The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Scruggs
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Are Atheists Able to Know Reality from Delusion?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Scruggs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 513 times Debate No: 97598
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

ViceRegent

Con

Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?

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.
Scruggs

Pro

I assume that the first round is simply acceptance. I accept this debate and look forward to the exchange.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Actually, no, you were supposed to tell me by why method you rationally know fact from fiction.
Scruggs

Pro

In order for this debate to be meaningful, I am going to need my opponent to provide some definitions. I will start by providing the definitions I will use, which are all provided by Merriam-Webster

atheist - one who believes that there is no deity
reality - a real event [a], entity [b], or state of affairs [c]
delusion - a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or, objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

My opponent, in the first round, made the following statement: “Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality.” I know many atheists and have had exchanges with them. I have read literature written by notable atheists. I have watched debates between theists and atheists. Not once have I heard an atheist claim to be the “guardian of reality.” Much less that the atheists as a whole “love” to make the claim. He will have to provide evidence if he wishes for anyone to accept it.

Discerning Reality

What evidence do I have that shows that atheists are able to know reality from delusion? Let’s break down the definition of “reality” and see if I can find any atheist(s) who can fulfill the requirements.

a) Are atheists able to discern if an event is real? Absolutely! Simply consider the recent atheist display that got news attention in Florida. They had to be aware of the very real event of Christmas in order to know that their display would get reactions. [1]

b) Using the same example, atheists did this display in an effort to show their opposition to Donald Trump. He is a real entity. They were most certainly aware of him. [1]

c) Finally, I will use the same example a third time. The atheists had to be aware that their new president-elect was Donald Trump in order for their display to make any sense. Therefore, they were aware of the real state of affair. [1]

Source:
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Is this tool so dense that he cannot understand a simple Q? I did not ask him to tell me what he thinks is real, but by what methodology he rationally knows reality from delusion. I will give him one more chance to answer.
Scruggs

Pro

This round would be a rebuttal, but my opponent has yet to present an argument. He has also yet to present a counter argument. So I suppose this round will overall be useless, but let me address the statements he did make.

"Is this tool so dense that he cannot understand a simple Q?"

Actually, I believe that I understand the topic of the debate a little better than you. After all, you have changed it several times. Consider all the times you have changed it:
1) "Are atheists able to know reality from delusion?"
This is the actual topic of the debate. So any questions or topics you present that modify this are not the topic of the debate.

2) "So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction? Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate."
I am not required to give you the name of an atheist who can explain something to you. Something that is not even dealing with the topic of the debate. The debate is reality v. delusion. Not fiction v. fact.

3) "Actually, no, you were supposed to tell me by why [what] method you rationally know fact from fiction."
No, I am supposed to answer the question of whether or not atheists are able to know reality from delusion. I am not doing anything dealing with fact v. fiction.

"I did not ask him to tell me what he thinks is real, but by what methodology he rationally knows reality from delusion."

Except you didn't. The topic of this debate is the following: Are atheists able to know reality from delusion? I answered yes and provided examples of atheists discerning reality. I do not have to tell you what methodology they use, as that is not the topic of the debate. If you want to discuss methodology, then make a debate with a topic like this: How are atheists able to know reality from delusion?

You made the debate. I figured you would at least know what the topic is.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

And this loser fails the test and loses the debate, but I do appreciate this fool proving atheists are mentally ill.
Scruggs

Pro

This is the final round and my opponent has yet to provide any arguments or counterarguments. As a result, he has conceded. If this were a debate about who can hurl the most insults, then he surely would have won.


Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: AlyssaDBryant// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I cannot say Con has better conduct given the confederate flag on his profile. Otherwise, Con won on all levels.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn"t explain any of the point allocations. Saying "Con won on all levels" is too vague and doesn"t explain anything, and choosing not to award conduct based on profile pictures doesn"t clarify anything.
***********************************************************************
Posted by Scruggs 1 year ago
Scruggs
I am a bit bothered by the vote for two reasons.

1) They seemingly meant to vote in favor of me. Just read the RFD: "I cannot say Con has better conduct given the confederate flag on his profile. Otherwise, Con won on all levels." Con does not have the confederate flag on his profile, Pro does. So I believe that they mean to vote for Pro.

2) The profile has nothing to do with conduct in a debate.
Posted by dee-em 1 year ago
dee-em
The person who voted is almost certainly a sock-puppet of Con.
This is simply a disgrace and why I normally ignore debates.
Posted by CiderH 1 year ago
CiderH
Well, Con did not provide a single basis for his initial statement and he also failed to disprove, or at the very least, provide a counter argument to Pro's answers to the topic at hand.

So I find oh so very ironic how at the end Con mocks Pro for him supposedly having a mental illness as well as claim that he won the debate. Because there was no debate. And the little that there was, Pro is the only one to present an argument and to cite sources for his points.

So, both your statements and attitude are laughable, Con.
Posted by dee-em 1 year ago
dee-em
It's really quite simple. The only thing which distinguishes an atheist from a theist is the lack of belief in god(s). So is this position more or less in accordance with reality? It has to be more since there is no objective evidence for the existence of god(s). The methodology used by atheists is to adhere to the evidence (or lack of it) and this is how they separate reality from delusion. The methodology is evidence-based belief, ie. evidentialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
ViceRegentScruggsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con instigated this debate to express contempt for atheists. Con says that pro is dense and says that Pro is a loser. Pro's demeanor was exemplary in comparison.
Vote Placed by Kove_Ducote 1 year ago
Kove_Ducote
ViceRegentScruggsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided very few examples to defend himself, while Pro's well-thought out arguments got his points across.