Slashdot Mirror


Censored Religious Debate Video Released After Public Outrage

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."

3 of 717 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.

  2. I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LORD by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 0, Troll

    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
    Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God.
    God's ways are above our ways
    God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists
    Why does God allow suffering, part 1
    Why does God allow suffering, part 2
    The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect

  3. Re:One small victory for a man.. by tjbp · · Score: 1, Troll

    No. In this case, that expression is very much true. Coyne is an obnoxious oaf, and by no means an exception to your rule. He is one of the growing number of secularist zealots that are incapable of arguing coherently or intelligently. Their infatuation with the dismissal of religion as a concept is perpetuated in a lack of education or understanding of their opponents' arguments - leading to the hugely ironic situation in which they have much more in common with religious fundamentalists (bible-bashers) than the academics they accuse of the same. Consider again your blind support for anyone spouting the appropriate buzzwords, or you'll be just another tool in Coyne and his ilk's clueless endeavour to found a belief system upon science.