191 comments

• Comment Link Sunday, 13 January 2013 21:49 posted by Dave

  While Krauss and Shermer did an nice job of maintaining a substantive debate, despite D'Souza's propensity to dismiss rather than identify and solve (proving how poor of a scientist he is, not to mention his obvious lack of conviction to truth and his proclivity toward sensationalism, as so clearly shown in his documentary on Obama); I truly wish Krauss and Shermer would have nailed the ridiculously parochial subjective basis the theists made on so many topics, such as D'Souza's reference to the idea that morals evolve due to Smith's "impartial spectator," which is so flawed in suggesting we are "preprogrammed" with morals. He obviously never studies the effects the environment has on the lack of morals in feral children. D'Souza also really messed up suggesting science (and what I think should have been more accurately described as observation: as the former is not required to obtain the latter) cannot prove what happens after death. It is quite clear what "physically" happens to us , or any other animal for that manner; the flawed perception/belief is that we are unique (as a result of having a soul) and therefore must have further purpose, which is just egocentric. We are no better or worse than any other animal, tree or any other form of matter. Until man decides to embrace this notion and accept our ACTUAL reason for being (which is simply the same as any other animal: to live), we will be stuck wasting time on trying to enlighten others and fight to avoid being effected by others who espouse this egotistical notion that something MUST happen after death!

• Comment Link Thursday, 10 January 2013 06:22 posted by Brent

  I can understand the frustration on the part of some of the commenters here. Of course science doesn't refute God. The God concept is infallible, refutation is impossible. What the atheist side should have made clear, and indeed what should have been the motion for the debate, was that science has shown there is no good reason to believe in God. That's a very different claim.

• Comment Link Monday, 07 January 2013 17:49 posted by Jeff

  I find it telling that the debate topic was changed into "Defend Christianity" by those for the motion.
  
  This occurred because the legends and beliefs of Christianity are easy to mock. It is easier to make someone who believes them sound foolish then to actually defend the premise that science refutes Gd.
  
  This would be like a fish proclaiming to other fish that their investigations have refuted the existence of water. They can proclaim it all day but can only do so because of the sustenance of the very water they dismiss.
  
  How foolish to Gd must these people seem as they proclaim loudly and pompously that since He hides himself from them behind a veil of nature He must not exist.
  
  They seem to believe that if there were a Gd, He would be constantly be blinding us with the knowledge of His presence but does this make sense? If there is a Gd, and He has given us a purpose to achieve, an all encompassing knowledge of Gd would defeat the purpose of creation.

• Comment Link Friday, 04 January 2013 04:49 posted by John Hooten

  I sure would like to see the experiment that was used to "refute" the existence of God. Maybe I could replicate it here at home. You know, I've never seen a black hole. I'm told that you can feel its effects. But then again, I'm told that you can feel the effects of love.
  I'd really like to see that god-o-meter!....

• Comment Link Thursday, 03 January 2013 05:11 posted by robin brisebois

  I look forward to the debate based on the question asked at approx. 1:31:00
  "Why is god necessary?"

• Comment Link Tuesday, 01 January 2013 01:15 posted by I M Probulos

  I think Lawrence Krauss presented his argument very well. The argument is for science and reason and rationality versus the God argument and the Christian religion. A belief in God, religion in general, and all superstitious behavior is common because it is a response to the 12 Unthinkable Horrors of Human Existence:
  
  1) There Is No Afterlife
  2) God Does Not Answer Prayers
  3) Life Is Chance
  4) Life Is Not Fair
  5) There Is No Eternal Justice
  6) God Is The Invention Of Man.
  7) A Single Mistake Can Ruin Your Life
  8) Man Is Not Special
  9) There Is No Absolute Morality or Truth
  10) Free Will Is a Myth
  11) Experts Can Be Wrong
  12) Romantic Love Is A Myth
  
  Sciences supports them. Religion, faith and a belief in God refutes them because, for 85% of the population, it is more comforting to believe the myth than the reality.
  
  I M Probulos

• Comment Link Friday, 21 December 2012 14:32 posted by david

  Neither side clearly understood what they were talking about and the audience certainly didn't either. Science can't possibly refute God. However, it can refute the existence of certain gods. Some power caused the universe and that power is God. What they needed to do in this debate was identify the god they were debating about. Both sides had concepts of God that are wrong so they were fighting and defending a "straw" man, or god.

• Comment Link Friday, 21 December 2012 09:46 posted by Dave

  @Andres Pabon
  
  I agree with you with regards to Deism, but Christianity, Islam etc. make assertions in their holy texts about the nature and history of the same universe that science aims to explain and explore.
  
  As science grows and evolves and discovers more and more about the history and nature of our universe, assertions made in biblical texts are falsified or confirmed, and from that we can gain insight into whether or not these texts contain truth.

• Comment Link Friday, 21 December 2012 09:43 posted by Philip Romov

  I can see where they are going with the science refutes god. As Andres rightly points out, its not that science refutes faith. Rather, as I understand this debate, it is that science refutes the scientific proofs of god.
  
  There has been a slew of seemingly scientific arguments proposed as evidence for god. To me, they have all been flawed in one way or another, and the speakers in this debate explain why quite eloquently.
  
  I can also recommend the two dan barker vs dinesh desouza debates, as well as sam harris vs dinesh desouza, for possibly more faith-baised content.

• Comment Link Friday, 21 December 2012 08:14 posted by David

  Anders P. and others ignorantly use false information to defend their beliefs which are just as religious as those they deny. Correctly speaking, any belief about how people should live is a religion. It's true that the gods of the Bible and the Koran do not exist as described in those documents but to deny that God exists is equal to denying that the universe exists. Some ultimate power caused the universe and that power is God. Also, "faith," as the writers of the Bible used that term, is belief that is based on irrefutable evidence rather than the absence of evidence. Notice that I said "irrefutable" as opposed to "undeniable." Additionally, just because the writers of the Bible thought that the evidence they offered was irrefutable does not necessarily mean that it actually was. One more thing. Modern science, by its very nature, most certainly does attempt to establish "the truth" and dispose of prejudice which it wrongly assumes is "faith." What this means is that people who describe themselves as atheists don't know what they're talking about but then, neither do so called believers. People who are very serious about knowing the real answers to such questions need to study my recently published book, "The Answer" to be found on Amazon and published for the Kindle reader. You can actually know the answer and know that you know it but it can't be done the usual and popular way people have attempted to do it in the past.