Truthworthy claims that...

[fr0d0]

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'.

[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?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ TW

Can you not hold a belief that entirely lacks evidence, that is entirely faith-based... and yet still attempt to search for evidence (without actually finding/believing and holding any) - I don't see why not?

@fr0d0

Well if I did actually say I won't consider then what I meant to say is - I hope I never believe without evidence because it is extremely irrational to do so. I want evidence because I don't know what other criterion I could go by in order to believe and yet still be rational... ?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Precisely Evie - yadda yadda yadda... you won't consider anything without evidence

[Edwardo Piet]

Untrue.

I consider the possibility of considering things without evidence, but I choose not to put it into practice.

Just like I may consider the possibility of deciding to slam my head deliberately on the fridge door... doesn't mean I'll actually do it.

I certainly am open to the possibility that belief without evidence may somehow be able to be rational ( even despite the fact that it seems to me to be by definition irrational) - but I am not going to live my life that way because I believe it to be absolutely crazy... it's like deliberately going against the odds for no good reason.

I consider evidence, I consider faith - but I choose evidence because belief on evidence is saner.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I consider the possibility of considering things without evidence, but I choose not to put it into practice.

Quoted for the stupid things atheists say list

[Darwinian]

I'd like to see that list, maybe you could publish it in book form.

Of course, we already have the book full of stupid quotes Christians say, it's called the Bible

[Edwardo Piet]

I consider the possibility of considering things without evidence, but I choose not to put it into practice.

Seems perfectly rational to me. Fr0d0, do you think it would be more rational if I considered the possibility of both believing with and without evidence and chose without evidence, chose "faith"? For no reason?

Because there IS a reason with evidence, because evidence itself is a reason - it's an indication in the truth of the matter. And the truth matters to me.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I'm sure eventually Evie you'd end up with a dictionary with one word in it.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Evidence"?

EvF