The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism 182 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  StrongHaiku

  Quoting scientists has as much value to me as quoting the Bible (or Harry Potter books). My atheist position isn't based on what people say (or are interpreted to saying), but on what they can prove. If Stephen Hawking tomorrow said "there is a God!" it would not matter to me one bit. He would still need to provide demonstrable evidence that is not personal revelation or a feeling or guess.

  Lately, I have found that the key argument for theism seems to boil down to an the inability to be ok with "we don't know" and instead fill the gap of knowledge with "because...God". "We don't know" followed by "let's find out" seems to be more productive. Not sure how "because God" benefits anyone.
  
• 

  FusionTheism

  StrongHaiku,

  I have no problem with people who say "I don't know."

  I do have problem with people adamantly declaring they DO KNOW that no Designer exists.
• 

  Viviane

  I have no problem with people who say "I don't know."
  I do have problem with people adamantly declaring they DO KNOW that no Designer exists.

  Do you have a problem with people claiming they do know a Designer exists also? If not, why not? It's not like you have any evidence for it, as this thread shows.
• 

  freemindfade

  I think all of us would say that though. Its about not making solid claims about things you cant yet know. That not knowing is not a claim. I don't believe in god, there could be a lot of things that I don't believe in without direct proof of their existence. Theism debates are so pointless. If people in ancient times thought the sun was just taking a ride through the sky on some deities chariot could you prove or disprove it??? Not likely at that time. So should you believe it??? Think long and hard about what you claim to be true. You could honestly say they didn't know. Now we know. And guess what. It's not what they believed.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  
  

  What difference do personal religious beliefs make when it comes to examining the actual science?

  Francis Collins is perhaps one of the greatest medical / DNA scientists the world has ever known, and he's a huge believer in Yahweh.

  Oh shit, I'd love to answer this question for you! I have to! Here's what difference it makes:

  Its the difference between hundreds of thousands of people suffering and dying ...

  and not.

  thats the difference it makes.

  The actual science of stem cell research, as just one example, would effectively end many diseases and render unnecessary organ waiting lists. Instead people are suffering and dying because it's banned. It's banned purely for religious reasons - those being the absurd idea that 150 unassigned cells make up a living human life.

  This is just one example of exactly how religious beliefs make a difference when examining actual science - because they kill people.

  Another example - blood transfusions. Religious belief vs actual science result in...

  
  Mother and child die because of religious beliefs over actual science
• 

  StrongHaiku

  FusionTheism - I do have problem with people adamantly declaring they DO KNOW that no Designer exists.

  I totally understand. And, I think many atheist would agree that we can't say that "no Designer" exists. All that can be said by atheism is that the proposition that "there is a God(s)" has not met it's burden of proof. And, until such time that it does meet the burden of proof the intellectually honest stand would be "we don't know". And, many atheist will be the first to acknowledge that a designer exists when he presents demonstrable evidence.
• 

  OUTLAW

  The Case for Theism

  Either side claiming to have proof,must provide proof..
  

  To date thats never been done..You haven`t done it.....

  For that reason..
  

  Your thread fails miserably...

  
  
• 

  azor

  Stating I don't know is what atheism is. It is no different than aclausism. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist somewhere out there. But the burden of proof is not on the negative claim "Santa doesn't exist" rather it is on the assertion that something or someone exists "Santa exists".

  In order for the hypothesis of Gods to hold up falsifiable evidence must be provided by the one postulating such. One has to start from atheism for an evidence based theorem to hold up. If one starts from a belief in clausism/theism the results are more often than not tainted by bias.
• 

  freemindfade

  Well said StrongHaiku and azor
• 

  redvip2000

  Now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an Initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.
  

  
  

  Why do i even need to read the rest of your post? and by the way when you say "logical evidence".....who's logic? I'm sure a few thousands year ago, the idea that the earth was flat and supported by elephants seemed logical to those folks too.