How to convert Christians to atheists in 30 seconds (ironically, using bible)

[Catholic_Lady]

That is correct. 

Though I also can't "test" a lot of other things that I believe to be true. Such as the fact that my husband loves me.

Is that analogy supposed to be compelling, cuz, like, it's not.

No. It's just how I look at it. Not everything can be "tested" and I'm personally ok with that. Sometimes certain things just make logical sense based on what we've experiences and what we know. To me, my religious faith is no different.

[Homeless Nutter]

That is correct. 

Though I also can't "test" a lot of other things that I believe to be true. Such as the fact that my husband loves me.

Really? Your husband NEVER gave you evidence, that he loves you? Wow, he must be some kind of autistic, narcissistic psychopath... in a coma...

The whole thing about how "you can't prove love" is nonsense. Of course you know your husband loves you - if you don't, you probably shouldn't have married him. Unless you married him for his money, or status, in which case - fair enough. You go, girl - momma's gotta get paiiiiiid!

You need find a better example, if you can. Perhaps string theory? That can't be tested yet. The thing is - string theory proponents don't get to arbitrarily dictate other people's morals, on the basis of their purely theoretical concept.

[Simon Moon]

But never tested, because they can't be.

That is correct. 

Though I also can't "test" a lot of other things that I believe to be true. Such as the fact that my husband loves me.

Sure you can test that your husband loves you. Not to an absolute certainty, but very close.

All you have to do is have an internal model of how someone that loves you would behave, talk, act, etc. Then compare your husband's language and actions to your model.

If he checks off most of the boxes, you can be very sure he loves you. There's your test. The claim that your husband loves you is not in the least bit extraordinary, so the above would be a pretty reliable test.

When I run even a simple test like this against your god, he does not check off any of the boxes. Let alone any of the boxes that would be required for the extraordinary claim of a the existence of a god.

[Cyberman]

Is that analogy supposed to be compelling, cuz, like, it's not.

No. It's just how I look at it. Not everything can be "tested" and I'm personally ok with that. Sometimes certain things just make logical sense based on what we've experiences and what we know. To me, my religious faith is no different.

No no, I think you misunderstood. It's more than such things are untested; it's that they are crafted to be untestable. So to talk about them as being theories is an exercise in sophistry at worst.

[Catholic_Lady]

That is correct. 

Though I also can't "test" a lot of other things that I believe to be true. Such as the fact that my husband loves me.

Sure you can test that your husband loves you. Not to an absolute certainty, but very close.

All you have to do is have an internal model of how someone that loves you would behave, talk, act, etc. Then compare your husband's language and actions to your model.

If he checks off most of the boxes, you can be very sure he loves you. There's your test. The claim that your husband loves you is not in the least bit extraordinary, so the above would be a pretty reliable test.

When I run even a simple test like this against your god, he does not check off any of the boxes. Let alone any of the boxes that would be required for the extraordinary claim of a the existence of a god.

That's the thing though. These "tests" (if we're going to call them that) are personal. Not something that can be proven with concrete evidence or in a lab. Someone who is a cynic about romantic love and who doesn't believe in marriage can say the boxes I created don't mean anything... that many people check off those boxes but then end up leaving their spouse or cheating on them. At the end of the day, I can only use my own logic and experiences to form my opinion.

[Asmodee]

But never tested, because they can't be.

That is correct. 

Though I also can't "test" a lot of other things that I believe to be true. Such as the fact that my husband loves me.

You have no empirical evidence that your husband loves you?  You've never seen any indication of this love?  Then why do you believe it?  You believe it because you have seen evidence to the fact because you can test it.

[Tonus]

7) I don't know which question you are talking about.

The ones you answered in 1-6. Without sufficient knowledge of heaven or hell, we can't really grasp what the afterlife is like. You gave a more complete answer than I've seen before, which I appreciate, though there are areas where you are not sure. My questions and descriptions, while facetious, were intended to explain that there is a lot we don't/can't know about them. The most basic concepts that most people have are very simplistic and indicate that they have not thought about it much, which is mystifying in light of what it's supposed to represent (where you will spend the rest of an eternity).

10) Yes, it is all or nothing in the sense that, either you will live a divinely eternal life, or you won't. Either way, you will KNOW that the divine life was possible, but your life chose otherwise.

This implies that there are those who will not KNOW this truth until it is too late. Is this what you meant? If so, do you think that god will still sentence them to hell for an eternity?

[Angrboda]

The point is that you have some practical experience judging how people feel about you whereas you have no practical experience judging what the afterlife is like. That didn't prevent you from expositing at length what 'theories' you have about the afterlife. If you're willing to extemporize from such a deep well of ignorance, I feel that should give you some pause. But apparently not. The "I can't test love" meme is a tired cliche that is meant to sweep such technicalities under the rug, rather than to illuminate, and I'm disappointed that someone of your intelligence would resort to such a trite apologetic.

[Tonus]

At the end of the day, I can only use my own logic and experiences to form my opinion.

I suppose that you cannot come to a statistically quantifiable conclusion with regard to emotions ("his love for me is at 300 of a possible 400 love points, so he loves me 75%") and such things can be stronger or weaker at times and over a long period. But we seem to be able to determine emotional states with some confidence, especially as they become more intense (ie, it's easier to tell that someone is angry as they become angrier) and at least some emotional reactions are instinctive (ie, blind people will express happiness and other emotions with the same facial expressions even though they have never seen them). So we have a basis on which we can reach a general consensus on questions like "how do I know my husband loves me."

[Catholic_Lady]

The point is that you have some practical experience judging how people feel about you whereas you have no practical experience judging what the afterlife is like.  That didn't prevent you from expositing at length what 'theories' you have about the afterlife.  If you're willing to extemporize from such a deep well of ignorance, I feel that should give you some pause.  But apparently not.  The "I can't test love" meme is a tired cliche that is meant to sweep such technicalities under the rug, rather than to illuminate, and I'm disappointed that someone of your intelligence would resort to such a trite apologetic.

To be fair, my theories on the afterlife are based on my understanding of God and of what we do know and what makes sense to me. They're not just pulled out of nowhere. I admit they could be very much wrong, as they are not what we would consider revealed truth, but they are what I think might be the case. That's why I said they are merely my own theories.