How would an atheist prove the existence of color as an asthetic concept to a blind man?
Debate Rounds (4)
For one, atheism is the belief there in no god(s). That is it. So I think this question implies there's something else attached to atheism, which there is not.
Second, denial does not make something true. You can deny things like the Earth is not round but does that make it true? Of course not. Why does it need explaining because regardless, the blind man cannot understand the concept and even if he did, what good would it do?
Let's throw the atheist part out since it has absolutely no context in this argument what-so-ever.
Explaining a aesthetic concept such as colour is easily explainable through senses the man already has. Such as touch.
Take rocks for example, heat one up very hot and have the man touch it, that's red. A very cold one, blue. A warm one, orange etc etc. Things like walking sticks are used to see obstacles that they can't perceive. The unlikeness of this scenario (I have in fact worked with multiple permanently blind people before) is very very slim since tripping over a curb will curb your opinion on the matter very quickly.
It's quite odd that you haven't once produced any counter arguments and just continuously bash my responses to your poorly worded, poorly spelled* question.
*It's aesthetic not asthetic.
2) Atheists demand proof of the spiritual because there is no evidence of it outside your imagination.
3) No one is capable of perceiving spiritual entities because they only exist within our minds.
4) What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You wanted me to explain an aesthetic concept to a blind man and you warp it to fit your silly agenda. Ask genuine questions and take part in genuine debates are stop asking questions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.