What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[Statler Waldorf]

Yes, I understand why you would accept that evidence, but I also feel that a color blind person who was as skeptical as many atheists are would not believe in the existence of those other colors. That’s one of my points here. Atheists believe in numerous things that lack actual logical proof, but then chastise the theist for doing the same.

Well, there is a difference between being skeptical and ignoring evidence. I am very skeptical, yet when evidence is presented, I will acknowledge it as will most atheists.

Could you give me an example of something that atheists believe that lacks logical proof? (And don't say evolution)

Haha, I was not going to say evolution, but that would have been funny. :-) Well the existence of logic itself is something all (I believe all at least) atheists would accept without logical proof. There are many things atheists will accept as real in the realm of science that lack evidence or logical proof, such as the existence of multi-verses, extra-terrestrial life, and abiogenesis. Actually even the principle of induction which all of science is based on is something that has no logical basis in an atheistic world. I would venture to say that all atheists believe at least a few of these things above and yet they do not have logical proof to justify this belief, so then why jump on the theist for doing the same?

---

Could you give me an example of something that atheists believe that lacks logical proof? (And don't say evolutionTongue)

That's all he's got. Creationists think that all they have to do is pretend to poke holes in evolution and their bible bullshit becomes "true" by default.


Yet, ask him for evidence that all life appeared 6,000 years ago in the middle east and all you'll get is silence.

Yeah shame on those silly creationists for understanding how disjunctive syllogisms work lol. You could stop them though, just present a theory that is not so terribly easy to poke holes in. :-P

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually, two of those things you mentioned have logical proof as of yet, but no empirical evidence. This is why we ridicule people who take the respective theories too far. (multiverse and ET)

[Statler Waldorf]

The blind are somehow unable to get access to data regarding the orbit? We are not directly observing the invisible spectrum of light Statler, would you like to claim that it does not exist, or that there is no proof?

You mean data collected by those who can see? That is just assuming the proof. In fact, if the blind person behaved as you do with your naturalistic platform, he'd disallow all explanations that involved the existence of light ahead of time lol.

---

Actually, two of those things you mentioned have logical proof as of yet, but no empirical evidence. This is why we ridicule people who take the respective theories too far. (multiverse and ET)

So I can hold you to this? Please give me two sound logical syllogisms that prove multi-verses and ETL exist. Thanks.

[The Grand Nudger]

That you even need this is beyond me. Multi-verses are currently a concept of theoretical physics, all math. Though I believe we have a thread here discussing where they are making observations that could help to confirm or deny. The idea that there would be extraterrestrial life is one of statistics. Both are just numbers currently. The purest expression of logical proof. GO BACK TO YOUR CAVE.

[Statler Waldorf]

That you even need this is beyond me. Multi-verses are currently a concept of theoretical physics, all math. Though I believe we have a thread here discussing where they are making observations that could help to confirm or deny. The idea that there would be extraterrestrial life is one of statistics. Both are just numbers currently. The purest expression of logical proof. GO BACK TO YOUR CAVE.

Seriously? This is your logical proof? You mistakenly claim numbers are synonymous with logical proof. That's absurd. So you can't logically prove that multi-verses and ETL exist even though many atheists believe they do? I rest my case lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

What case, are you pleading insanity or inanity? Honestly I have no idea how to help you out here. If you believe that our ability to prove any given things existence rests on the human eye, seriously, I have no idea what to say.

If [numbers here]
and [numbers here]
are true...
Then [conclusion here]

Notice that I do not need observation at all, only numbers, no observation, only theory. Doesn't get any more pure than that, numbers mean only one thing, no arguing the language. We would have a logical argument, but no empirical evidence, so we'd still have to find that. How exactly did you think we went about this stuff before this moment Statler?

This particular opinion of yours is fucking idiotic.

(edited to toe the line)

[Statler Waldorf]

What case, are you pleading insanity or inanity? Honestly I have no idea how to help you out here. If you believe that our ability to prove any given things existence rests on the human eye, seriously, I have no idea what to say.

Except that this particular opinion of yours is fucking idiotic.

(edited to toe the line)

I don't see how the fact that my argument has flown way over your head is in any way my problem, others seems to be following it just fine. I am still waiting for that logical proof you claimed to have though.....still waiting.....waiting....

[The Grand Nudger]

Is the entirety of your argument that some atheist somewhere believes in something that he cant prove? If so, stick with that as a one liner. I would happily concede that some atheist somewhere believes in something that he cannot prove.
Does this argument go anywhere else? More importantly, how does this support your assumption that it is impossible to prove anything to a blind man, or prove something without the ability to see. Also, interesting claim, you insist that god is a factual reality.

Am I to understand that you have directly observed god, with your eyes? A great many people have a great many questions for you.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I demand direct observation of god, with my own eyes, or he cannot be said to be proven to exist.

[Statler Waldorf]

Is the entirety of your argument that some atheist somewhere believes in something that he cant prove?

No, part of my argument is that ALL atheists believe in numerous things that they can't prove, as you have so nicely demonstrated, and yet they act like they are the proof and evidence purists of the modern age, it's just laughable. The truth of the matter is that your belief in the non-existence of God is not founded in lack of evidence or proof, since that does not stop you from believing in other things, but rather because you are unable to believe in God unless and until he first calls you (John 6). So essentially your behavior is confirming a very core teaching of scripture. You are helping verify scripture’s authority on such things. Funny ol’ world isn’t it? :-P

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL< Just no. What does god look like Statler, how does he part his hair?

I again demand direct observation of god before he can be said to be proven to exist.

As a side note, I wouldn't go so far as to say all, totality is a tough act, but I would concede that most atheist, in fact most people, believe something that they cannot prove. That's not proof of god Statler. If you want the hypothetical thing they can't prove to be the no-god position it's simple, you only need to provide us with evidence of god. Until then, that atheists (or anyone) believe in things they cannot prove, does not make your personal belief true. Taking this further, if everyone around you was wrong, you wouldn't be right by default.