XPost: alt.philosophy, sci.logic, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: alt.atheism, sci.skeptic
From: death@spank.666
Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/03/2016 12:35 PM, Evil Roy Slade wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2016 12:13 PM, Evil Roy Slade wrote:
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Theists don't test their beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> The existence of God is not testable.
>>
>> That's beside the point, and it depends entirely on how you define
>> testable, plus your unstated criteria for what constitutes evidence.
>>
>> I was once a theist and tested my beliefs, consequently I tossed all
>> gods of all religions. So much for your emphatic declaration and the
>> unthinking assumptions you support it with.
>
> You may have decided that there was nothing to support your beliefs.
> That's not the same as testing them.
You presumptuous fuckwit. How dare you make up bullshit and try to paint
me with it in order to cover your lame ass merely because some thing is
unfathomable to you.
> There is no conceivable way to distinguish the existence of God from the
> non-existence of God, because the "theory" of God does not make testable
> predictions.
So, what is the 'the "theory" of God'?
> It is reasonable to take the view that there's no better reason to
> believe in God than to believe in undetectable Unicorns, or anything
> else that could be believed in but not demonstrated. A thinking person
> might decide that there's no point believing in God therefore.
>
> Most theists don't get that far, because they were too well
> indoctrinated when they were children (a kind of child abuse, IMHO).
Hahahahah! I made you move your goalposts. First it was an all
encompassing statement, now it's just 'most'.
> Sylvia.
You're not smart by half. I hope you don't include yourself in the set
of thinking people.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
