Are Atheists Able to Know Reality from Delusion?
Debate Rounds (4)
Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now.
If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational.
if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.
First off, who are you to say what every atheist believes? Judging by what you say i doubt your an atheist. You can't speak for an entire group of people just because you think your right. I'm an atheist, and I'd never call myself a guardian of rationality, all i can claim is that i am able to think rationally like other people can. As for knowing delusions from reality, no one can do that. There is always the argument that our senses are failing us and so we can never know if we are really in reality, so i'll admit that i can't tell reality from delusions because no one can and if i did claim i could, i'd be lying. Since we can't tell the difference between delusion and reality the only thing we can do is use what we have to the best of our abilities. what we do have is our senses, and our senses tell us we are here in reality. sure, there is no way to be certain, but even the tiniest chance that we are right is better than none. if we use what we have (our senses) and fail then at least we tried. if we refuse to use our senses because there is always a chance that we will be wrong then we will never accomplish anything. your claim that not knowing delusion from reality is ignorant is an ignorant claim in itself. The only thing we can do is know what is true and what is false to the best of our abilities. I'm assuming you believe you can prove that you know delusion from reality since you singled out a specific group. So tell me, what is your way of knowing delusion from reality?
no offense, I've seen you post this question time and time again, how about this time instead of trying to end the debate early by saying that i lose and refusing to do more you actually respond to my questions.
we can know reality from delusion to the best of our ability. which I acknowledge is not 100%, but that is better than (and not at all) none.
you claim you've already won but in your first argument you claimed that anyone who can't tell reality from delusion is ignorant meaning one of two thing: 1) you think you have a 100% perfect way of telling reality from delusion, or 2) you think everyone (including yourself) is ignorant because they can't do the impossible. I disagree with both of these and you need to clarify which it is and the reason you believe it to be true.
i would appreciate an actual response to this.
You still haven't answered any of my questions. No offense, but I believe it is YOU who is afraid of cross examination.
If you can't answer the question that i have then just ignore them in your final round, if you can then respond to them.
here was my question: "you claim you've already won but in your first argument you claimed that anyone who can't tell reality from delusion is ignorant meaning one of two thing: 1) you think you have a 100% perfect way of telling reality from delusion, or 2) you think everyone (including yourself) is ignorant because they can't do the impossible. I disagree with both of these and you need to clarify which it is and the reason you believe it to be true".
How do you know they work out apart from your senses? If you must rely on your senses, then you are guilty of circular reasoning, making your epistemology irrationally, as I said in my Round 1. If something else, then you rely on your something else, not your senses, which means you lied to me. Either way, you know nothing. This is why only a deluded fool would be an atheist.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.