Posted: Aug 22, 2018 10:14 am
aban57 wrote:
I don't wait around waiting for anything. A claim is made, I ask evidence. There is none, the claim is bogus. As simple as that.
SImple is as simple does.
You don't really understand theoretical physics, do you? Theoretical physics claims are not bogus simply (there's your simple fucking word) because evidence has not yet been procured. That's when a request for evidence is appropriate. In the case of deities, you (that is, we) anticipate that evidence is not to be expected, because there is no theoretical framework by means of which the hypothesis of a deity was proposed. It was proposed by ignorant goat-roasters who lacked any theoretical framework and we don't expect that evidence fitting a very fuckwitted "theoretical framework" is going to appear magically because wibbling about deities is a tradition.
The General Theory of Relativity was not bogus simply (word, again) because it took some time to acquire evidence for it. This is why asking theists to present evidence is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy borrowed from the field of science, borrowed by those feigning ignorance (or sometimes outright skepticism) of rigorous theoretical frameworks. Do you get this, yet, or do I have to spell it out in even more detail? If so, this is how that is going to go: You name a theoretical framework and specify in terms of that framework what the evidence should look like, and that is called a prediction of the theoretical framework. If you don't respect actual theoretical frameworks, and quake in your boots that theism represents a theoretical framework making predictions of deities, that's going to continue to be your problem, and not mine at all.
aban57 wrote:And yes, I do care to try to prove them wrong, otherwise, why this talk?
Well, best of fucking luck with all that. Be sure to look at the track record, which is the evidence of how well that all works. If you're confused that your inability to prove them wrong means they're right, your confusion is your problem, and not mine. If it's not been clear that I have scant interest in theist claims, and more in the dimwitted claims of so-called skeptics, now it is.
aban57 wrote:Your reasoning, in a way, comforts that way of thinking.
Oboy. On top of everything else you've blown out your ass in this conversation, you're accusing me of giving aid and comfort. You must really be desperate to cling to your failed strategy.
Wortfish is a very, very conventional creationist theist (or else, he's just trolling, here), and you're making the accusation that what I've said bolsters creationism. Think of me as a backslider in the secular humanist religion.