TED Conversations

  • E G
  • Bacau
  • Romania


This conversation is closed.

Atheism & theism

Usually there isn't a real dialogue between this two , we have the chance now to have one. Whatever you think try to share your arguments as objective as is possible because this conversation I wanna be about arguments .
Why the atheism is a better way of explaining what is supposed to be explained by theism ?
What are the arguments for atheism and what are the arguments for theism (at least shortly I would like to be shared ) ?
What role have science in this dialogue between atheism and theism ? (and as a contingent idea do you thing that the science have moral value?).
What role have the subjective feelings in this discussion , have they one?

(P S : you will be ctitisized , try to keep your point ).


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 17 2011: Well, in my understanding the theist is the one making a positive claim - that god exists - so therefore the burden of proof rests upon the theist to provide evidence for the existence of god. Different religions have different definitions for what god means, and the number of deities in a religion also differ, but nonetheless the onus is on the theist to prove, or at least provide some form of positive evidence, which would lead one to believe that god is real.

    As an atheist, I have looked at the world objectively and have concluded that if a person uses purely scientific reasoning then the need for a god, or anything supernatural for that matter, to explain the events of the world is nonexistent. The vast majority of everyday occurrences have some form of scientific explanation, and even when there is no clear explanation available that is not a good reason to revert to the "god hypothesis".
    • thumb

      E G 10+

      • 0
      Jun 17 2011: Good, I agree with it : the theist have to provide evidence for the existence of God . It's sure that the theist can't prove rationally the existence of God but nor the atheists can prove the reverse (even though the burden of proof rest upon theists).............somehow it's a circle (in arguments) here.
      But I'm curious what kind of evidence do you think the theists should use ?Do you think if someone will prove rationally that God exist we will accept the idea of God rationally ?
      Again I also agree that it's not need to appeal to God in order to explain the everyday occurrences and everything else, but the origins (of life , of the universe ....... ) , without a God how do we explain it (this is exatcly at what the science is mute)? why? what do you think?
      Do you think the evidences are compulsorily to be known by us for accepting the idea of God, I mean do you think that when we talk about God we should have the same expectations like we have for a tea pot to be on the Mars, scientifically speaking ? in other words do you think that a tea pot with God is the same in terms of finding evidence of their existence ? (I put this question because everyone seems to think so) , if yes why?

      (you made some very good points here in my opinion.................. if you would be a theist I'll argue for the atheism ).

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.