Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 2, 2026, 7:05 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Things don't have to be testable to be true
#6
RE: Things don't have to be testable to be true
(March 4, 2026 at 11:29 pm)FreethinkingSceptic Wrote: I've heard atheists insist that things be scientifically testable to be true or believed, but this is silly and dishonest.

There are many things which people believe, such as the existence of historical figures such as Julius Caesar, which aren't scientifically testable, but would be absurd not to believe. And it's not like testability guarantees that something is true either. It's merely a method of reducing the possibility of falsehood, similarly to how court trials don't guarantee that people are rightfully or wrongfully convicted to begin with.

To me, this just seems like a cop-out by atheists who don't want to believe in the existence of a God. Atheists will demand a specific standard of evidence for things they don't want to believe in, such as the existence of God, while not demanding that same standard of evidence for other things. Such as not demanding that the same standard of evidence of the existence of God be applied to believing in the existence of historical figures like Julius Caesar.

And some atheists would likely refuse to believe in God no matter what evidence was presented to them, just because they don't want to. If I didn't want to believe in the existence of Julius Caesar, I could simply demand that a video recording of Julius Caesar's life from birth until death be provided, and of course it would be impossible to provide such evidence. Therefore, there would be no reason to believe in Julius Caesar.

I'm an historian (by training, not by profession) and I assure you that the existence of Julius Caesar has been tested to the point where denying it is intellectually perverse. I once saw one of your online compatriots claiming that the evidence for Jesus was stronger than the evidence for Abraham Lincoln. You're being equally stupid.

So far, you've taken poorly informed shots at two sciences - evolutionary biology and historiography. I'm curious as to what other sciences make your balls ache. Physics? Chemistry? Geology? Agronomy?

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Things don't have to be testable to be true - by BrianSoddingBoru4 - March 5, 2026 at 5:37 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  And this, America, is why you can't have nice things... The Valkyrie 28 8373 August 23, 2016 at 5:16 am
Last Post: Joods
  "Men's rights activists are pig misogynists,men don't have issues!" ErGingerbreadMandude 214 62010 May 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm
Last Post: Losty
  Literally true Minimalist 0 920 November 17, 2015 at 12:08 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
Brick The genetic similarity between man and Cambanzy Is it true? king krish 34 11902 December 30, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  The true cost of oil: Garth Lenz Gooders1002 1 1674 March 6, 2012 at 10:44 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Science Reveals the True Cost of a Burger thesummerqueen 19 12411 February 18, 2012 at 3:51 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  can we really ever know true origin? mamamia88 12 6081 January 10, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Last Post: Skipper



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)