CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I would say to him that scientist of all rudiments believe and have verifiable proof to believe that there is such a thing as an electromagnetic structure that can be broke down into visible and non-visible spectrums of particle like wave structures, and that the different lengths of these waveforms corresponds to the color presentations of the electromagnetic spectrum that we call visible light. I would add that amazing scientific breakthroughs have been recently discovered regarding the very nature of light and how it fundamentally shaped the universe we live in.
Of course, he would mock you for the ad populum fallacy and then point out how you delusional you are to think you know what even 10 scientists believe. And he would remind you he did not ask you about the EM spectrum and light, but color, asking you to discipline your mind and focus on what he asked.
The electromagnetic spectrum is the larger scale of the phenomenon proven to carry in its attributes an ability to transfer electrons in the form of photons along a pattern that corresponds to the features of a wave and a particle. A certain small slice of this electromagnetic spectrum is responsible for the visible light which consists of the photons which strike the folded colour defining molecule in your eyeball. Once this encoded information is interpolated by the brain, an image is gained.
And I swear to god if you keep arguing like a fucking retard, I’m just gonna start ignoring all your posts. You are obviously not worried about coming to any truthful knowledge, so stop ruining the site for everyone else who wants to have a sensible debate that relies on the voracity of the argument, not the skewed view of the connotation of English words. Retard.
The only reason color is conceived is because light reflects off of particles based on their size and shape and the human eye perceives them as what we call colors. Many of those particles although chemically identical appear different colors under different conditions. For example, iron oxide can look yellow, orange, red, brown, or black. Cave men used to throw the lighter colored iron oxide rocks in their fires and the heat over time would change the size of the particles and make it a different perceived color for scratching in their cave wall paintings. Different, although made of identical material.
So the point is color is just an illusion.
Also consider this, if you take particles you would call blue, and particles you would call yellow, and combine them it will look green to your eye, even though none of those particles isolated by themselves would look green.
It is illusion.
The blind man is right. There is no color. He cannot perceive light reflecting at any wavelength. And if the light is off in a pitch black room then even you too cannot perceive what you would call blue or red or any other color. In deep space with no sunlight hitting anything truly no colors exist. And if you met an alien and tried to explain blue to it odds are it will have no idea what you're talking about and may even see that reflecting light in ways you can't even imagine.
Now you know what's truly crazy? If someone declares belief in orange their religion and that everything they think and do must somehow tie back to orange forever. They base their whole lives on a trivial matter of perception, and then go about telling anythone else who doesn't live for orange that they're the idiots.
Indeed, but he denies YOU see color, saying your claims to do so is merely evidence you are deluded. Indeed, he demands you prove color exists. What would you say?
I suppose I would not be able to prove such a concept to a person who is afflicted with a condition that occludes them from seeing the evidence for the existence of that concept. The Judeo-Christian god (who I am assuming is the analog), however, presumably created humans to have the ability to recognize his existence, or the evidence thereof.
Assuming the blind man understands that he is blind, and what that entails, I would assume that he understands that there are things that exist that he could never know due to his condition. I would also assume that the blind man understands that there are others who will have the ability to see what he cannot. Given those two assumptions, I would suggest that the blind man not contend with that which he understands he is incapable of disproving.
Interesting.......you can't see God yet contend against Him. You feel that your inability to see God proves He is not there. I've never heard of a blind person insisting colors are not real......but I have heard of fools insisting God is not real.
You have the ability, genius, to know God. You know exactly who it is that you want to deny. You have the ability to know God, you do not have the desire. Your desire is to keep on sinning and believing death exonerates you so that you are free of eternal damnation. You are dead and dying, God is not dead or dying: genius.
Saying the blind man denies that you see color because he doesn't believe in it is like saying that an atheist denies that a Christian will go to heaven because he doesn't believe in it.
The blind man's not really asking anyone to prove color exists, he's stating that no one has shown him any proof of the existence of color.
I can get the analogy you're making. The blind man can't see the proof because he's blind, as an atheist can't see proof of God because the atheist is also blind.
I can get the analogy you're making. The blind man can't see the proof because he's blind, as an atheist can't see proof of God because the atheist is also blind.
If atheists are blind then how do they get to work in the morning?
in that they can't accept or "see" undeniable proof of God.
Ah, I see. Well, you are metaphorically blind because you can't "see" my invisible robot ninja friend called Dave. Dave the ninja. How stupid do you feel now? Dave the ninja could kill you dead and you can't even see him!! What a moron you are.
I love how these fools just don't get it. It is quite humorous to watch them prove everything God says about them when the open their mouths.
But they still have not answered the question. How do you prove color exists to a blind man? When they are able to answer, they will understand why I do not waste time proving to them God exists when they already know and yet suppress this truth in their sin.
A blind person denying color seems a bit absurd as 'color' is a concept that is inconceivable to a person who cannot see light.
This isn't true unless a person has been blind from birth. If blindness has been acquired at some point in life then that person still has the memory of colour.
You could apply this idea to anything that has been proven to exist. For instance, stupid religious nutbag denies the existence of evolution. Doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. We can prove evolution like we can prove colour.
I have made no argument. I have asked a Q you are now running from with irrational red herrings. Answer the Q and we can talk or be erased from this conversation. Your call.
Stupid B are you willing to tell all the little illegal immigrant children that Progressives want into any country that a God does not exist ? Stupid B are you willing to tell that to the Muslim immigrants you want in the UK ?
Hi Outlaw, my old buddy, atheists don't claim that we evolved from apes, they assert that apes and mankind evolved from a common ancestor.
Whether or not this assertion is correct still has to be comprehensively proven.
For instance, everything must have a starting point.
The 'Big Bang' theory asks us to believe that something came from nothing, i.e., the micro dot from which the enormous explosion emanated that created the apparently endless Cosmos.
From where did this microdot come?
For that matter, from where did the space come.
Who or what made this mysterious microdot?
How come the endless space of the heavens were just conveniently there for the billions of galaxies to expand into?
Well, many people don't accept that scenario, but insofar that they rely on the Big Bang theory atheists can point to the beginning of life on Earth when the first life forms were bacteria.
So we all originated from bacteria.
Fossilized microbes of bacteria have been found in rocks 3.5 billion years old.
The blind man cannot see color, he can not even see black and white. He likely can FEEL. I doubt he can reach out and feel GOD. I have good eyesight AND feel and have never seen OR felt this "God". Come to think of it, I haven't seen it in black and white OR color. I should feel deprived, as I would think a blind man does. I don't. I only feel sorry for those who call for help ... and it does not arrive ... kind of like, I'm sure, some of the religious kids in Florida must feel ... but, they don't "feel" anymore, they're dead. The "god" of the NRA has killed them ($$$), with an AR-15 ... something ANYONE can feel and see.
Ol' Bowel Al tell me all about the number of AR-15's the NRA has made. What you have Al is nothing more than the the tired talking points of a Progressive narrative.
Your "thread" is on a public forum, as long as it is, I will be a part of it if I wish. That is, until conservatives or the evangelical right take away the First ... or turn it into a one party right. Your order to leave your "thread" is irrational, ignorant and mentally ill.
Actually, yes - and it might be the best evidence you could give a blind person for the existence of color.
Since color is the absorption/reflection of light energy, you and the blind person can do experiments involving how hot a material gets based on its color.
You atheist fools need to take a good course in logic, for to ask a blind man to do experiments assuming color exists to prove color exists is irrational circular reasoning. Any intelligent atheists here?
Procure 2 paint cans distinguishable by a blind person (lighter/heavier, different shape, etc.) - one with light paint, one with dark paint.
Have a sighted person say which can has which color - for this let's say the dark paint is in a heavier can.
The sighted person is prevented from seeing while the blind person paints 2 identical pieces of metal with the paint - one with the light paint and one with the dark.
The sighted person is now asked to say which one has been painted light/dark - the sighted person has no problem with this task - verification 1.
Then, a heat lamp is positioned equidistant from both pieces and, after a while, the blind person feels both pieces noting that the lighter piece is cooler to the touch - verification 2.
We are not talking an experiment, but a logical syllogism that has a mistaken premise. Please tell us the experiment that would prove color exists to a blind acolorist?
The paint cans are distinguishable by the blind person so that the experiment does not rely on honest sighted people.
Verification 1 would have a random chance of success in the absence of color - through guessing, so, if it were not in conjunction with verification 2, you would want to run it multiple times and show non-random success rate.
Verification 2 does not have that issue.
The blind person can take measures to ensure the sighted person isn't looking - e.g. they are blindfolded and strapped to a noisy chair, etc. - or, better yet - use a different sighted person...
How does the blind man control for all other factors?
How do you make the paint can distinguishable by the blind man, but not the sighted men, such that the blind man can be sure the sighed men are not using the same characteristics?
How does the blind man not know the blindfolded man is not being fed the info?
Well, skid mark, if the sighted man can distinguish it by something other than color, your "experiment" is not controlling for color, making it useless.
I would not be bothered nor concerned with the blind man's opinion in the least.
In fact, I would agree with him, insofar as, so far as HE is concerned, there indeed is no such thing as color.
Even if he is wrong, and his opinion is in his own mind.
Just like god exists only in the mind of those who are deluded and believe in him.
See what I did there? I might be the smartest and most clever bloke on this whole bleeding forum. You were trying to use the blind man thing ad an allegory for how you godists see god and he us real but we atheists just can't see him. But I no only refused to play your silly game....I also totally turned the fucking table on you, and therefore bested you and showed how color exists and your god does not.
Except of course in your own mind.
LOL
Better put me on auto ban. I eat godists like you for breakfast. I once made a godist cry by busting him up in a formal debate in college Debate Society.
In other words, this fool is delusional believing that there are multiple realities. Not to mention narcissistic. ROFL. Moving on to more mentally stable game.
And why should anybody be bothered or concerned with your opinion except that they care enough for you to warn you of the danger you are in with one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell?
so far as HE is concerned, there indeed is no such thing as color.
No, color still exists even with the blind man and his opinion. There's no "so far as he is concerned" in this argument. There either is or isn't, without regards to specific persons.
Even if
He is wrong, and it matters that the blind man realizes that he is incorrect in saying that color doesn't exist.
The answer to the question, I believe, is to tell the blind man to go to art school. There, he'll be taught that color exists at the very least. At that point, it's essentially "you can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink". Either the blind man accepts the undeniable truth that color exists or he continues denying its existence.
No, color still exists even with the blind man and his opinion.
No, I don't agree. Colour is an auxiliary effect of having biological eyes which "see" certain forms of energy. Hence, if we follow the logic of your claim then destroying all the eyes would mean colour would cease to exist. You might argue that the colour is still there, but without the correct instrument to interpret it into colour then it is just data.
Then I take it you're part of the "personal reality" crowd. Look, you can't say color exists for one person and doesn't for another. The fact that you can't visibly see it doesn't affect the fact that it objectively exists. You simply can't deny that color exists, even if blind people can't see it.
Then I take it you're part of the "personal reality" crowd.
I think you're misunderstanding what he said.
Look, you can't say color exists for one person and doesn't for another.
He didn't say that. His argument was that colour doesn't really exist in the first place. Colour is the way our brains interpret certain types of data. An alien species might feasibly not interpret the data the same way.
The fact that you can't visibly see it doesn't affect the fact that it objectively exists.
The only evidence you have for its existence in the first place is sight, so I'm afraid your premise contradicts itself. You want to remove the only evidence we have of the existence of colour, yet simultaneously conclude that colour exists objectively and independent of us. That's quite literally retarded.
Even saying that it's a means of interpreting data is saying that it exists, even if it exists as a method of some sort.
the same way.
We aren't talking about aliens here. Color exists objectively. What colors we see or don't see is subjective. Not everyone sees the exact same colors, which is what it seems like you're saying.
contradicts itself
The existence itself isn't based on sight, it's what colors you see that's based on sight. The concept of color exists, independent of sight.
Even saying that it's a means of interpreting data is saying that it exists
No, it is a way of saying the data exists. It is not a way of saying that colour exists, because colour is our interpretation of that data, not the data itself. Capiche? If I program a computer to play a video game, then the video game cannot exist unless the computer interprets the code.
We aren't talking about aliens here
You might not be talking about aliens. I referred to aliens because I was making a point in which they became a useful analogy.
Do me a favour and stop replying to me. You're stupid and it's a waste of my time reading your posts.
No, because the video game as a thing still exists. The code carried by the cartridge still exists and exists as a video game, it's just that we might not have the technology necessary to experience it.
Well that would leave the blind man in the same position as you as in another spectacularly stupid individual , when I answer your ridiculous question you may ban me as it’s your usual tactic when beaten yet again
By the way making me your enemy is just so childish and so you isn’t it ?
Regards your “tricky question “ ,
We pick a random store. We pick a random person to pick a random box of crayons from the shelf. You buy the crayons and keep them in your possession. Your blind person via braille, codes each crayon. You show me your braille code you've placed on each crayon. You've called red "aa". You've called blue "bb". You've called yellow "cc". And so on. I leave the room. You choose 1 of 20 crayons randomly and then draw a squiggle on a piece of paper. You place the crayon back in the box and hide the box. I come back into the room. See a blue squiggle on the paper. I look at my code chart. "You used the 'blue bb' crayon." We repeat this many times. Because it's trivial, I achieve 100% accuracy after 100 trials.
That's basing facts on the opinions and guesses of a blind man. Why would you base anything other than things specifically regarding blind people on a blind man's opinions?
Two problems: 1) the blind man does not dispute light exists, but that color exists. B&W;TVs display objects that can be described without color just fine. 2) Aside from his faith in the messenger, how does the blind man confirm what the sighted people are telling him is true?
how does the blind man confirm what the sighted people are telling him is true?
By having multiple people describing simultaneously, or using random people and playing a video and getting similar descriptions.
The blind person can even be taught to use a tape recorder - privately tape themselves performing an action like signing a message, and then playing that video and having a sighted person (or many) describe what they did.
Surely, the detailed logistics of every experiment do not need to be provided for you to understand that it would be successful.
Butt wipe, the burden of proof is on you claiming color exists, not the blind man denying the existence of color. And since black and white are not colors, just the presence or absence of light, which he does not deny exists, they do not. Now, provide your proof to the acolorist.
The question is for atheists so you'll likely get a lot of foolish comments; but even an atheist could answer this one easily and well if they put their mind to it a bit.
I dated a blind girl in college, she had never seen colors. She could differentiate between light and darkness, but everything was completely blurred so she saw nothing.....didn't matter a bit if the lights were on or off; it was all the same to her......she knows she will see colors in Heaven, but I wanted to try to give her an idea what they were like here. I thought of something with unlimited variations which she can relate to; sound.
I explained colors as best I could by comparing them to all the different kinds of sound. There's really no way to imagine colors if you have never seen them before but I sure had her wondering about it.
I wonder what your point is in this question. I've read some of the comments of the atheists and they are not bad except they fail to admit that they cannot possibly get a blind person to know what colors are if they have never seen colors before. Typical atheistic pride, can't admit their weakness.
Color is simply light, which we can study in ways that don't require sight. The existence of color can definitely be scientifically proven even if the blind man cannot perceive it. We can't see atoms, yet can describe them and make scientific claims and predictions about them.
I would answer honestly, They are correct to claim that there is no such thing as color. Color is something that only exists in our perception of the world. Color is how our eyes and brain interpret the reflection of light from objects we see. Yes color like Gods are only as real as we perceive them. They are different to some other people who's biology makes it different and other animals see what we call color differently.
By your infantile logic any theory that is popular is automatically false because you can write the words ‘ad populum’. I have never seen anybody this ill informed on concepts. Some teaching agency has failed you or your mind isn’t capable of having cogent thoughts on complicated systems.
Ignorant fool, I am sure you local community college offers a course on elementary logic, which will cover the fallacies. The issue is not whether a claim is popularly held, but when some irrational fool, like yourself, claims it is true because it is popular. My gosh, atheists are dumb as a box of rocks.
Now answer the Q, soap scum. Stop your irrational evasions. And stop with the pretensions you a more intelligent. Every time you post something irrational, you prove that idea is false and that you are mentally ill (i.e., narcissistic).
But even putting aside the fiction and hypocrisy of this claim, how does he know being "full of hate" is bad? As an atheist, he cannot. Indeed, in Atheistland, hate is just a bio-chemical reaction in the body to environmental stimuli as compelled by the laws of science. It cannot helped, it just is. We do not say a glass of milk spilling on the floor because gravity caused it to come crashing down is immoral. Why would we say being "full of hate" is?
What compels me to care about your happiness in Atheistland, mental midget? And please show me this happymeter? Your idiotic posts make me unhappy. Does that mean they are immoral? ROFL
And your post is more evidence atheists cannot prove something immoral. Thanks.
No straw man arguments and worthless opinions. Just deal with the absurdity your worldview. Thanks.
No, I am asking what makes you think your fictional happymeter imposes any moral duty on me. When you see a "?", that means I am asking a question, not making a statement.
BTW, stop pretending you know anything about the Christian faith. Your statements make it clear that you are as ignorant of it as you are all other points of reality, which makes sense given you have chosen rebellion to submission to the definer of reality, which has both temporary and eternal consequences.
And where did you get the idea that what most people do is morally relevant?
All of reality is proof of God's existence, but atheists do not have a knowledge problem, for they know God exists, they have a sin problem which causes them moral and intellectual reprobation.
