in the New Testament and they are eye witness accounts of the activity that Jesus did during his life.
0 #10 1wi’ve recently been hearing more and more christians say the flood was local to get around the fact that penguins would’ve had to swim 8000km which directly contradicts scripture
1 OP 1wThat’s not what a scientific theory is. It looks like you only took the last half of the AI definition that’s brought up by Google.
0 OP 1wpersonally i don’t have issues with personal beliefs and spiritual values. religious fundamentalism however is a plague
5 #6 1wI didn’t look up the scientific theory, I used the definition given to me during my time as a college student. Hypothesis - an educated guess based on evidence available. Theory- a conclusion based on more evidence. Allowing for occasional exceptions. Law- a conclusion of which there are no known deviations.
4 OP 1wSure, but you’re using evidence from the book that would obviously support it. The New Testament also depicts various miracles so i’d be less than hasty to actually use it as source of accurate testimony. Beyond this though, there aren’t actually any non religious texts or recordings of any of these miracles by people outside of the faith
1 OP 1wI mean, paganism is mostly gone because of forceful conversions and crusades that were carried out during the Middle Ages. There’s very few areas where native paganism is still practiced. I honestly can’t think of any places in Europe where paganism was continuously practiced into the 21st century. But paganism is still very much practiced in Africa and even among Native Americans in north and South America. It’s by no means dead.
3 OP 1wYou’re missing key details. Specifically scientific theories must be testable and refutable. They must also be based off data and are refined through experimentation and observation. As I said, there are two types of theories. One is scientific, the other has no basis in fact and is just a theory made out of the blue
3 thefeather 1wTacitus, a jewish historian in ancient Rome actually accounts some of Jesus’s actions in his writings. They are not extensive, however there are other accounts in the Mediterranean area listing Jesus and how he was causing a Christian movement to uprise. I would imagine that if there were more eye-whiteness accounts of these miracles they would have just been put into the bible as well.
1 OP 1wJust caught this and I’d like to toss in this quote “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Although it does swing either way🤷🏼
5 OP 1wI’m not necessarily inclined to trust in the reliability of Tacitus. If I remember correctly, his chronicling of the events were already 50 years, separated from when any event happened.
7 #6 1wThats my entire point here. Ofc I can’t say that Christianity is 100% correct as much as I want to. I simply do not know. That is where I chose to place my faith. However, my point of science not contradicting God still stands.
3 OP 1wThat’s actually quite interesting, although Tacticus only actually recorded the historical elements of jesus and christianity such as their persecution and his crucifixion. He never recorded any of the supposed countless miracles that jesus performed
1 OP 1wI mean for moral reasons you probably shouldn’t place your faith in the Christian God if you were to place your faith in anything
1 Can you please give me examples?
1 OP 1wBut the very basis the faith of christianity is grounded in conflicts with science, the records and scriptures aswell
1 OP 1wThis is like me actually looking for your POV btw not a snarky comment
3 #6 1wThe Abrehemic God in general*
1 OP 1wSorry i’m confused, lots of reply chains
3 thefeather 1wUr all good I’m getting blown up rn and trying to figure out what I’m replying to atm😂
3 thefeather 1wCan you elaborate on this? I’m not seeing your point unless you’re saying that faith is meritless. I personally chose Christianity because of the evidence. I wasn’t born into it like many others so I can only speak to me and my experiences, however I specifically chose Christianity because it has the best evidence in my opinion that supported it.
3 OP 1wI’m not exactly sure what you’re asking me to elaborate on specifically, but i’m not saying faith is meritless (aside from the linguistic means). My beliefs however are against religious fundamentalism not necessarily individuals spirituality. Humans are complex beings, if some need the existence of god to live their life at peace then by all means. But i despise those who pressure others and use it in ways that affect others. EX politics, indoctrination, missionaries, etc.
1 there are many scientists that are atheist. most scientists are less religious. stephen hawking, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson
-1 OP 1wWell, he committed genocide. A lot actually depending on how much credit you want to give, as well as how literal you take the source material. I have two examples, one is pretty hard to deny, and then the other is undeniable. Those two examples would be the sodom and Gomorrah and the great flood. With Sodom and Gomorrah Yahweh sent two angels to wipe out two city states down to the last person. The only exception out of these two cities were a total of four people. (1/2)
2 i never said that one’s religion affects their profession nor does it reflect intellectual capability. i’m sure there are great christian doctors, scientists etc
-1 OP 1wThe other example of genocide would be the great flood in which the human population was reduced down to only eight people. This one God undeniably had a hand in as he was the one that directly and personally committed it.
1 thefeather 1wOh yeah my interest is only to show that religion itself isn’t contradictory to science and vice versa. I don’t exactly disagree that there are a lot of people who represent Christianity poorly. It makes me quite sad a lot of the time to the point where I classify myself more as a “follower of christ” than a Christian nowadays
3 OP 1wI don’t think spirituality itself is contradictory to science, i think that proof based off scriptures like the bible, quaran, BoM, etc have content that directly contradicts science.
1 OP 1wTbf follower of Christ is more true to the meaning anyway
3 OP 1wThats so true! And the big bang by itself makes no sense. You cant get something from nothing
3 #4 1wThe Big Bang doesn’t claim that we “got something from nothing”. The Big Bang covers the initial singularity and the events that followed. It does not cover “before” the initial singularity, if it even makes sense to say that there was a before (which there may not have been).
2 #4 1wYou’re currently admitting your lack of understanding of what the big bang is btw. The big bang is not the creation of the universe it’s a beginning point to expansion in the known universe. And by your same logic, what made god? “you can’t get something from nothing” means that your god had to simply always exist, that means the same “logic” can be applied to the universe itself as time is a human concept
1 #10 1wthankyou
1 “all-powerful” but couldn’t create a world of goodness and free will. Pick omnipotence or omnibenevolence
2 #12 1wRead your second sentence buddy…
2 thefeather 1w“All-loving” but commands slavery and genocide and does nothing to actually help anyone suffering. But don’t worry, will bless a football game and your aunt’s expired potato salad!
3 #10 1wMost Christians are not creationists and are perfectly aware of the concept of genesis as a metaphor. I’m not sure why so many people don’t understand that.
-1 thefeather 1wIf you want to talk paradoxes let’s take “a world of goodness and freewill.” Is it really freewill if we are bound to do good and are created without the option of doing ill? I’d say no and many philosophers, religious and not, would agree. I think there’s just a fundamental misunderstanding both of the concept of faith and the fact that theologians, non-Christian’s and scientists among them, have already thought about and been discussing this for hundreds of years.
0 #13 1wSee, if the bible were truly a “divine text” or the “word of “god”” or whatever other thing they try to hype it up as, there would be zero disagreement as to how to read it, there wouldn’t be contradictions, and there wouldn’t be tens of thousands of offshoots all cherry picking what they like and don’t like. It’s fiction that got way out of hand and needs to be relegated to the past where it belongs.
0 #11 1wThe Quran is the word of god. The bible is a grouping of books meant for showing and interpreting the philosophy behind Christianity. Not the same.
1 OP 1wboth are equally fictitious
2 OP 1wThey’re both works of fiction. They’re both full of nonsense, contradiction, hypocrisy, violence, and tools of oppression. They’re both shit. All of it is shit.
1 #13 1wMost Christians accept that there is no such thing as original sin?
3 #10 1wThere are a number of denominations that explicitly reject original sin yes (For a really interesting early modern feminist take read Rachel Speght’s “Mouzell for Melastomus” ), and most Christians have personal beliefs that diverge from doctrine because people are complicated. but that’s also not what I said. Most Christians are perfectly able to understand the Bible as metaphor and it baffles me that some people refuse to accept that. 1/2
1 #13 1w“Evolution is real” and “the big bang happened” are not controversial in normal Christian households outside of radical evangelicals. Hell, the latter was proposed by a priest
2 #13 1wLike I genuinely don’t really care about other people’s personal beliefs and I’m happy to engage in good faith conversations and explorations of this kind of stuff, I just get really frustrated when people try to present paradoxes and theological self-contradictions as some kind of gotcha under the assumption no religious person has ever thought about it, when the truth is we’ve been arguing about exactly the stuff yall are talking about literally since the start.
3 #13 1wI’m glad to hear you think that way, but you’re in the minority of Christians like by a lot
1 #10 1wA few things going on there- the survey is from between 40 and 10 years ago and things have changed a lot since the 80s. There’s some major selection bias in the last two: Pastors are not representative of the much larger lay community, and many Christians don’t actually go to church weekly. Both of those are massively self selecting for more doctrinally oriented people.
1 #13 1wIt’s true that there’s a disproportionate conservative streak in the US bc of conservative evangelicalism, but in practice most Christians are very much normal people.
1 #13 1wAre you able to provide the link? I’d like to see the studies /gen
1 #13 1wI don’t think I can post links here, but it’s an article from Medium called “Why Do Many People Still Believe that Adam and Eve Were Real?”
1 #10 1wOk thanks!
1 #13 1wI’m curious to hear your thoughts about it if you end up looking into it. I’m from another religion that tends to get some pretty insane and zany criticism (Judaism), so trust me when I say I understand the sentiment of “I’m from this religion and I’m a normal person.” That being said, I’m sorry to say this, but I do think Christianity is probably the single biggest contributor to science denialism in the western world. But that’s obviously not to say that all Christians deny science.
1 #10 1wHaven’t been able to finish yet but a couple things off the bat: looking at the other stuff the author has written he’s pretty openly anti-religious and has a bias there. There also seems to be here the continued flawed assumption that all Christians are 1) evangelical and 2)incapable of understanding metaphor (ex: he presents the theological idea of the second Adam as inherently and entirely literal, which isn’t how many Christians view it, and I’ve actually never personally known anyone 1/
1 #13 1wWho didn’t see that as a simile/metaphor). It also lists plenty of Christian scholars explicitly agreeing with science and evolution, a common view and evidence against the claim that religion and science are not compatible. There’s also some framing of scripture that’s really not accurate in ways that aren’t going to make sense to a non religious person (ex: he cites Corinthians and implies that it’s supposed to be the word of God in the Bible, which it isn’t- it’s a series of letters that 2/
1 #13 1wWait sorry before you continue, I’m genuinely curious: do you think there’s a larger source of science denialism in the modern western world than religion?
1 #13 1wWere written not by God or Jesus, or even as an account of their lives, but by the apostle Paul to various communities in the Mediterranean. They’re religious but by no means infallible and proving that Paul, who was entirely human and whose fallibility is integral to his narrative, was wrong about something doesn’t really do anything to undermine the Bible as a whole.) he makes some good points and I still have to finish but overall it’s quite biased and has some fundamental misunderstandings
1 #13 1wOf how most Christians view things.
1 #13 1wHappy to provide more thoughts later but I gotta sleep now 😭
1 #13 1wSleep well! Whenever you wake up, I am curious to get your thoughts on the question I interrupted your chain with (sorry)
3 #10 1wThere are extremist fundamentalist wings of religions that promote science denialism but I think the overall issue is a lot more complicated than that alone, and most importantly, if the goal is to promote scientific literacy, it’s super counterproductive to respond to religious people embracing science and critical thinking and arguing that the two are compatible by talking down to them and arguing they aren’t. That doesnt achieve anything but a feeling of superiority, and it ironically 1/
1 #13 1wPlays directly into anti-science narratives pushed by religious extremists. If people are embracing science alongside their faith we need to just take the win on that
1 #13 1wI’m with you, I think we should always support those who change their minds in our favor, and I don’t really think I’ve talked down to anyone in this thread. That being said, I do think that religion is the single largest source of science denialism, and I’d even say that I think it’s probably the largest source by far.
1 
'%3e%3cpath%20d='M7.5%201.26055C9.37031%201.26055%209.5918%201.26875%2010.3273%201.30156C11.0109%201.33164%2011.3801%201.44648%2011.6262%201.54219C11.9516%201.66797%2012.1867%201.82109%2012.4301%202.06445C12.6762%202.31055%2012.8266%202.54297%2012.9523%202.86836C13.048%203.11445%2013.1629%203.48633%2013.193%204.16719C13.2258%204.90547%2013.234%205.12695%2013.234%206.99453C13.234%208.86484%2013.2258%209.08633%2013.193%209.82188C13.1629%2010.5055%2013.048%2010.8746%2012.9523%2011.1207C12.8266%2011.4461%2012.6734%2011.6812%2012.4301%2011.9246C12.184%2012.1707%2011.9516%2012.3211%2011.6262%2012.4469C11.3801%2012.5426%2011.0082%2012.6574%2010.3273%2012.6875C9.58906%2012.7203%209.36758%2012.7285%207.5%2012.7285C5.62969%2012.7285%205.4082%2012.7203%204.67266%2012.6875C3.98906%2012.6574%203.61992%2012.5426%203.37383%2012.4469C3.04844%2012.3211%202.81328%2012.168%202.56992%2011.9246C2.32383%2011.6785%202.17344%2011.4461%202.04766%2011.1207C1.95195%2010.8746%201.83711%2010.5027%201.80703%209.82188C1.77422%209.08359%201.76602%208.86211%201.76602%206.99453C1.76602%205.12422%201.77422%204.90273%201.80703%204.16719C1.83711%203.48359%201.95195%203.11445%202.04766%202.86836C2.17344%202.54297%202.32656%202.30781%202.56992%202.06445C2.81602%201.81836%203.04844%201.66797%203.37383%201.54219C3.61992%201.44648%203.9918%201.33164%204.67266%201.30156C5.4082%201.26875%205.62969%201.26055%207.5%201.26055ZM7.5%200C5.59961%200%205.36172%200.00820312%204.61523%200.0410156C3.87148%200.0738281%203.36016%200.194141%202.91719%200.366406C2.45508%200.546875%202.06406%200.784766%201.67578%201.17578C1.28477%201.56406%201.04688%201.95508%200.866406%202.41445C0.694141%202.86016%200.573828%203.36875%200.541016%204.1125C0.508203%204.86172%200.5%205.09961%200.5%207C0.5%208.90039%200.508203%209.13828%200.541016%209.88477C0.573828%2010.6285%200.694141%2011.1398%200.866406%2011.5828C1.04688%2012.0449%201.28477%2012.4359%201.67578%2012.8242C2.06406%2013.2125%202.45508%2013.4531%202.91445%2013.6309C3.36016%2013.8031%203.86875%2013.9234%204.6125%2013.9562C5.35898%2013.9891%205.59687%2013.9973%207.49727%2013.9973C9.39766%2013.9973%209.63555%2013.9891%2010.382%2013.9562C11.1258%2013.9234%2011.6371%2013.8031%2012.0801%2013.6309C12.5395%2013.4531%2012.9305%2013.2125%2013.3187%2012.8242C13.707%2012.4359%2013.9477%2012.0449%2014.1254%2011.5855C14.2977%2011.1398%2014.418%2010.6313%2014.4508%209.8875C14.4836%209.14102%2014.4918%208.90312%2014.4918%207.00273C14.4918%205.10234%2014.4836%204.86445%2014.4508%204.11797C14.418%203.37422%2014.2977%202.86289%2014.1254%202.41992C13.9531%201.95508%2013.7152%201.56406%2013.3242%201.17578C12.9359%200.7875%2012.5449%200.546875%2012.0855%200.369141C11.6398%200.196875%2011.1313%200.0765625%2010.3875%200.04375C9.63828%200.00820313%209.40039%200%207.5%200Z'%20fill='white'/%3e%3cpath%20d='M7.5%203.4043C5.51484%203.4043%203.9043%205.01484%203.9043%207C3.9043%208.98516%205.51484%2010.5957%207.5%2010.5957C9.48516%2010.5957%2011.0957%208.98516%2011.0957%207C11.0957%205.01484%209.48516%203.4043%207.5%203.4043ZM7.5%209.33242C6.21211%209.33242%205.16758%208.28789%205.16758%207C5.16758%205.71211%206.21211%204.66758%207.5%204.66758C8.78789%204.66758%209.83242%205.71211%209.83242%207C9.83242%208.28789%208.78789%209.33242%207.5%209.33242Z'%20fill='white'/%3e%3cpath%20d='M12.0773%203.26206C12.0773%203.72691%2011.7%204.10152%2011.2379%204.10152C10.773%204.10152%2010.3984%203.72417%2010.3984%203.26206C10.3984%202.79722%2010.7758%202.42261%2011.2379%202.42261C11.7%202.42261%2012.0773%202.79995%2012.0773%203.26206Z'%20fill='white'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cdefs%3e%3cclipPath%20id='clip0_560_306'%3e%3crect%20width='14'%20height='14'%20fill='white'%20transform='translate(0.5)'/%3e%3c/clipPath%3e%3c/defs%3e%3c/svg%3e)
