The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

How would an atheist prove the existence of color as an asthetic concept to a blind man?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 804 times Debate No: 88985
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (1)




Do atheists know that their physical senses are the only ones? What would they say to a blind man who said there are only four senses, denying the existence of the sense of sight. He demands evidence from you as to the existence of color as an asthetic concept. What would you say?


I think I understand the concept you wish to debate so let me take a shot at it.

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?

Debate Round No. 1


Dude, I am not interested in your foolish opinions about my Q, but your answer. Put up or shut up. Thanks.


It's not really opinion but all right.

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.

Debate Round No. 2


Dude, are you being intentionally obtuse? The issue is not can you explain colors, but can you prove they exist. I can describe a Death Star, but it does not exist. And Synonyms do not prove the existence of color. Surely you can do better than this?!?!?


Colours cannot be proven if you have absolutely no ability to observe them. You can however, warp your current situation to observe them. For instance, blindness has become curable in certain cases so, undergoing this surgery will enable you to observe colour.

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.
Debate Round No. 3


So what you are saying is that if a man has an inability to perceive a truth, you are unable to prove that truth to him? Is this not like when an atheist demand proof of the spiritual when they lack the ability to perceive the spiritual because they are dead in sin?


1) It is not truth to him because he has absolutely no way of seeing it. So it's then subjective.

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.

Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: Aguilajoyce// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con conflates sight/percetion in the empirical sense with sight/perception in the rationalized truth sense. They are in no way the same thing, as the sense of sight simply absorbs light from the physical world, (no reconciliation is required until we begin to argue meaning or aesthetics) Perceived truth, especially in the case of theism, is that later stage; the rationalization of empirical truths i.e., something must exist, though it is unverifiable in the empirical world to explain the beauty/complexity of nature. So pro is correct that color cannot be empirically 'true' to a person lacking sight, but it can be a rationalized truth, verified via the common use of color as a descriptor... Lol. So this debate is just a continuation, rather than a revelation into the principle divide regarding atheism vs. theism. Because there is still the unacknowledged rationalization (leap) on the part of the theist.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or sources. (2) While this is probably a better explanation of what's going on than what was actually said in the debate by Pro, the voter does have to specifically assess arguments made by both sides in the debate and not simply state their views on the general problems with Con's argument.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 10 months ago
Him saying your wrong has nothing to do with what is in your mind vice.
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
Well, if you say I am wrong, it must be true. After all, you clearly know more about what is going on in my mind much more than I do.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 10 months ago
I will admit I am not being very empathetic for you, however, Vice you are in the wrong here. Sure you make a point in the topic, but you don't support it. Using only insults to demean your opponent will only make you look like you are immature and don't understand the topic to begin with. So what if the opponent doesnt answer it correctly, thats where you lie down more information and show that your the one who is right. Not just insult people, because thats not very empathetic on your part either. You don't know their point of view, nor do you care to listen. If you did, maybe you would come up with a proper debate to show your view is the correct one. Instead of making a debate like this that you lose only because you didnt support your own side.
Posted by ViceRegent 11 months ago
And yet these fools have been reduced to copying me. Being mentally ill has its disadvantages for them.
Posted by Saska 11 months ago
VR never get a job that involves debating. You're awful at it.
Posted by ViceRegent 11 months ago
Stone, never get a job that requires empathy. You are terrible at it.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
I mean the question itself proves a good point, however not supporting it correctly was the cause of the lose. Good topic, bad debate. Really it was just his anger that caused the lose. (Though again the topic itself shows much hypocrisy within the Atheism, or the lack of belief in something.

P.S Vice, if your going against Atheist, I would assume your religious. So if your religious is it good that you are acting so angry towards others?
Posted by red_x 11 months ago
hey vice, stop being such a dick, atheists have done nothing to you so stop ragging on them. You are asking nearly impossible questions to answer that you probably can't answer yourself. Dumbass
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
Of course I understand Tejretics, after I agree that Vice Regent lost debate wise, because he did not convey the topic properly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 11 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.