ABC News Nightline Face-Off: Does God Have a Future?

[BenVitale]

Tonight on ABC News Nightline 'Face-Off': Does God Have a Future?


Atheists Take on Believers in Smackdown Over Question of God's Existence "Nightline" hosts Deepak Chopra, Michael Shermer in debate over God and science.

More >>>

 

[MotoH]

Why does there have to be a debate? Believers will believe, non believers wont, and haters will hate.

If everyone would keep their damn mouth shut on both sides of the isle, there wouldn't be a "great debate" over the existence of God because believers would go about their daily life believing, and non-believers would go about theirs not believing.

 

[zomgwtf]

Why does there have to be a debate? Believers will believe, non believers wont, and haters will hate.

If everyone would keep their damn mouth shut on both sides of the isle, there wouldn't be a "great debate" over the existence of God because believers would go about their daily life believing, and non-believers would go about theirs not believing.

Nah I don't believe that. Normally atheist are intelligent more critically thinking people. Most people of this sort get extremely irritated when they see people doing something or saying something stupid, without applying critical thinking.

This isn't just for religion... it happens over everything with intelligent people, they just like to argue. I know because I like to argue about everything (as proven by this very post!)

 

[BenVitale]

I don't know why they find the need to have this debate. I'll look for their motivations, tonight.

I think there will be a physicist in the debate tonight. I hate if this will end up as a clash between Science and faith.

I think you can't have a "debate" with any hope of resolution or winner, really.
It is a no-win situation.

I just wonder about their motivations: Why have such a debate? What is the significance of
having such a debate now? Why specially now?

I'm going to watch the program tonight, and listen to the questions and answers.
I'll pay more attention to the questions. If the questions (any of them) are wrong, then I'll look for the intent.

 

[Dembadon]

Why does there have to be a debate? ...

Because decisions made for religious/non-religious reasons affect people's lives.

I see what you're saying, though. I have many friends who have strong religious convictions, but I don't feel the need to constantly lobby my case, nor do they attempt to push their beliefs on me, which is why we get along.

I get concerned when things like https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=386895" happen. I am then, gladly, up for a debate and will do my best in pointing out the ridiculousness of such decisions, which sometimes happen to involve religious beliefs/motives.

 

[Evo]

I don't know why they find the need to have this debate.

Because Chopra will take advantage of any free opportunity to sell his books?

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think the debate is good because some people take religion for granted.
I can't stay up late enough to watch it, so I hope someone puts it on youtube.

 

[zomgwtf]

I think the debate is good because some people take religion for granted.

It's a shame that the reason for this is the people who debate for religion anyways.

 

[Count Iblis]

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa042600a.htm

 

[fluidistic]

I don't see the point of such a debate. It's not even interesting; to me at least. I don't think someone can learn something from such a debate. Maybe a new word? What else could it be? You'd better open a dictionary for this purpose.

 

[Leptos]

The debate is important because religion has affected society greatly. Children tend to accept the same religion as their parents, and often what parents do with children to get them to believe is borderline child abuse.

Religion threatens free speech, human rights, our ability to think critically, and intellectual pursuits.

 

[Count Iblis]

The debate is important because religion has affected society greatly. Children tend to accept the same religion as their parents, and often what parents do with children to get them to believe is borderline child abuse.

Religion threatens free speech, human rights, our ability to think critically, and intellectual pursuits.

I agree. As I http://countiblis.blogspot.com/2005/11/olums-paradox-religion-and-intelligent.html" , that may in fact explain why religion exists at all.

 

[fluidistic]

The debate is important because religion has affected society greatly. Children tend to accept the same religion as their parents, and often what parents do with children to get them to believe is borderline child abuse.

Religion threatens free speech, human rights, our ability to think critically, and intellectual pursuits.

I agree with everything except the first 4 words. What would a debate do? Change the opinion of people/children? I don't think so. Both sides will be right according to them.

 

[ideasrule]

A lot of people think debates are interesting and are open-minded enough to listen to these types of debates. I'm not one of those people. I've heard so many of these arguments that I doubt anything new will be brought to the table.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The debate is important because religion has affected society greatly. Children tend to accept the same religion as their parents, and often what parents do with children to get them to believe is borderline child abuse.

Often? Really? Got anything to back that up? Even though I do not believe in god my highly religious family never did anything what so ever to try to make me believe. I do not know anyone who is religious that were abused by their family trying to get them to believe in god.

Religion threatens free speech, human rights, our ability to think critically, and intellectual pursuits.

I think that politics and ideology do this. Religion is just used as an excuse.

The vast majority of the world are religious and there are a lot of very nice and intelligent people out there. Your anti-religious propaganda does them all a great disservice. You are essentially denigrating billions of people whom you have never even met. Threats to free speech, human rights, critical thinking, and intellectual pursuits indeed.

 

[Huckleberry]

The show on ABC is a summary of the debate. You can see more of it on the ABC website. It is organized into sequences separated by advertisements. Just let it play.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

 

[imiyakawa]

Wow Chopra, talking about non-locality as if it alludes to the existence of God. Just wow. Search youtube for his interview with Richard Dawkins, he claims that his use of the jargon "quantum" in his books has NO relation to quantum physics, yet he is clearly lying.

WOWOWOWOW

"Electrons are vibrations that blink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Therefore, the whole universe is a quantum mirage, winking in and out of existence millions of times per second. In other words, we are being created over and over again all the time. Genesis didn't happen just once. Genesis is now."

 

[planck]

No, there is no future for God. Assuming that there is an all encompassing prime God, then god would exist outside of time. No past, no future, no present for a god because time could be ignored.

Or was the question about whether God has a future impact on society, or...

 

[Frame Dragger]

Wow Chopra, talking about non-locality as if it alludes to the existence of God. Just wow. Search youtube for his interview with Richard Dawkins, he claims that his use of the jargon "quantum" in his books has NO relation to quantum physics, yet he is clearly lying.

WOWOWOWOW

"Electrons are vibrations that blink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Therefore, the whole universe is a quantum mirage, winking in and out of existence millions of times per second. In other words, we are being created over and over again all the time. Genesis didn't happen just once. Genesis is now."

Well I'd probably try and keep on the cutting edge of bull**** too if I made Chopra $$$ every time I spewed nonsense. From the perspective of most people, what he said, and what a physicst would need to explain to change that view... are the same. All they hear is noise, so the trick is to mix in what they WANT to hear. They don't care about quantum ANYTHING; they just want their new-age crap to keep abreast of modern thinking in science.

That, and as long as the shmuck keeps showing up on Larry King (aka "Weekend At Bernies") and other shows run by gullible ****wits, well... people will listen. Personally, I just don't care anymore.

I have a friend in the southern USA, and he is dying of kidney failure, slowly, and painfully. Why? He's a Jehova's Witness, and transfusion and transplants are VERBOTEN! Did I mention his younger sister died of KIDNEY FAILURE 2 years ago? Did I mention that his MOTHER is willing to donate (a matching I might add) kideny?

DID I MENTION that his "pastor" doesn't even reject the notion? This is HIS interpretation of some random christian offshoot, and he's dying for it. Do you really believe that people with that kind of conviction, delusion, faith, madness, etc... etc... do you believe they will leave others alone? Religion is the vanguard of conquest; the first to fall, and the first to be remade. It's the primative interface between governments, and a large populace which has always frightened them.

If people are willing to kill, and die for their faith, then a dream of people simply leaving one another be is absurd. Besides, all relgions are not PASSIVE, some dictate that you do things to or for other people, including conversion, and killing. I for one, do not take my freedom to NOT believe lightly.

God has a future (Phrak, the OP linked to an ABC piece, nothing Time-related) as long as there are people who are willing and able to enforce their views on others. Seeing as that is human nature, I don't see that changing before we're all dead and gone.

Oh, and Richard Dawkins is sophomoric and annoying. He and major religious leaders should be locked in windowless room with a rabid wolverine.

 

[binbots]

There will always be room for God. Science will never be able to explain everything and when it can not God will still be there. Science can disprove stories from the bible but this has nothing to do with god. God was our creation and whatever we believe is true to us.
I believe that everything is infinite. If there was a big bang then that big bang came from something else. Or if there is a edge to the universe then the universe is inside something else. It goes on forever and ever. Infinite time and mass. So science will only explain peices of infinity. I don't like to call infinity god but that does not mean other people cannot.

 

[Frame Dragger]

There will always be room for God. Science will never be able to explain everything and when it can not God will still be there. Science can disprove stories from the bible but this has nothing to do with god. God was our creation and whatever we believe is true to us.
I believe that everything is infinite. If there was a big bang then that big bang came from something else. Or if there is a edge to the universe then the universe is inside something else. It goes on forever and ever. Infinite time and mass. So science will only explain peices of infinity. I don't like to call infinity god but that does not mean other people cannot.

What you've described sounds to me like faith, just not religious faith. Your absolute conviction is impressive.

 

[zomgwtf]

What you've described sounds to me like faith, just not religious faith. Your absolute conviction is impressive.

Faith in god of the gaps. We will always have gaps in understanding therefore god will always exist. I think that the discussion they had was based on the necessity of god in the future, not if it'll still be an existent concept. Mind you, I didnt' watch the debate.