How I Lost My Faith: A thread for atheist testimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is how it happened to me. I had always since young adulthood questioned how bad things happened to good people and good things happened to bad people. It’s everywhere. Then my mom got terminal cancer at 60. And it just hit me like a ton of bricks, God is not going to stop this wonderful, faithful woman from dying. Even as she was telling me he had a plan and things happen for a reason. And I just wanted to scream at her “This is not a plan and it’s not happening for some divine reason!!!” I didn’t say that of course.

I decided there were 3 possibilities:

1. God is not omnipotent.
2. God is omnipotent and is just an a-hole.
3. There is no God.

I’m not sure which of the above is true.

4. Your mom believed she was going to enjoy a great afterlife and that you would do well here on earth, and both of these things brought a lot of comfort to her (and might or might not be true).

No. Even if what you say is true then 1,2 or 3 also has to be true. 4 is not an alternative to those. God either couldn’t save her, chose not to save her, or isn’t real. Which do you think?

np- all humans die. Nobody likes it.
Is there something in the Bible that says people aren’t supposed to die? People die every second because we aren’t immortal. I get pp is upset, but no one lives forever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Raised Catholic but my parents lost their religion and I didn’t go after 8th grade. Went back as an adult. I found Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount quite beautiful and moving, even frightening. It is quite a prescription for how to live.

I got sick of the stupid sermons. The child abuse is completely evil. I think most all organized religion is not good. I have met a lot of people who were abused in some way by the effects of religion and it’s so common as to be disturbing. I also can’t stand the move of religion into politics and elections. I don’t relate to the trend toward orthodoxy and fundamentalism that seems to be the prevailing fashion, or at least a very potent force, in most world religions in this day and age.

I have also known some great people who probably are great because of their beliefs, especially Jewish friends, for what it’s worth.

I can’t stand the megachurch, rock n roll Christianity that is so common where I live in Southern California. I don’t even understand what it has to do with the New Testament. Not much, IMO.

I used to pray every day but don’t feel the same about it anymore. Sometimes though I feel as if my loss of faith is also a message from God or part of a faith journey. Like I had to get away from the Pharisees. However, I feel less and less like there is a God to pray to in the way I had. It’s more like I should just contemplate mystery and creation, that biology is God, or DNA and randomness is God. Beauty is God.

I loved your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is how it happened to me. I had always since young adulthood questioned how bad things happened to good people and good things happened to bad people. It’s everywhere. Then my mom got terminal cancer at 60. And it just hit me like a ton of bricks, God is not going to stop this wonderful, faithful woman from dying. Even as she was telling me he had a plan and things happen for a reason. And I just wanted to scream at her “This is not a plan and it’s not happening for some divine reason!!!” I didn’t say that of course.

I decided there were 3 possibilities:

1. God is not omnipotent.
2. God is omnipotent and is just an a-hole.
3. There is no God.

I’m not sure which of the above is true.

4. Your mom believed she was going to enjoy a great afterlife and that you would do well here on earth, and both of these things brought a lot of comfort to her (and might or might not be true).

No. Even if what you say is true then 1,2 or 3 also has to be true. 4 is not an alternative to those. God either couldn’t save her, chose not to save her, or isn’t real. Which do you think?

You're saying that death is the end, so that #4 is invalidated by 1, 2, or 3. PP's mom apparently didn't believe that. Take it up with pp's mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

This is the PP you responded to. People change. I'm not sure why you feel the need to break this down to digest it? You seem rigid, not rational.

It’s irrational to want to know what your reasoning was?

If you don’t want to say, that’s fine that’s your prerogative. But please don’t pretend that it’s not a perfectly logical question. If you don’t answer it, people will make their own assumption as to why.

Your approach to faith is paradoxical. You're demanding the recipe for faith, but there isn't one. A few years ago I was 100% convinced there was no God. To my surprise my faith has grown, but not as a result of my own efforts.

That’s preposterous not demanding any recipe for faith. I am asking you what evidence convinced you back. At this point you’re taking the thread off topic so let’s just drop it since you clearly are not going to say which makes me think your post is not genuine.

How would you describe color to a blind person?

The same way you would describe color to a person with perfect vision.

Now, what evidence convinced you back from being an atheist?

DP. Go ahead, describe "red" to us DCUMers. We'll wait.

You made the allegory as a method of avoiding answering the question of what convinced you to go back.

You added the variable of "a blind person" as an insult insinuating that atheists just can't see what you can. You asked the question and it was answered, pointing out the allegory was faulty.

Your "go ahead" challenge is now your feeble attempt to continue avoiding the question of what evidence convinced you to go back. You owned yourself with that silly allegory and admitted that there was no evidence, and no reason. That's fine - that's 100% your prerogative - but please don't insult intelligent people here by saying we don't see it because we are blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

This is the PP you responded to. People change. I'm not sure why you feel the need to break this down to digest it? You seem rigid, not rational.

It’s irrational to want to know what your reasoning was?

If you don’t want to say, that’s fine that’s your prerogative. But please don’t pretend that it’s not a perfectly logical question. If you don’t answer it, people will make their own assumption as to why.

Your approach to faith is paradoxical. You're demanding the recipe for faith, but there isn't one. A few years ago I was 100% convinced there was no God. To my surprise my faith has grown, but not as a result of my own efforts.

That’s preposterous not demanding any recipe for faith. I am asking you what evidence convinced you back. At this point you’re taking the thread off topic so let’s just drop it since you clearly are not going to say which makes me think your post is not genuine.

How would you describe color to a blind person?

The same way you would describe color to a person with perfect vision.

Now, what evidence convinced you back from being an atheist?

DP. Go ahead, describe "red" to us DCUMers. We'll wait.

You made the allegory as a method of avoiding answering the question of what convinced you to go back.

You added the variable of "a blind person" as an insult insinuating that atheists just can't see what you can. You asked the question and it was answered, pointing out the allegory was faulty.

Your "go ahead" challenge is now your feeble attempt to continue avoiding the question of what evidence convinced you to go back. You owned yourself with that silly allegory and admitted that there was no evidence, and no reason. That's fine - that's 100% your prerogative - but please don't insult intelligent people here by saying we don't see it because we are blind.

NP
I don't think you need to challenge them so harshly. I kind of feel the same way about becoming an atheist. I tried responding here but it is impossible for me to summarize. It encompasses decades of beautiful discovery and a long path to get here. I don't think religion is always horrible as they often teach basic tenants of life like the golden rule, but even animals naturally follow that. There is something to discover in our collective myths as much as in our not always flawless science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is how it happened to me. I had always since young adulthood questioned how bad things happened to good people and good things happened to bad people. It’s everywhere. Then my mom got terminal cancer at 60. And it just hit me like a ton of bricks, God is not going to stop this wonderful, faithful woman from dying. Even as she was telling me he had a plan and things happen for a reason. And I just wanted to scream at her “This is not a plan and it’s not happening for some divine reason!!!” I didn’t say that of course.

I decided there were 3 possibilities:

1. God is not omnipotent.
2. God is omnipotent and is just an a-hole.
3. There is no God.

I’m not sure which of the above is true.

4. Your mom believed she was going to enjoy a great afterlife and that you would do well here on earth, and both of these things brought a lot of comfort to her (and might or might not be true).

No. Even if what you say is true then 1,2 or 3 also has to be true. 4 is not an alternative to those. God either couldn’t save her, chose not to save her, or isn’t real. Which do you think?

You're saying that death is the end, so that #4 is invalidated by 1, 2, or 3. PP's mom apparently didn't believe that. Take it up with pp's mom.

This thread is for non believers. Go make your own thread where you can discuss flowery reasons why God lets 2 year olds die of brain tumors and lets 10 year olds live with sexual abusers. Maybe he is real, I don’t know. But he sure isn’t very benevolent if he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is how it happened to me. I had always since young adulthood questioned how bad things happened to good people and good things happened to bad people. It’s everywhere. Then my mom got terminal cancer at 60. And it just hit me like a ton of bricks, God is not going to stop this wonderful, faithful woman from dying. Even as she was telling me he had a plan and things happen for a reason. And I just wanted to scream at her “This is not a plan and it’s not happening for some divine reason!!!” I didn’t say that of course.

I decided there were 3 possibilities:

1. God is not omnipotent.
2. God is omnipotent and is just an a-hole.
3. There is no God.

I’m not sure which of the above is true.

Thanks for your post, PP. You may know this, but a similar philosophy to your was stated by Epicurus a long time ago (3rd century BC):

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

[Anonymous]

It’s quite impossible to blame all the ills of the world on an entity you have no belief in.

If you don’t believe in God, how can you say he’s at fault for everything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is how it happened to me. I had always since young adulthood questioned how bad things happened to good people and good things happened to bad people. It’s everywhere. Then my mom got terminal cancer at 60. And it just hit me like a ton of bricks, God is not going to stop this wonderful, faithful woman from dying. Even as she was telling me he had a plan and things happen for a reason. And I just wanted to scream at her “This is not a plan and it’s not happening for some divine reason!!!” I didn’t say that of course.

I decided there were 3 possibilities:

1. God is not omnipotent.
2. God is omnipotent and is just an a-hole.
3. There is no God.

I’m not sure which of the above is true.

Thanks for your post, PP. You may know this, but a similar philosophy to your was stated by Epicurus a long time ago (3rd century BC):

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

PP here. Thank you for sharing and yes that’s how I feel. I’m actually jealous of those comforted by faith. I would love to have that comfort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s quite impossible to blame all the ills of the world on an entity you have no belief in.

If you don’t believe in God, how can you say he’s at fault for everything?

This is an off-topic post and a thread Jack attempt.

Regardless, you clearly did not read the post directly above yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

This is the PP you responded to. People change. I'm not sure why you feel the need to break this down to digest it? You seem rigid, not rational.

It’s irrational to want to know what your reasoning was?

If you don’t want to say, that’s fine that’s your prerogative. But please don’t pretend that it’s not a perfectly logical question. If you don’t answer it, people will make their own assumption as to why.

Your approach to faith is paradoxical. You're demanding the recipe for faith, but there isn't one. A few years ago I was 100% convinced there was no God. To my surprise my faith has grown, but not as a result of my own efforts.

That’s preposterous not demanding any recipe for faith. I am asking you what evidence convinced you back. At this point you’re taking the thread off topic so let’s just drop it since you clearly are not going to say which makes me think your post is not genuine.

How would you describe color to a blind person?

The same way you would describe color to a person with perfect vision.

Now, what evidence convinced you back from being an atheist?

DP. Go ahead, describe "red" to us DCUMers. We'll wait.

You made the allegory as a method of avoiding answering the question of what convinced you to go back.

You added the variable of "a blind person" as an insult insinuating that atheists just can't see what you can. You asked the question and it was answered, pointing out the allegory was faulty.

Your "go ahead" challenge is now your feeble attempt to continue avoiding the question of what evidence convinced you to go back. You owned yourself with that silly allegory and admitted that there was no evidence, and no reason. That's fine - that's 100% your prerogative - but please don't insult intelligent people here by saying we don't see it because we are blind.

I'm the "describe red" poster and not the pp you're having your childish feud with. I do actually think it's a good allegory, though--describing faith is at least as hard as describing colors. And that's probably why you declined to describe red--pp's point is made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is how it happened to me. I had always since young adulthood questioned how bad things happened to good people and good things happened to bad people. It’s everywhere. Then my mom got terminal cancer at 60. And it just hit me like a ton of bricks, God is not going to stop this wonderful, faithful woman from dying. Even as she was telling me he had a plan and things happen for a reason. And I just wanted to scream at her “This is not a plan and it’s not happening for some divine reason!!!” I didn’t say that of course.

I decided there were 3 possibilities:

1. God is not omnipotent.
2. God is omnipotent and is just an a-hole.
3. There is no God.

I’m not sure which of the above is true.

Thanks for your post, PP. You may know this, but a similar philosophy to your was stated by Epicurus a long time ago (3rd century BC):

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

PP here. Thank you for sharing and yes that’s how I feel. I’m actually jealous of those comforted by faith. I would love to have that comfort.

Epicurus taught that the root of all human neuroses is death denial and the tendency for human beings to assume that death will be horrific and painful, which he claimed causes unnecessary anxiety, selfish self-protective behaviors, and hypocrisy.

Why not go with Epicurus when someone you love is dying? He was so comforting, pp. You all fear death unnecessarily, it is the cause of your anxiety, selfish behaviors, and hypocrisy. God doesn’t cause that- you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

This is the PP you responded to. People change. I'm not sure why you feel the need to break this down to digest it? You seem rigid, not rational.

It’s irrational to want to know what your reasoning was?

If you don’t want to say, that’s fine that’s your prerogative. But please don’t pretend that it’s not a perfectly logical question. If you don’t answer it, people will make their own assumption as to why.

Your approach to faith is paradoxical. You're demanding the recipe for faith, but there isn't one. A few years ago I was 100% convinced there was no God. To my surprise my faith has grown, but not as a result of my own efforts.

That’s preposterous not demanding any recipe for faith. I am asking you what evidence convinced you back. At this point you’re taking the thread off topic so let’s just drop it since you clearly are not going to say which makes me think your post is not genuine.

How would you describe color to a blind person?

The same way you would describe color to a person with perfect vision.

Now, what evidence convinced you back from being an atheist?

DP. Go ahead, describe "red" to us DCUMers. We'll wait.

You made the allegory as a method of avoiding answering the question of what convinced you to go back.

You added the variable of "a blind person" as an insult insinuating that atheists just can't see what you can. You asked the question and it was answered, pointing out the allegory was faulty.

Your "go ahead" challenge is now your feeble attempt to continue avoiding the question of what evidence convinced you to go back. You owned yourself with that silly allegory and admitted that there was no evidence, and no reason. That's fine - that's 100% your prerogative - but please don't insult intelligent people here by saying we don't see it because we are blind.

I'm the "describe red" poster and not the pp you're having your childish feud with. I do actually think it's a good allegory, though--describing faith is at least as hard as describing colors. And that's probably why you declined to describe red--pp's point is made.

No, you’re being dishonest. You didn’t just say describe a color you add the variable of two applied man which implies that it’s obvious and we just can’t see it. That’s why it’s a terrible allegory.

And for the record, there are plenty of ways to describe a color. You could talk about whether it’s primary or not, where it falls on the spectrum, what wavelength it reflects, what the Pantone numbers are, and many other things. But I’m not gonna let you threadjack. The point is a color is a thing we know it exists and there’s evidence of it and we could measure it and all kinds of stuff so your allegory is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

This is the PP you responded to. People change. I'm not sure why you feel the need to break this down to digest it? You seem rigid, not rational.

It’s irrational to want to know what your reasoning was?

If you don’t want to say, that’s fine that’s your prerogative. But please don’t pretend that it’s not a perfectly logical question. If you don’t answer it, people will make their own assumption as to why.

Your approach to faith is paradoxical. You're demanding the recipe for faith, but there isn't one. A few years ago I was 100% convinced there was no God. To my surprise my faith has grown, but not as a result of my own efforts.

That’s preposterous not demanding any recipe for faith. I am asking you what evidence convinced you back. At this point you’re taking the thread off topic so let’s just drop it since you clearly are not going to say which makes me think your post is not genuine.

How would you describe color to a blind person?

The same way you would describe color to a person with perfect vision.

Now, what evidence convinced you back from being an atheist?

DP. Go ahead, describe "red" to us DCUMers. We'll wait.

You made the allegory as a method of avoiding answering the question of what convinced you to go back.

You added the variable of "a blind person" as an insult insinuating that atheists just can't see what you can. You asked the question and it was answered, pointing out the allegory was faulty.

Your "go ahead" challenge is now your feeble attempt to continue avoiding the question of what evidence convinced you to go back. You owned yourself with that silly allegory and admitted that there was no evidence, and no reason. That's fine - that's 100% your prerogative - but please don't insult intelligent people here by saying we don't see it because we are blind.

I'm the "describe red" poster and not the pp you're having your childish feud with. I do actually think it's a good allegory, though--describing faith is at least as hard as describing colors. And that's probably why you declined to describe red--pp's point is made.

No, you’re being dishonest. You didn’t just say describe a color you add the variable of two applied man which implies that it’s obvious and we just can’t see it. That’s why it’s a terrible allegory.

And for the record, there are plenty of ways to describe a color. You could talk about whether it’s primary or not, where it falls on the spectrum, what wavelength it reflects, what the Pantone numbers are, and many other things. But I’m not gonna let you threadjack. The point is a color is a thing we know it exists and there’s evidence of it and we could measure it and all kinds of stuff so your allegory is terrible.

Re:the above: “blind man” not “two applied man”. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

This is the PP you responded to. People change. I'm not sure why you feel the need to break this down to digest it? You seem rigid, not rational.

It’s irrational to want to know what your reasoning was?

If you don’t want to say, that’s fine that’s your prerogative. But please don’t pretend that it’s not a perfectly logical question. If you don’t answer it, people will make their own assumption as to why.

Your approach to faith is paradoxical. You're demanding the recipe for faith, but there isn't one. A few years ago I was 100% convinced there was no God. To my surprise my faith has grown, but not as a result of my own efforts.

That’s preposterous not demanding any recipe for faith. I am asking you what evidence convinced you back. At this point you’re taking the thread off topic so let’s just drop it since you clearly are not going to say which makes me think your post is not genuine.

How would you describe color to a blind person?

The same way you would describe color to a person with perfect vision.

Now, what evidence convinced you back from being an atheist?

DP. Go ahead, describe "red" to us DCUMers. We'll wait.

You made the allegory as a method of avoiding answering the question of what convinced you to go back.

You added the variable of "a blind person" as an insult insinuating that atheists just can't see what you can. You asked the question and it was answered, pointing out the allegory was faulty.

Your "go ahead" challenge is now your feeble attempt to continue avoiding the question of what evidence convinced you to go back. You owned yourself with that silly allegory and admitted that there was no evidence, and no reason. That's fine - that's 100% your prerogative - but please don't insult intelligent people here by saying we don't see it because we are blind.

I'm the "describe red" poster and not the pp you're having your childish feud with. I do actually think it's a good allegory, though--describing faith is at least as hard as describing colors. And that's probably why you declined to describe red--pp's point is made.

No, you’re being dishonest. You didn’t just say describe a color you add the variable of two applied man which implies that it’s obvious and we just can’t see it. That’s why it’s a terrible allegory.

And for the record, there are plenty of ways to describe a color. You could talk about whether it’s primary or not, where it falls on the spectrum, what wavelength it reflects, what the Pantone numbers are, and many other things. But I’m not gonna let you threadjack. The point is a color is a thing we know it exists and there’s evidence of it and we could measure it and all kinds of stuff so your allegory is terrible.

Re:the above: “blind man” not “two applied man”. Sorry.

DP. I disagree that you could effectively explain color to a blind man. Primary colors, wavelengths, pantones, etc, all rely on an underlying understanding of color in the first place. Unless the blind man has sight at one point and then lost it, he would have no frame of reference for colors. Like in A Wrinkle in Time when the beasts have no concept of light, because they don't have eyes. It's not a knock against the blind.

That said, I see how the analogy could be offensive in this context.