×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Censored Religious Debate Video Released After Public Outrage

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the on-second-thought dept.

Censorship 717

First time accepted submitter tkel writes "On October 12, 2011 Theologian John Haught publicly debated prominent evolutionary scientist and atheist Jerry Coyne at the University of Kentucky. Although both agreed to a videotaping of the event, Haught later prohibited its release because he felt he had been treated unfairly. Coyne released blog posts addressing the matter as an offense to free speech. Reviewing their new status in the blogosphere, Haught and his associates at the University of Kentucky have decided to release the video."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

717 comments

One small victory for a man.. (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930728)

..and one giant win for science.

Re:One small victory for a man.. (4, Insightful)

x2A (858210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930852)

Is always good to see occasions where the saying "have you ever noticed that the less someone knows, the louder they know it?" is shown to not always be true, that sometimes, the knowledgeable can be noisy too :-)

Dialog is good and all... (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930736)

...but debating these people only give them credibility they do not deserve. The people who believe in creationism will never be swayed away from it, because their reasons for believing in it it are not the same as ours are for believing evolution. It is not out of an attempt to explain nature and the universe, but an egotistical need to be above it. Being descended from primates is offensive to them because they see the sum of humanity as being a jumble of biological components, rather than our arts and sciences. No wonder: religion has usually opposed arts and sciences until they gained enough traction to threaten the religion itself should it resist further.

It's time for religion to be closed out from the scientific debate altogether. "Faith" has no place in a field based on empirical evidence and doubt. Creationism doesn't even deserve a title as a discredited theory, it belongs with mythology like Atlantis and elves, and should rightly be laughed at with impunity.

Haught isn't in favor of creationism (5, Informative)

LwPhD (1052842) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930758)

While I'm in favor of piling onto Haught, he isn't a creationist. [wikimedia.org]

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (1)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930812)

Watching the video and reading the letter do give a fairly reasonable opposite view from the last article, that has nothing to do with the merits of science or religion. But, ya know, you would have thought a Christian would have turned the other cheek, forgiven his enemy and just released the damn video to get his message across. Christians never seem to remember the forgiveness thing.

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930826)

Watching the video and reading the letter do give a fairly reasonable opposite view from the last article, that has nothing to do with the merits of science or religion. But, ya know, you would have thought a Christian would have turned the other cheek, forgiven his enemy and just released the damn video to get his message across. Christians never seem to remember the forgiveness thing.

Neither do niggers. They still haven't gotten over that whole slavery thing.

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931078)

Christians are sinners too my friend and forgiveness is hard for all. Otherwise we wouldn't need God at all. Christianity isn't based on Christians being perfect...

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931108)

Clearly, since they made that mistake of believing in a god in the first place...

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (5, Interesting)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930848)

It's also interesting to read his open letter to Coyne [uky.edu] that is posted along with the video.

He may be wrong, deluded, full of himself, or just lying, but I have a strong sense that the reporting of this whole event was very badly skewed against Haught. At least now, with the presentations and video made available, we can see how it really played out.

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931024)

Ouch... that letter is even worse than Haught's performance during the event. He should have asked a friend of his about the wisdom of publicising it.
>the reporting of this whole event was very badly skewed against Haught
Given Haught's performance during the event, and his handling of the way he tried to sweep it under the carpet (whatever his reasons may have been), there was no way any reporting of this event was going to be favourable for Haught. He reaped what he sowed.

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930860)

Well, that's what I get for not RTFA'ing. However, had I, the same argument can be adapted to gems such as (quoting from Wikipedia because I am lazy at the moment):

"He also testified that materialism, the philosophy that only matter exists, is "a belief system, no less a belief system than is intelligent design."

A statement like that shows that you can take the creationism out of the creationist, but not the mindset that led to it. If anything, he is smart enough not to adopt the most easily disproved position, in favor of sneakier ones like "you can't prove religion is false so our positions as just as valid." Of course, again this is me going off Wikipedia having not watched the rather long video yet. He might be a fine and reasonable man... yet something tells me that isn't to be expected.

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (2, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931154)

No, you are pretty close. His basic idea is "I believe in all the science you can throw at me, but that still doesn't disprove God". And though he somehow thinks that makes him different, to a real scientist it's not much different from "do you believe in Odin or does Zeus sound more believable?"

Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (3, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931216)

I think that is usually referred to as "the god of the empty spaces". It's the delusion where anything that isn't already explained by science is declared to be the realm and hand of god.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (4, Interesting)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930820)

Here's something that blows the creationist’s mind: vestigial organs/parts. If a creator independently designed each organism, then lots of stuff that shouldn't be there somehow made it into the finished product. This excellent article explains it better than I could: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html [talkorigins.org]

Creationists also have a hard time talking their way around the massive problems with Noah's flood: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html [talkorigins.org]

Full disclosure: I used to be a born again christian, (these days I consider myself an agnostic... I don't really know if there's a god or not) but sites like these really opened my eyes. Most people only believe because they are told the same things over and over again from childhood and free thought is discouraged. I don't know if ministers/seminaries are ignorant of the true history of Christianity or if they are aware and simply covering it up to maintain control over people. Bible "study" is simply re-indoctrinating yourself over and over. Once something happens in your life to make you start questioning what you've been told, your whole worldview inevitably falls apart. It's only a matter of time.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (2)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930942)

I don't really know if there's a god or not either, but I consider myself an atheist anyway because I would be a lot more surprised if it turned out there is. Plus it pisses off my family.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (5, Interesting)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931030)

In my case, I don't WANT to piss off my family. My dad has been an atheist for years so he wouldn't care, but my mom has always been hyper-religious and I don't want to strain that relationship. I was "in the closet" about my beliefs for some time even though I continued to play the part. Eventually I just couldn't take it anymore and I came out. She took it hard and tried to "scare" me back into the fold but time heals all wounds. The Pauline doctrine is a huge part of what broke my faith... to actually adhere to it you would have to essentially stop being human, and telling yourself that you were a worthless "sinner" over and over again and perpetually begging for forgiveness is incredibly damaging.

If there is a god, I'm very certain that it isn't the spiteful yahweh god of the old testament. Even Jesus seems to be a composite of lots of earlier pagan traditions. Lots of what he said can be traced back to earlier philosophers and the similarities are so uncanny that it's basically plagiarism. (another good site is http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ [jesusneverexisted.com] ) Even when I was still indoctrinated I noticed lots of inconsistencies in the New testament but I was conditioned not to ask questions and just accept it.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931058)

In my case I DON'T want to piss off my family. My dad has been an atheist for most of my life so he wouldn't care but my mom has always been hyper-religious. I was "in the closet" for a long time after I stopped believing, but eventually I couldn't keep up appearances anymore and I came out recently. She took it hard and tried to scare me back into the fold, but after feeling free for the first time in my LIFE I just couldn't go back to it again. I'm certain that time heals all wounds. The Pauline doctrine is basically what "broke" me in the end... I just couldn't take it anymore. All that talk of sin, damnation, and constantly having to beg god for forgiveness is incredibly damaging.

If there is a god, I'm certain that it isn't the spiteful god in the Old Testament. Even Jesus (somehow the same entity, yet he prays to himself) seems to be a composite of older pagan myths. (another good site is http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ [jesusneverexisted.com] What Jesus taught is so similar to other sources that its essentially plagiarism.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931094)

sorry for the double post.. it seems to be a slashdot malfunction. I posted the first one and it came up blank so I typed everything again.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931000)

Kind of in the same manner as vestigial organs, what always kind of made me wonder was why we need men and women if humans are designed in God's image. Strictly speaking, we should reproduce by agamogenesis. Unless there is something the bible isn't telling us... it does seem fairly insistent that God is a "he" in ever version I saw. oh well, I get fridge logic from religion. At least it has a better ending than lost.

As far as agnostic, I think the term is kind of useless. I don't think anyone takes the position that there is definitely no god (even people like me who love to attack the idea of god existing). There is a very high probability, I would say, that something of some form exists outside of what we consider the universe; if only because the current definition is narrowed mostly to what we are sure exists. However, going by the concept of belief requiring proof, not knowing something exists is essentially the same as it not existing. It is always possible to be wrong if you say something doesn't exist and at some point it turns out to, but the two positions are for all practical purposes identical until that happens. But I digress into epistemology... .

Re:Dialog is good and all... (2)

crazycheetah (1416001) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931068)

And then there's others of us who followed the opposite path from atheism/agnosticism to being some sort of theist. In that boat, I can say that it's going to take a whole lot more than anything science has shown me thus far to change my mind. The only thing for me is that I actually believe that science and faith can and should live harmoniously; I'm not the type to discredit evolution, etc. just because it doesn't match some interpretation of the bible that I've been told all my life (actually, it matches my interpretation of the bible just fine, because I don't understand how the two have to conflict at all unless you want to think that your interpretations of said writings are infallible, which of course is what a lot of christians do under the guise of calling the bible infallible). The history of Christianity is dark, but a lot of Christianity for a long time now has been nothing but one blind man driving a bus full of other blind men around. As a believer myself, I have a lot of anger about this. I have spent most of my life in which I've believed not going to church, specifically because of this--I'm not blind any more, I can drive myself where I need to go without a blind guy driving me off of a cliff.

I see the argument of religion vs. evolution to be stupid. Religion vs. atheism doesn't even make sense when talking to most christians. Religion is an institution (at their core, I would say that they are philosophies, but Christianity is specifically guilty of losing any of that philosophy to the institution, which is inherently corrupt and bogus--it's not even about the philosophy any more, it's about having control and power over people). Talking theism vs. atheism makes a lot of sense. Intelligent Design/Creationism vs. Evolution makes sense to a certain point (at a certain point, Intelligent Design and Creationism also try to explain things that have nothing to do with evolution), but Religion always gets dragged into it. That's stupid (why the hell is Noah always brought into it... that specifically seems like such a completely unrelated topic that I've never been able to understand why creationists tout it and evolutionists even entertain them about it).

There's also schools of thought that evolution, etc. can fit securely into a theist's (even christian) mind as well, though that's really a different point than the one I'm trying to make.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (3, Insightful)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931324)

If a creator independently designed each organism, then lots of stuff that shouldn't be there somehow made it into the finished product.

So? Perhaps God did it for amusement, perhaps he's artistically inclined. Look at the average painter's paintings (and the stuff the doesn't even like himself and destroys/hides), does he produce useful or aesthetically perfect paintings? How can flaws in nature be an argument against creationism any more than they can be used against evolution theory, when evolution supposedly optimizes away flawed designs in the long run?
(before you ask, I'm an atheist/agnostic, but I find it pointless to even debate particular ideas of people suffering from a popular form of mass psychosis)

Re:Dialog is good and all... (2, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931340)

Creation science is one of the greatest sources of really concentrated stupidity to be found anywhere.

Ladeez gemmun, I give you: baraminology [rationalwiki.org] .

Re:Dialog is good and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931390)

we call that copy-paste inheritance or "sloppy copypasta".

Re:Dialog is good and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930854)

That's why I think debates like this are good. Equal respect for one another's ideas should not be shared.. they should be doing their best to rip the other's ideas apart in as brutal a fashion as possible. You will find, through and through, that religious doctrine will be the first to fall apart under even the most simple of attacks. (Just repeat the word "Evidence?" over and over again, really..)

An additional thing is that debates like this need to be made, so that hopefully, maybe, some people might start to think again.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930906)

I agree, but there is a point where it becomes demeaning; I am not sure how much it is accomplishing. Everyone who watches debates only sees their pre-existing positions winning, which doesn't necessarily do anything productive. Maybe we need more comedians to take up the job. If there is one thing that can shake a belief system, it is feeling that others view it as absurd. Religion provides many excuses like "they're working for the devil," "they hate god," etc; but all of those are too serious to apply to simply being made an ass of in front of an audience. Too bad there is only one Stephen Fry.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (0)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930882)

Why do we even tolerate the profession of "Theologian" in the 21st century? Somehow he's committing fraud if he can make a living off being one.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930972)

You mean, like, "historian"? Sure, there's no place for history in the future. They should throw out archaeologists as well since that's not important. In other news, no.

Just because something isn't valid to you right now, or won't get you laid in the next 15 minutes, does not make it invalid or unworthy of any attention.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (-1, Troll)

ProfM (91314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930916)

It's time for religion to be closed out from the scientific debate altogether. "Faith" has no place in a field based on empirical evidence and doubt. Creationism doesn't even deserve a title as a discredited theory, it belongs with mythology like Atlantis and elves, and should rightly be laughed at with impunity.

So, what I'm understanding you to say, is that your wild-ass GUESS about the origin of man is better than someone else's wild-ass GUESS, just because they may believe that the Flying Spagetti Monster or some other Deity is responsible for creating us?

Problem is, both sides have no PROOF of their position. Creationists base theirs' on "Faith" ... Evolutionists base theirs' on "Theories". What I find humorous on the Evolutionists' side, is that someone will find a bone fragment (not even a whole bone), yet conceptually render what that person looked like. Nebraska Man [wikipedia.org] is one example that comes to mind.

You state that your Wild-Ass Guess is that we descended from primates. A Creationist may believe that the FSM created primates similar to humans to really confuse you and make Darwin the butt of Creationist jokes.

Either way, there is no scientific PROOF as you are requiring, and in my opinion, all there will ever be are Wild-Ass Guesses. Then again, maybe the FSM will show itself tomorrow, and prove that we're all descended from bees.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (4, Informative)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930962)

You've made the tragically common mistake of believing that a scientific "theory" means that it has no support.
Rather, it is the opposite - a scientific theory is something which has overwhelming support.

And while science may not yet (or ever) know the exact details of man's origins, we at least have something concrete and observable, unlike theologies wild-ass-guesses. And something is greater than nothing.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931006)

Your position would look better if you at least tried to understand the scientific method before trying to wail on it. As you clearly don't, you just come off like an ignorant religious twat who can't stand to think of their chosen delusion as specious. Hubris at its finest. It must be upsetting for God to see the brain he gave you going to such ridiculous waste. Not that I believe in God. But you do.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931028)

So, what I'm understanding you to say, is that your wild-ass GUESS about the origin of man is better than someone else's wild-ass GUESS, just because they may believe that the Flying Spagetti Monster or some other Deity is responsible for creating us?

Absolutely, because the theory of evolution, being scientific, is proveable based on evidence, and (if evidence were found against it) disproveable. Creationism (or the term used to try to slip it into schools "Intelligent Design") is not defined in a way that it is disproveable; it is not science, it is faith. It's really as simple as that.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931048)

THEORIES and FAITH

Here's the difference:
Questioning faith: Discouraged. Sometimes even punished.
Questioning theories: Encouraged, by design.

Now: which do you think is the better system?

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

lakeland (218447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931060)

No, not really.

There is very little in life which can be proven. Apart from logical proofs such as 1 + 1 = 2 or it is possible to colour a map using only four colours without any two nodes having identical colours, nothing can be proven.

So everyone has faith. Some people may choose to believe in Jesus, others in Allah and a good number of people believe that if you can generalize from your observations to find truth.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

EvilAlphonso (809413) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931120)

You state that your Wild-Ass Guess is that we descended from primates. A Creationist may believe that the FSM created primates similar to humans to really confuse you and make Darwin the butt of Creationist jokes. Either way, there is no scientific PROOF as you are requiring, and in my opinion, all there will ever be are Wild-Ass Guesses.

You may want to check mtDna and the retrovirus marks. Not only do we have retrovirus leftovers from our primate relatives, those leftovers allow us to trace the branching of our family tree.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931122)

If those are your issues, I think you and Descartes [wikipedia.org] need to have a talk. Amusingly, he pretty much started this whole "atheist" thing accidentally.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

taoareyou (2468090) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930928)

Declaring a viewpoint is not "deserving" and dismissing it by declaring it unworthy of being addressed is also an egotistical need. A viewpoint that disagrees with yours cannot be simply dismissed, taunted and mocked as a method for demonstrating why your viewpoint is the correct one. Religion represents a plethora of views. Yes, many of them are in contradiction with science. But these views are still embraced by millions of people and thus cannot be just tossed aside as wrong simply by saying, "You're an idiot." This stance is no more effective than the opposing view stating "You must have faith."

Whenever opposing views exist, intelligent debate, where personal attacks, mocking, and egotistic passions are excluded, will always be of value.

Credibility is earned by presenting compelling and influential arguments. If your answer to a viewpoint is to abjectly refuse to refute it, because your view is so superior that all other viewpoints are so wrong that all they deserve is to be laughed at, your stance looks unsurprisingly familiar.

Science doesn't need your elitism or your contempt of other views as a champion, but rather people who present quantifiable alternatives to a viewpoint which are compelling to those who are interested.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931040)

"Science doesn't need your elitism or your contempt of other views as a champion, but rather people who present quantifiable alternatives to a viewpoint which are compelling to those who are interested."

Considering those have been provided and provided again, ad nauseam, you'll forgive me if I continue saying that those following a 2000-3000 year old book in favor of modern facts (or even philosophy) aren't worth listening to. If they bring something serious to the table, I'm sure I will be forced to take note, even against my will, just because there is that fundamental difference about actually caring what is true. Until then, I'll leave you to the unending stream of new ways to weasel "god" into biology/physics/politics.

Evolution of universe/life compatible w/ religion (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930946)

Careful, you sound like you may fit in well with the eminent scientists who back in the day dismissed a roman catholic priest's "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Dismissing it because (1) it came from a priest and (2) it "smelled of creationism". Today we know this theory by a phrase used by these scientists to mock the hypothesis, "the big bang theory". Men of science are not above letting their personal biases and social/group norms interfere with their objectivity.

Many religious people and some churches believe that belief in god may require faith but that understanding god's creation is done through science. That includes both the evolution the universe and the evolution of life.

Re:Evolution of universe/life compatible w/ religi (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931092)

Careful, you sound like you may fit in well with the eminent scientists who back in the day dismissed a roman catholic priest's "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Dismissing it because (1) it came from a priest and (2) it "smelled of creationism". Today we know this theory by a phrase used by these scientists to mock the hypothesis, "the big bang theory". Men of science are not above letting their personal biases and social/group norms interfere with their objectivity.

And yet, it is now a part of the canon of science, in spite of that. I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore. Point being, science might have some bias, and doesn't everything, but it definitely overcomes it faster.

In the end, it is what you say, not who you are, that matters. The problem I have is when people who have avowed beliefs not backed by any form of evidence begin to make claims involving them. Want to be a creationist christian and a chemist? Sure, why not. But don't act as if I am small-minded if I am more suspicious of him than of others when the same person goes into biology and begins making findings that he claims undermine evolution. Further, I am entirely within my right to laugh at every "theologian," preacher, or priest which declares he knows better than science, yet refuses to provide evidence, or says religion is on the same level as science.

"Many religious people and some churches believe that belief in god may require faith but that understanding god's creation is done through science. That includes both the evolution the universe and the evolution of life."

Which is all fine and good, but that doesn't give them the right to attempt to dictate what is science, should it offend them at some point. I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.

Haught IS progressive (1)

ericvids (227598) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931282)

And yet, it is now a part of the canon of science, in spite of that. I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore.

Exactly. Which is why we need to give the progressive theologians, which John Haught is a representative of, have their say. It's not a full attempt at declaring all science as part of his religion, but is certainly getting there much faster than the laughable ad hominem attempts of Coyne. (really, I saw what he has to say, and it's all very unconstructive at best, and he's a pitifully and hopelessly biased representative of true atheism at worst)

Which is all fine and good, but that doesn't give them the right to attempt to dictate what is science, should it offend them at some point. I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.

From what I gather from the debate, no attempt was made by Haught to dictate what science really is. All it is is an attempt to unify current understanding of science with religion, which you are in favor of. Coyne took a LOT of his statements out of context, somehow put them together to paint a caricature of Haught as an ultra-conservative that deserves flogging for even attempting to unify his beliefs, then appealed to the Slashdot crowd by misrepresenting his blatant attack as 'the scientific way'.

Re:Evolution of universe/life compatible w/ religi (1)

spooky_d (522225) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931286)

Which is all fine and good, but that doesn't give them the right to attempt to dictate what is science, should it offend them at some point. I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.

Well, in the same way there is the thing that 'the church of science' should not dictate what other churches believe. I am a strong believer in freedom of thought, and it seems that 'science' fans are not, since their church knows better. And I make a clear separation between science fans and scientists, because the latter actually do something useful to the society. As for science fans, I am coming from a purely atheistic society, that is the ex-communist space. I am really sick and tired of the lack of arguments and the lack of insight of people that judge belief and religion by selectively picking their own favorite view of the issue. It's like creationists idiots that think that science is about alchemy, and how idiotic that alchemy thing is.

Re:Evolution of universe/life compatible w/ religi (4, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931388)

I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore.

The roman catholic church operates an observatory, supports academic research into cosmology and works with leading observatories and cosmologists around the world. They seem to be actively researching the evolution of the universe, quantum mechanics, etc. Regarding the evolution of life I believe the church says there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. They teach evolution in their science classes. They don't take the book of genesis literally. I believe various other churches have similar perspectives.

I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.

I'm just pointing out that some folks with a deep faith are also actual scientists. A bishop, Grosseteste, helped lay out the framework for the scientific method and also did early work in optics. Another bishop, Saint Albert, did early work in chemistry and biological field research. Copernicus was a clergyman. A friar, Mendel, did early genetics research. A priest, Lemaitre, revolutionized cosmology is recent history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Vatican_Observatory [wikipedia.org]

Georges Lemaître was a man of science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931164)

Other men of science disagreed. But, the fact is he was a good scientist. There's nothing about being religious that precludes it. Newton was the best and he was very religious. The only real difference is that when the evidence is there, scientists tend to agree and allow reality to be the ultimate judge. If the evidence for the Big Bang didn't stack up it would have been rejected regardless who proposed it. Since it did, it's nearly universally accepted. The difference here is that this open minded process of going where the evidence leads isn't shared by religion. Some people really think all the worlds animals were loaded on to a large boat because it says it in the Bible. It was accepted in geology for a while until it became apparent that it never happened, and even the religious geologists went ahead and rejected on the grounds that it was false.

But, rather than accept evolution and our understanding of life the religious have taken to denigrating and ignoring evolution and what is meant by the theory. When one's beliefs and reality differ, science goes with reality. When dogma and reality differ, the religious go with the dogma. That's the core of the difference from whence all the other problems come about.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930994)

This isn't entirely about people's beliefs. It's mainly about the few (being religious leaders) holding power over the many (being religious followers), and not wanting to have that power taken away from them by logic and reason. I personally know people who are one flavor of Christian or another, but they believe in evolution, and also believe that the sciences, technology, and a diverse education all are good things, and most of them are very educated (at least a Bachelor's, if not higher). For them their relgious beliefs are something that gives them emotional support and comfort, but they don't let it dictate their lives for them.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931112)

How very sad it is to read your comments. I am not against you, but I do feel that you need a good dialog with a knowledgable Christian. If you know anything about science then you know how many holes it has in it. If you know anything about history then you know how proof of Christ and His works are shown. Again I'm not against you, but I am very sad to read the things that you have written. Please go talk to a knowledgable Christian.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931148)

Interestingly, when I did speak to knowledgeable Christians, I had the exact same reaction you just described.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931310)

No, debate is for exposing them to those who may be swayed away from superstition. Superstitionists cannot think differently, but one can help deny them a few recruits.

Re:Dialog is good and all... (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931386)

It's time for religion to be closed out from the scientific debate altogether

That doesn't go far enough. It should be treated as a mental disease, since it doesn't only look exactly like a psychosis, it also frequently motivates affected people towards antisocial and dangerous behavior, so society needs to be protected from it. Unsurprisingly, it is also not uncommon for psychotics/schizophreniacs to display strong religious delusions [sciforums.com] .

Skip to 32 minutes in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930784)

To get to the good bits.

Re:Skip to 32 minutes in (1)

spooky_d (522225) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930918)

Because hearing only one side is really the scientific way of doing things.

Re:Skip to 32 minutes in (0)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931044)

When one side is scientific, and the other is not, it is the scientific way.

Re:Skip to 32 minutes in (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931086)

Taking someone else's word for what is scientific and what isn't, without stopping to take a look for yourself is not the scientific way.

Re:Skip to 32 minutes in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931174)

I believe in Leprechauns but I have absolutely no proof that they exist. Now listen to me rant. Anything else would be unscientific!

Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930806)

I wasn't going to watch the debate anyway.

Social Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930810)

I wonder if the social internet had a big hand in this finally being released, if so this shows internet is not full of garbage. Of course other events through out the world have been changed into positives thanx to the internet.

I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LORD (0, Troll)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930838)

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace. We're to love people who even wrong us, and defeat evil by being good in all situations. There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't see conflict with Christianity and Science. I think that is normally just the result of bad theology. The tapes should be out for everyone to analyze. I think there should be more discussions because bad theology makes some Christians misunderstand science, and worse it makes scientists think that God might not be the real and awesome dude that he is.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen? God operates under ways we cannot understand. For instance: God's goal is not to make your life on Earth a luxurious experience. God's goal might be to maximize the people getting to Heaven. God can allow any amount of finite suffering to happen in order to prevent infinite suffering. God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever. No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Here are some articles if you would like to know more:
Debunking the Epicurean Fallacy [goodnewsjim.com]
Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God. [goodnewsjim.com]
God's ways are above our ways [goodnewsjim.com]
God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists [goodnewsjim.com]
Why does God allow suffering, part 1 [goodnewsjim.com]
Why does God allow suffering, part 2 [goodnewsjim.com]
The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect [goodnewsjim.com]

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930858)

I wonder if God gets tired of spam too.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930886)

Just curious, why do some Christians capitalize "Lord"? I can't see it being because of simple importance, because you're not doing the same to "God" or "Jesus" or even "Saviour" or any of those words. Are you just copying what you've read from someone else?

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930932)

It is a designation of honor used in Bibles. Some people do capitalize all the letters of GOD. Some people capitalize HIM when referring to God. The life and afterlife of a Christian involves honoring God for what he has done, and the love he has shown and will show to us. There is nothing a man can do to repay God for the cross, but the least we can do is offer praise.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930954)

But he did capitalize God...and Science too!

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931302)

Lord, with a capital L, is used in Enlish translations to represent a different synonym of God/Yahweh etc used in the Hebrew texts.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930908)

Just curious, in your article "God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists", you state:

If you accept Jesus as Lord, you get to go into Heaven. If you reject Jesus as Lord, you get to go where everyone who rejects Jesus goes.

What happens to people who don't know about Jesus? For example, anyone born before Jesus or raised without knowledge of him? Do they still get into Heaven when they die? Or do they go elsewhere?

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (-1, Offtopic)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930988)

Short answer: God can judge people fairly

Long Answer to get an idea of how God might judge:
Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne, 32 and the people of all the nations will be gathered before him. Then he will divide them into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the righteous people at his right and the others at his left. 34 Then the King will say to the people on his right, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. 35 I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, 36 naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.' 37 The righteous will then answer him, "When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? 38 When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' 40 The King will reply, "I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these followers of mine, you did it for me!' 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, "Away from me, you that are under God's curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels! 42 I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; 43 I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.' 44 Then they will answer him, "When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you?' 45 The King will reply, "I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me.' 46 These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment, but the righteous will go to eternal life."

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (5, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931258)

What happens to people who don't know about Jesus? For example, anyone born before Jesus or raised without knowledge of him? Do they still get into Heaven when they die? Or do they go elsewhere?

I've also wondered about this and I've even asked some priests and theologists about it, and the most common answer is that they still don't get to Heaven. Now, when I then follow with the question "So basically God doesn't even give them people a chance to get into Heaven, they're doomed to go to Hell already way before they're even born into this world?" their answers usually just fall flat on their faces. Then the people who say those people will get to Heaven as they are innocent of the condition of not knowing about God don't know what to answer when I ask them the question: "Why do you people then even tell others about God? If you never went out to teach about God we'd all get to Heaven, whereas by telling them about God you're deliberately exposing them to Hell."

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930912)

So you are saying that people who go to heaven stop caring about their loved ones? How else can they have "peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever" if they know their loved ones still suffer the life on earth.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (-1, Offtopic)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930960)

If people "sleep" in death until the day of resurrection, they won't even notice any time passed between the time they die and the time they're being called out of their grave. The period between dying and being raised from death might not be something you even consciously experience.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931014)

"Might not be"? Now you sound like you're making this shit up as you go.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930950)

Read the book "Letter To A Christian Nation" by Sam Harris.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930956)

YHWH is a dead god, don't waste your breath

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930974)

Nietzche was only partially correct. God is not dead, but God was dead, and now he is risen.
I'm stating facts here.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (1)

toQDuj (806112) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931150)

Sorry, but facts without evidence are not facts. As you stated above, there is no evidence.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931032)

Many modern atheists have bad theology

aaand, you lost me there.
Unlike you, I do not think about 'god',
I have no 'theology' (bad, or otherwise),

When shit happens, I think
  'shit happens'', not
  'ah, proof-conclusive-that-a-suprauniversal-being-called-god-whom-the-christians-believe-in-and-is-all-compassionate-and-stuff cannot exist because shit just happened..'
when good things happen, I think
  'Yaay, warm fuzzies', not
' ah, teh warm fuzzies, proof-conclusive-that-the-jesus-character-the-christians-go-on-about-is-real-and-was-a-physical-manifestation-in-4D-space-of-a-suprauniversal-being-they-call-god-and-he-loves-me-and-got-allegedly-nailed-to-a-couple-of-planks-of-wood-by-some-romans-for-the-lulz-probably-or-allegedly-for-my-sins-which-as-they-sins-that-is-are-a-religious-concept-I-dont-actually-subscribe-to-it-seems-a-bit-of-pointless-act-on-his-part-and-a-waste-of-some-good-wood-and-nails-really...'

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931038)

There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

Spaz out at love and peace? Like the crusades? Like the inquisitions? Like the witch burnings? Like the Westboro Baptists? Like "you can't sell stuff on Sunday"? like "you can't have sex except when and where and how we say"? like "you're going to hell"? like "you're living in sin"? like a "god" who failed to tell you to wash your hands before you assist in a birth, or touch a wound, and thus killed untold numbers of infants and mothers, inflicting horror upon every family who were so afflicted? Sure. Love and peace. Yeah. LOL.

Truly, I don't think the average Christian today knows what love *or* peace means. But I'm not surprised, because the lot of you are made of of the deluded driven by the deceivers.

--fyngyrz

Posting (nominally) anon because of Slashdot's cowardly and poorly thought-out anonymous moderator policies

Agitate for accountable moderation!

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931104)

There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't know, ask a Christian. They seem to avoid love and peace at all costs.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (4, Insightful)

toQDuj (806112) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931126)

Ok, a quick analysis of your arguments and some counterarguments per paragraph.
par. 1: You state that Christianity=love&peace, and that no-one should hate love and peace. But the one does not require the other, as there can be love and peace without Christianity.

par. 2: You state that Christianity and science are not in conflict. There are two counterarguments: Christianity is inherently anti-scientific in its nature, as it is a belief in something without evidence. Thus, Christianity trains unscientific thought patterns. Second argument is that in politics, Christianity is used as an argument to hinder science. So Christianity and science are in conflict.

par. 3: You state that you should believe in god without any evidence. That there is no way of showing god exists, certainly not in a statistically measurable way. So if god does not influence our lives in the slightest, why believe at all?

par. 4: This paragraph is a bit of a jumble. You state here that love and peace are unattainable on earth, thus conflicting with par. 1. Besides that, it is stated that god died on the cross, but instead it was his son as you should be well aware, or you are considering your god as three gods, the real one, Jezus and the holy spirit. Lastly you state that god does not intervene where we would consider it possible or beneficial. This, again, raises the question of his existence, and my counterargument of: if he does not influence our lives, why believe at all.

Cheers.

Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931218)

I am uncertain if this is just a terrific trolling attempt or if you're really serious.

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace.

I've never understood why is it so important for so many Christians that they feel there is 24/7 someone loving them. Is it insecurity? Would you be depressed if there wasn't? I am genuinely curious about this.

There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

Christianity is far from "love and peace", take for example the crusades: Christians killed MILLIONS of people just because they didn't share the same religion. And not only killed, but tortured, raped, pillaged, took all belongings of even those they let live and enslaved them. Now, where is "love and peace" about that? Or in modern times, how many times have you heard about Christians spewing hatred and bile about all the "non-conforming" people, like us non-heterosexuals for example? There are plenty of examples where homosexuals have been tortured and killed by the religious, even in modern-day society. Hell, _I_ have had people literally come up to my door and start chastising me about how my ways are horrible, vile and I only corrupt everyone and everything around me with them and how I will go to hell and whatnot; I sure as heck do not go to strangers' doors and start judging their views and tastes, so what the hell gives Christians the right to do that?!

"Love and peace" my ass; it's all about CONTROL.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

That is exactly the logic fallacy of it all: you can just claim absolutely ANYTHING as "God's will", and that's that.

God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever.

That is another example of a fallacy: human beings evaluate their environment and themselves through conflict. We NEED negative things to happen to us so we can appreciate the positive things. Without negative things we would not be able to appreciate the positive ones. If you never experience anything even mildly displeasing in your life you will simply become inherently bored as whatever you have will feel like nothing. So, in Heaven if there are only positive things and never EVER any kind of conflict then it cannot be a Heaven, atleast not for human beings. It is an oxymoron.

No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Bible actually teaches that God and Jesus are two totally separate entities and that it is blasphemy to call Jesus a God. Perhaps you need some soul searching to be done.

Streisand Effect (3, Insightful)

ebs16 (1069862) | more than 2 years ago | (#37930904)

"Censored Religious Debate Video Released After Public Outrage"..... to an audience 20x larger than would otherwise be present.

Re:Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931034)

Dominating the news cycle.

At long last... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37930952)

...the nightmare is over. I don't know how many sleepless nights I've had since this began. Now, we can come together, as a nation, and begin the healing process, by one group of people gloating that they made better logical arguments against another group of people that don't use logic anyway.

Truly, the long night is over.

3:16...Bitches (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931070)

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life....MOTHERFUCKERS

This reflects badly on Slashdot and its editors (5, Informative)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931088)

My initial views about this were similar to the popular sentiment on slashdot.

However, it is a shame that the person at the receiving end of the criticism wasn't given a chance to present his version of things, and now that he has, it has still not received the same attention that the original controversy did here on slashdot.

Here is John Haught's own version of the events: http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/GainesCenter/Letter%20To%20Jerry%20Coyne.pdf [uky.edu]

I am sure I will disagree with his views if and when I do read about them. And I have no idea how accurate his version of the events is, but he damned well has the right to be heard.

Re:This reflects badly on Slashdot and its editors (2)

data2 (1382587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931370)

As this is a PDF, here is the full answer:
"An open Letter to Jerry Coyne:
Dear Jerry,
Your distorted reading of my motivation for not releasing the video of our conversation
in Kentucky has given birth to an inordinate number of hostile letters to me. Because of
misleading statements on your website (11/1/2011), I have received a considerable
amount of hate mail, often laced with obscenities, though often also tempered with
inquisitive politeness. The mail mostly complains about my “cowardly” reneging on an
alleged agreement that you falsely assume I made to post online the video of our panel
at the University of Kentucky. When I was in Kentucky I was never asked to do so.
Later, after reflecting on what to me was a most unfortunate event I wrote to Prof Rabel
requesting that any video not be released.
Anyway, Jerry, your own words impute cowardice to me for this refusal, but how do you
know that’s the reason for my reluctance? Here is a typical reaction stirred up by your
remarks: “What a pathetic, sociopathic dweeb you are. Hiding behind your sick belief
system you call a religion. You are an insult to academia, and a dim bulb for the
uninformed masses. You deserve the insults you are getting and should be fired.
Coward, liar and fool you are, loser. And no doubt a Republican too!” (I’m tempted to
say that I can live with every accusation except the last.)
I want to make it clear that Rob Rabel at the University of Kentucky has confirmed that I
never gave permission before or after the panel to post the video. You need to make
this clear to your audience. I never broke the agreement that you have unkindly caused
your readers to assume I made.
However, the more interesting issue has to do with my reasons for refusing permission
to post the video, and whether it was wrong for me to do so. I have no regrets about
anything I had to say during the panel, and if you agree to post this letter on your site I
will be happy to have the video released unedited, for public scrutiny. Those who are
reading this blog are free to look at other videos of my comments on science and
religion available online. They will see that I have no need to hide my views from the
public, and in fact I am quite eager to have my thoughts made available provided they
are presented accurately and fairly.
Why then do I hesitate in this case? It has to do with you alone, Jerry, not anyone else,
including myself. I have had wonderful conversations with many scientific skeptics over
the years, but my meeting with you was exceptionally dismaying and unproductive. I
mentioned to you personally already that in my view, the discussion in Kentucky seldom
rose to the level of a truly academic encounter. I agree that it was probably entertaining
to the audience who gave us a standing ovation at the end. Nevertheless, instead of
being flattered by this I went away terribly discouraged at what had just taken place. I
wish to emphasize that I do not exempt myself from criticism."

Re:This reflects badly on Slashdot and its editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931372)

I have no time to watch the video right now, but thanks for posting the letter! What Haught says sounds very credible, as he pictures Coyne's strategy to be the typical routine: Presume the belief of your opponent to be extremely childish and ridiculous, like the "old man with beard in his magic invisible sky castle" thing. Afterwards, point out how childish and ridiculous it is. When done with that, simply point at all the bad things religion has ever caused. This usually boils down to "You are religious, so you are a bad man in support of hitler!" (Ironically this is the exact same thing bad debaters from the religious stance often do, O'Reilly is an example). I've often seen atheists like Dawkins behaving this way in debates, and it just makes me sad to see this coming from the "defenders of reason".
I hope that when I do watch the video, I turn out wrong and Coyne was fair and objective all the time. Otherwise he'd damage atheism more than support it.

Re:This also reflects badly on the science guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931374)

The letter you linked claims that the religion guy agreed to a presentation rather than a debate, and that made an effort to keep his presentation purely academic, but the science guy made ad hominem attacks and ridiculed the opinions of the religion guy.

We may never know what was actually agreed upon, but the rest is clearly true based on the video. Basically the science guy was just trying to make a spectacle of the religion guy, and he very clearly succeeded.

Feelings are not facts- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931138)

Feeling != fact...

I read Stephen King's 'The Stand' recently.
It was amazing, God blows up Las Vegas.
Oh wait- that didn't happen either.

Religion = control, because if all the poor masses knew they had nothing to look forward to after death (virgins!), then they might not follow the leaders so well....

This is no debate... (2)

spooky_d (522225) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931168)

This is, instead, a one-sided boxing match. It's not fun to watch. There is no debate. There is a set of punches thrown by the atheist dude, and the rest of the discussion is not anywhere to be seen. Is there a second part? I'm willing to have more bad slashdot karma for what I'm saying here: Coyne is unreasonable, erratic, and doesn't bring any sort of proof for his beliefs. It seems that since Al Gore, everyone is allowed to distort what 'scientific' is as long as it pleases the general population.

Re:This is no debate... (1, Insightful)

pentadecagon (1926186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931384)

Coyne is unreasonable ...

And here this is a good thing, because you cannot reason with religious believers. This is why those guys usually have a big advantage: They are not bound by logic or reason, they can say the most crazy things and their followers swallow it dutifully. The only way to argue against them is to make fun of them. Which is what Coyne did.

Re:This is no debate... (2)

spooky_d (522225) | more than 2 years ago | (#37931432)

Science is about reason. The guy presenting the 'religious' view was more reasonable and had more arguments than the 'scientific' dude. Just because you agree with his point of view, that doesn't make his presentation any better.

I thought you said they released the video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37931338)

vimeo isnt video, its malware posing as video.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...