23rd December 2008

“Atheists merely assert that the evidence for the God of the creationists and intelligent designers is non-existent. Nevertheless, if such scientifically verifiable evidence were to be found, I am sure that undogmatic atheists would soon become theists. The same is not true for dogmatic theists. No amount of evidence to the contrary will shift them from their irrational faith.”

Alan J. Sangster

3 Responses to “23rd December 2008”

  1. antitheist Says:

    This is the premise of every debate I have with theists. If theists are unwilling to concede should irrefutable evidence and unmistakable logic be presented, then what possible reason would I have for continuing the debate.

    I would surely yield, should god step forward and declare his presence.

    Fundamentalist theists cannot be reasoned with. It would be easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle! They have consumed the fairytale and it has consumed them. Verily I say unto thee, do not cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.

    Save your pearls of wisdom for intelligent beings who understand that it is science that gives the amputee new limbs, so he may walk again. It is science that gives us the Internet, so we may blog and not “babble”. It is science… There is evidence of it everywhere!

  2. Oxymoronic Christhinker Says:

    Is the problem that we do not agree on what constitutes evidence?

    Must all evidence be “objective” only? Is there such a thing as “subjective” evidence? Does my “personal experience” in any way count as evidence? If not, is my personal experience forever excluded from the debate? Is yours? Or is personal experience merely illustrative of what one already believes?

    Isn’t it the truth that there is no “verifiable evidence” either way?

    I absolutely accept science, but I doubt that science will ever absolutely prove/disprove the existence/non-existence of god/gods.

  3. Dan Pearson Says:

    I think the key terms are “dogmatic” and “undogmatic.” One could probably reverse the quote by swapping undogmatic atheists with liberal religionists and trade dogmatic theists with hard-line “evangelical” atheists. You could make substitutions within this quote for any two groups “A” and “B” that had ranges within each group from liberal/undogmatic to hard-line/dogmatic.