Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 16 2008,08:53)|
|Science is about as atheistic as plumbing, or auto mechanics. Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" to reflect the fact that science can neither confirm, nor refute the existance of a diety.|
OTOH, science can show you that that ancient myths of supernatural entities are unreliable, which suggests that neither the myths nor theological ideas based on them merit special status.
IMHO, it's no coincidence that the scientific age has brought about a bigger rise in atheism than the preceding thousand years of theological study and debate. Science may not prove or disprove a deity, but it certainly supports a worldview that doesn't need one. In a world that appears to be governed by reason, what use is the concept of a deity whose characteristics (including existence) cannot be objectively determined ? How do you choose between the innumerable variants ?
On the original topic:
I'm sad to say, I haven't found the debate to be very entertaining so far. IMO AIG already lost the moment they said "The Biblical Account is Self-Authenticating and Self-Attesting"
If your argument is "My book says so, and it's true because it says so." ... um ... U FAIL AT LOGICS GAME OVER K THX BYE. The fact it needs more of a response than LOLmockery is quite depressing.