What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[Killman]

Someone is blind because he can't perceive light, if light was a myth he wouldnt't be blind he would be like everybody else. Do you think he doesn't understand he is different in a highly visual world? Really?

Sure he can realize he is different, but that does not prove light exists, perhaps his brain just functions differently than everyone else's. So how could you logically prove to him light exists? Hint: It can't be done.

---

Why is it you think that light cannot be proven to exist? You seriously have a problem with light? Is there a biblical position against the existence of light? Honestly though, if the only evidence we had of lights existence was the fact that we can see it, we would have sufficient reason to doubt it's existence. Don't be ridiculous.

It is not that light cannot be proven to exist, it can, but only to someone who can see it. You cannot provide proof to a blind person that light exists. You are like the blind man asking for proof of light when you ask for evidence proving God exists. There is no way to prove God exists to you until your blindness is first cured. That's the point I am making. So the blind man is completely justified in his own mind for not believing in light, even though he is completely wrong in doing so.

So, by this logic, if I become a Christian, again, I will be able to see god? I never really saw too much of him before I was an Atheist. Perhaps I wasn't squinting hard enough.

[The Grand Nudger]

He already put the point out. He was trying to pull a Yeshua and "teach us with a parable", scroll up, he edited it in last night..lol. We're all just having fun with how splendidly ignorant the parable was to begin with.

[Statler Waldorf]

[The Grand Nudger]

[Statler Waldorf]

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure it is, it's just not proof to you. Because it doesn't begin and end with the word God. Not my problem.

[Statler Waldorf]

Sure it is, it's just not proof to you. Because it doesn't begin and end with the word God. Not my problem.

Your complete misuse of the word proof is downright scary. So if I show you a formula that represents the sun's motion as it revolves around the earth this is "proof" that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth? You will grant that? Of course not, because mathematical formulas do not “prove” the existence of anything, they must be verified through the empirical method. Unfortunately a blind person cannot use the empirical method when it comes to light because they cannot directly observe it. So your last chance is proof through logic, something you have not tried yet.

[Faith No More]

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)

[Minimalist]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?