191 comments

• Comment Link Saturday, 08 December 2012 12:38 posted by Winston

  Science cannot refute the existence of god. However, it's not up to science to disprove the existence of god. The burden of proof is upon those who believe in god to prove it exists. And, thus far, they have produced nothing that has convinced me that god exists.

• Comment Link Saturday, 08 December 2012 09:59 posted by carrstone

  As an atheist I do have faith - faith in my fellow-man. My faith is in his abilty, when left untrammeled by restrictive dogma, to erase the gaps in his knowledge. I have faith that his curiosity and inventiveness will increase the well-being of man, something that religion doesn't even pretend to be able to do. And I have faith that, in time, god will be but a footnote in history.

• Comment Link Saturday, 08 December 2012 08:03 posted by T

  God is imaginary, refute that!

• Comment Link Saturday, 08 December 2012 04:02 posted by T

  Of course science refutes god and understanding that is a sign of intelligence. Rather than merely a debate, this was more like an IQ test.

• Comment Link Friday, 07 December 2012 19:09 posted by Daniel

  Theatricality and deception. Powerful agents for the uninitiated.
  -Bane was talking about every single theistic argument that exists today.
  Unfortunately, due to scientific education, most atheists are initiated.

• Comment Link Friday, 07 December 2012 09:11 posted by ChuckSigler

  I haven't yet listened to the full debate, but there is a premise about 'religion' that may play a role in this debate.
  
  If the essential source of 'religion' is a belief in supernatural or spiritual beings, as Edmund Tylor (a 19th century anthropologist) and others hold, then a premise that science can only be done while believing in the possibility of the uniformity of natural causes within the closed system of nature (see my other post for an explanation of this) would reject any argument that a transcendent, spiritual being could influence what happens in nature. This would be seen as inherently religious and therefore not scientific. This understanding of religion seems to underlie the supporters of the debate statement, "science refutes god."
  
  Emile Durkheim, a 19th century sociologist, believed that: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." He argued that the concept of the supernatural was relatively new; one that emerged with the development of science and the separation of the supernatural—that which cannot be rationally explained—from the natural, that which can be rationally explained. For Durkheim, a belief in the supernatural was NOT religious until it became a unified system of belief and practices relative to the sacred and then united into a moral community, a 'church.' So early historical scientists like Isaac Newton, could hold to a belief in 'god' and still be said to be doing science as long as their 'churchly' beliefs and practices were not a part of their science. If our view of religion is more like that of Edmund Tylor than Emile Durkheim, then science as the uniformity of natural causes in an open system of nature (the essential premise for those who reject the debate statement that science refutes god) is rejected as inherently religious because it allows for the possibility of a transcendent, spiritual being outside of, beyond the sphere of nature.
  
  So to debate whether science refutes religion, we must first ask what we mean by science, and what we mean by religion. An inability to at least agree, for the sake of the debate, in the possibility of the opposing understanding of 'science' and 'religion' leads either to a short debate; or one where neither side can hear what the other side means as they argue for or against 'science refutes religion.'

• Comment Link Friday, 07 December 2012 07:31 posted by ChuckSigler

  A fundamental premise for all science is "the uniformity of natural causes." By the way, this is not a premise that is conclusively provable by the scientific method. The divide between the two positions in the debate is over whether this premise of science occurs within an open or closed system of nature. The uniformity of natural causes within an open system, where something from outside the system of nature can influence events within the system of nature is the starting point for the theistic, religious side of the argument and their view of science. The uniformity of natural causes within a closed system of nature, says that even if there is anything beyond the closed system of nature (which the supporters of the debate statement "science refutes god" reject as possible) we cannot know it and it cannot influence anything within the closed system of nature, is the starting point for the atheistic, nonreligious side of the debate. If the only acceptable scientific results are those that begin with a premise that science can only be done within a methodology that assumes the uniformity of natural causes within a closed system of nature, then the debate will always conclude that science refutes god.
  
  The notion that both opponents to the debate statement are Christian is irrelevant, unless you are somehow attempting to argue that a Christian theistic belief system makes them incapable of doing science. This begs the point. This argument above is based upon the writings of Francis Schaeffer; "Escape From Reason."

• Comment Link Friday, 07 December 2012 07:07 posted by Luis G. Martinez

  There is so much evidence for a God of creation and a Christian God in specific that He made it so who ever looked at the evidence would believe. Some have a philosophical bias against a God because for the most part they haven’t investigated the evidence. Even most Christians don't know the reason for their faith. If you look at the Great Pyramid in Egypt it is a sign for our last days as to truth of Jesus. You look at the Shroud of Turin and my God you've got to be a complete idiot not to believe. There is much more.

• Comment Link Friday, 07 December 2012 06:15 posted by chet

  phenomenal job by the debate director. I thought it was extremely un-biased.

• Comment Link Friday, 07 December 2012 04:49 posted by Kenneth

  Tss, that is so gibberish Jake, to say that love your enemies as said by Jesus Christ. The old testament was inarguably one of the most malevolent, fictional, yet holy books in all of times, and how can an even loving god be sacrificing his own son for the redemption of mankind? How can it be? There's so many alternative plans your genie could have done instead of sacrificing and torturing and being a bloody mess about it. "The Christ myth has served us well." As pronounced by Pope Leo X. How can you even prove that atheistic people are committing atrocity? How about Hitler? You can't deny the fact that Hitler was a catholic. Religious faith is bias and is propaganda. If all of these fundamentalists and religionists hold different variations of truth, one can easily conclude that all of these religions are all bloody scams. There's no truth in religion, you people should come back to Science, Reasoning, Logic and Reality. You should get out of your boxes limiting your thoughts and thinking. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." By Carl Sagan
  
  Science is progress, religion is regress.