Are Atheists Able to Know Reality from Delusion?
Debate Rounds (3)
If you answer is that atheists have no rational way to know reality from delusion, you are right, but this debate is not for you.
You bear the BOP to show that atheism does not fail as a worldview right out of the gate. If you change the subject, you will automatically lose the debate.
I want to make sure I properly understand what you're talking about here. Are you asking how an atheist knows that his or her perception reflects reality? For instance, "How do you know that what you perceive as 'purple' is in fact purple?" Is that the quesiton you're getting at here, or have I misunderstood you?
If we're talking about physical objects: I know that the thing I am perceiving is real because everyone else perceives it, too. If I see the chair, and you see the chair, and everyone sees the chair, I know that the chair is not my delusion . . . unless, of course, everyone is delusional in the exact same way. Maybe everyone is hallucinating the exact same chair! How can we be sure that the chair is absolutely real?
Whether or not you have faith in God, you cannot be certain that what humans perceive is "absolute reality." Maybe what we consider "purple" is actually green. Maybe the past never existed. Maybe we're all brains inside jars, and our entire existence is an illusion. "But I have faith that God designed our senses & brains to correctly interpret absolute reality!" Good for you. In spite of your faith to the contrary, you still might be a brain in a jar.
I already answered your question, but I'll clarify it for you. I am not "using my senses to confirm my senses." I am saying that we cannot confirm our senses. It makes no difference whether or not you believe in God: you cannot be certain that what you perceive as "purple" is absolutely purple. Maybe it's green. We don't know for sure.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bolas 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling/Grammar and sources are all tied. Spelling and Grammar could have been better on both sides of the debate. No sources were given on either side of the debate. Con never really made any arguments, and just put the BOP on the other person. When the other person attempted to explain, Con just denied it and said, "Try again." Points to Pro for actually making an argument. Conduct goes to Pro also for this reason. Pro made a valid point that Con refused to accept. He simply responded that Pro was using the exact same argument as everyone else. Instead of saying why that isn't a good argument and rebutting against it, he just that it was the same argument as everyone else. Better conduct goes to Pro for actually keeping the debate moving forward.
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.