191 comments

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 22:05 posted by Jake

  Shawn, You will never reach the end of counting how many people were killed by atheistic/communistic regimes.
  As a believer in Christ, who taught, "love your enemies", not go kill them, one must not judge the truth with false religion. All but one of Christ's own disciples were killed by false religious people. Let's not call white black or black white,

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 21:13 posted by jim

  i am against the motion as stated, "science refutes god" and i offer as my argument, the very argument offered in favor of the motion. where the motion refers to god, the argument in favor, correctly, points the finger at the deficiencies of religion. religion is not god any more than god is religion.
  the holders of knowledge and the greatest advances in science leading right into the industrial revolution were by men of faith who wanted to explain god's work, to investigate, to understand, to be closer to god, not confront him.
  science is evidence and proof, not belief. faith is belief without proof or evidence. they are, ever were, and should remain mutually exclusive, parallel tracks, possibly traveling in opposite directions, but distinct and separate regardless of what some wish were true. i would also warn against praising science as a religion. too many people buy into the conclusions of 'a recent study' with no more knowledge or authority than a believer in a fully interventionist god. while religion doesn't change its opinions, science is never satisfied with its conclusions and the way some people grab one piece of information from one snapshot in the continuum of acquisition of knowledge is just as ignorant of science's purpose.
  i am a believer in science - an engineer - and haven't gone willingly to a house of god in 40 years, but i have absolutely no problem anyone of faith or their opinions - on anything except facts of the physical world. to me, religion is a tool, neither good nor bad. if religion offers motivation for research, then so be it.
  i thus reject the very premise of the debate, because although religion has been an excuse to make a mess of one society after another, that's man's fault, and there is still not an answer for what was before time began and so a theory that supposes some higher power or accidental creator that set the ball rolling with or without laws set in stone remains a possibility of what lies beyond our ability to investigate.
  or not.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:51 posted by eric

  why can't people just be amazed at the universe around us? figuring out how it works makes us more amazed and curious to know more. discovery is the birdsong of man. god is some stuff we just made up to justify our ignorance and appease our insecurity.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:44 posted by Everett

  Just think,without God you can cuss or anything you like! Powerful motivation to believe in atheism don't you think?

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:37 posted by Rana

  Man created god..not the other way round..that is what is logical...and rational :)end of story.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:35 posted by Jennifer

  Christianity never thought me not to ask questions :)
  The argument is whether or not i agree when the 'revelation' is presented.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:34 posted by Jorden

  I would consider this to be a program that more intelligent people watch. I find it funny how a vast majority of the people, off the bat, voted that science does refute god. Not to mention the fact that a majority of the most intelligent scientists, in recent years, are in fact athiest. I also think that it is funny how Denish keeps attacking how old Darwinism is and how it is "the only strong argument." Which belief is older, Darwinism or Christianity?

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:31 posted by Jason

  The arguments against the motion are propose that they are consistent with reason. This is deeply misguided as we can see how conditional that so-called reason is by borrowing a rhetorical tool to re-frame those arguments.
  
  In constructing the arguments against motion you have no tools that can clearly distinguish that Science fails to refute God without also equipping the individual with tools to say that Science fails to refute Unicorns, Russel's teapots, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and other such claims which could always be grounded in experience, but are not. If we think they are not by something other than pure happenstance, we are asking a how question, and we would not want our answer to come from a religious epistemology, we want an epistemology that can speak directly to reality.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:11 posted by Mark Spendel

  Rabbits in Precambrian rocks.....man.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:02 posted by hilaryfox

  Following the debate from Mexico and so far so good! D'Sousa makes good sense!