194 comments

• 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!

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:56 posted by Ned Carter

  The dark ages are proof of the churches destruction of science. The idea that the Church propelled science forward is absurd. They funded science, they decided what was or was not true, and they destroyed what they did not like. We could be intergalactic explorers if not for the 500+ years of darkness and despair brought to you by Monotheism, its wars, its murder, and its dishonesty.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:29 posted by Fabiodej

  evolution is a fact: half true. the point of dispute is darwnism and its mechanism. that's not sill established at all.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:24 posted by hilaryfox

  Following the debate from Mexico and so far so good! h

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:21 posted by Joe S

  @Tuesday, 04 December 2012 00:14
  posted by Craig Manoukian
  "If we evolved from apes, why are there still monkeys and apes?"
  
  Craig, under evolutionary theory, today's monkeys and apes likewise evolved from an ancient predecessor. At some time in the distant past, what we see today as "modern" humans, monkeys and apes all shared a common ancestor. It's not that "modern" apes have been around unchanged for millions of years and "modern" humans splintered off on their own separate path.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:17 posted by hilary fox

  Robert R. was great! I'm in Mexico and I feel as if I'm there with you!

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 19:03 posted by Bill

  I don't think science refutes the existence of god; common sense refutes the existence of god.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 05 December 2012 18:37 posted by Bryan Leed

  Dinesh D'Souza has a great strength in reasoning out all the faith-based aspects of atheism, since atheism is so desperate to wrongly use science as an argument against the existence of God. At which point the faith of atheists becomes scientism; not science, but rather a substitute religious belief that falsely claims science as the ultimate authority, not coincidentally devoid of morality in the yearnings of the atheist believer. There is nothing scientific about the Big Bang Theory, (nothingness explodes to create everything). As a matter of fact, the Big Bang Theory is an interesting description of how God spoke the universe into existence, out of nothingness and into becoming the universe, from one single point in time, just like the Bible has been saying for thousands of years!
  
  But Dinesh also has an unfortunate weakness. He is good at debunking atheist reasoning, but since Dinesh has a weakness in choosing to never debate using the Bible, Dinesh is very weak in promoting the Christian faith. Thus, I support Dinesh in his bravery to get into the arena with these debating atheists, but I also feel like Dinesh is missing out on spreading the Gospel. I wish he would start sowing the seeds of the Word of God, at least a little, in these debates. After giving the secular debunking of atheism, why not toss in a little Scripture that agrees with any particular point made by Dinesh?
  
  I also feel that Dinesh ignores the Bible teachings to his own spiritual detriment, hence his recent scandal of becoming engaged before being legally divorced from his estranged wife. In his public statements on the scandal, Dinesh said he was not aware that becoming engaged while still legally married was frowned upon in Christian circles. Duh! If Dinesh would please study the Bible as a believer, submitting to its authority in his own life, then he would know right from wrong, in Christian circles.