Truthworthy claims that...

[TruthWorthy]

---

I don't see why a belief cannot be genuinely challenged but without being discarded even temporarily.

I can play Devil's Advocate and try and adopt a theistic perspective without actually becoming a believer even for a second.... so I don't see why a believer has to become an atheist in order to honestly be skeptical.

In fact, they wouldn't need to be skeptical and scrutinize their belief if they already lost it and were atheist. So surely the only time a theist can question his belief is when he is still a theist, otherwise he wouldn't even hold the said belief in God in order to scrutinize it (whether momentarily or permanently)?

EvF

---

Because we're not talking about a belief we're talking about belief of a god from a theist's perspective which has only faith for the supporting subjective "evidence" (as is somehow asserted by some ). Therefore to test the truth in the claim that God exists one must test the belief itself; seeing how the only objective/scientific way to achieve such ends is to adopt a contrasting belief (as the original belief is subjective), it nessarily follows that the contrasting belief is one which opposes theism and thereby places the "theist" in a state of atheism, however momentary.

---

You've said several times in conversation to me that you refuse to consider it because it's illogical! There's an example in our 'debate'.

What's the matter - you?