The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
The Contender
Zaephou
Pro (for)

How do atheists raitonally know truth from fiction?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ViceRegent has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 453 times Debate No: 98180
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

ViceRegent

Con

IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.

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, BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY ATHEIST CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. I have even put it in capital letters for those to dense to get it. 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.
Zaephou

Pro

'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'

First of all, you must expand on this claim, and provide sources of information. No one can answer a loaded question [1] when you cannot make your statement have a clear resolution. Everyone has the capability to articulate from truth or fiction, it is simply done by considering the evidence, rationale and reason following a claim or statement.

[1] - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Consider this statement - 'I am real'

Is this truth or fiction? How can we differentiate this claim into one of the two categories you propose? One way to do this is by presenting yourself by taking a picture, presenting birth certificates etc. If you follow this, you have successfully shown that you are real. We can apply the same logic of observation, predictability, evidence, reasoning, rationale to any claim to see if it is truth or fiction. Atheists, and in fact all humans know truth from fiction by following this logic, and following the evidence.

We have never claimed we are 'guardians of rationality', when we simply present ourselves as following rationality. These are two different things, and therefore your statement is flawed. You claim as if we haven't followed rationality to differ from truth and fiction, when in fact every atheist has become one by doing this exact same thing. We know that the truth is followed by objective evidence and observation, and we know that fiction is followed by none of these things. By doing so, it is safe to that atheists do 'rationally know truth from fiction'.

This thinking is a capability among all humans, atheists simply chose to follow it.

I now pass the baton over to my opponent :)
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Oh boy. How do you know you are taking a picture, presenting a birth certificate? How do you know they are not the products of your delusional thinking? Or that you are nothing but a machine programmed to pretend it is taking a picture? Come on. You can do better than this.
Zaephou

Pro

'Oh boy. How do you know you are taking a picture, presenting a birth certificate? How do you know they are not the products of your delusional thinking? Or that you are nothing but a machine programmed to pretend it is taking a picture'

Truth is the accordance with fact or reality. Reality is the state of things as they exist, and the state of having substance. Therefore truth is the accordance with fact and the state of having substance. Substance is what is tangible, observable, repeatable, predictable, and objective. A photo is a capturing of light bouncing off of a tangible being, my photo is a photo of my being, and therefore the truth is that I am real, because I took a photo of a tangible being which presents an objective view of what me, my peers, and everyone I have met thinks I look like. Thinking can only produce imaginations, ideas, pictures within your mind, and cannot affect reality. Whether I am a machine does not matter, if the picture itself can be touched, felt, looked at by others. When others see a picture of me, I can conclude that I am real since even the thought of me being presented in a picture, and the image of me appearing in a picture, does not matter when everyone else sees the same thing.

This is what truth is, everybody sees the same truth, and that is objectivity. When being presented a tangible rock, the truth is - everyone sees that rock. This reasoning is the same with evidence. Evidence for me existing, for a dog having four legs, for a tree having leaves, for water consisting of hydrogen and oxygen, for the soil containing dirt... you get the point. Fiction cannot do any of these things. There is no evidence, and therefore it is not real. Fiction is, by the way, the definition of not being real.

Must I carry on? It is clear you have a blinded, biased, foolish definition, view and perspective on what others think. Unless you stop special pleading, stop playing word games, I suggest you concede.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Dude, I am not interested in more of your defintions or truth claims. I want you to tell me how you rationally know truth from fiction. As you are unable to do that, you lose the debate.
Zaephou

Pro

'Dude, I am not interested in more of your defintions or truth claims. I want you to tell me how you rationally know truth from fiction. As you are unable to do that, you lose the debate.'

These are not my definitions, these are the official definitions of truth. You cannot simply infer that I am unable to do what you ask me to, I cannot know what the format YOU want me to follow is can I? You are not, and I repeat, NOT the one who decides who wins.

Let me put this straight, in my previous argument I said that to determine if a claim is true, you must present objective evidence supporting that claim, and this claim must be repeatable, verifiable, tangible, and logical, and therefore rationally true, and that fictitious works can do none of these. There you go, that is how you do it. But then you tried to go off on a tangent by asking the foolish question that basically translated to 'but how do you know photographs are real?'.

This caused me to present to you what EXACTLY I mean when I refer to 'truth' and 'fiction' in my arguments, and you still seem to have a comprehension problem, thinking that I am simply presenting 'definitions'. If you cannot follow a train of thought, if you cannot rationally determine and articulate what someone is presenting to you, then sorry but you are the one in fault here, and instead of trying to come off as smart, quirky or clever and try to 'catch me out', I suggest you actually put some thinking into your arguments before your present your, pardon my french, sh*t posts on this website. You have spammed in here with the exact same argument, a lot of us have presented a way and you still REJECT what we say and continue falsely comprehending our arguments.

I am sorry, but I suggest you ACTUALLY read over my argument, and understand it, because I doubt repeating what I said worded differently is not what you want.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
You have yet to answer sidetrack's question formally. Is it you refuse to or you cannot?
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
You still have to finish this buddy. Or do you concede?

I doubt sidetrack has run away.

And isn't it a bit rich to call someone a 'fool' when I have shown you clearly have comprehension problems?
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
And this Sidetrack fool has run away. Next?
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
You are posting some shameful, and utterly ignorant arguments on here, and I highly suggest you stop this nonsense.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
Sidetrack
ViceRegent. I challenge you to start making formal deductive argumentst when you make your claims. If you disagree with anothers claim I challenge you to do the same. You will begin to find out you cannot make those arguments with your point you trying to make. It's because you are writing informally that this confusion is even getting any credit in your mind or anyone that really thinks you have a point. Prove you can do it formally. Provide on simple formal deductive argument that proves athiests cannot know truth from fiction. You can't do that formally. Prove me wrong.

I have already provided a formal argument that proves human sense is valid. How is it invalid? Do it formally. You can't. It's impossible.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
1+1=2
how do we know that vice, or does it equal 3?

invalidating the absolutes is impossible without denial, this is also why you never sense 1+1=3

this is simple
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
negating*
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
sense is how you know, as life is true emotion

your position is ridicules if that is your only attempt at the senses that you need to read the bible, how do you know the book you have read is the bible? moron dude
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
the atheist only have irrational knowledge, everyone knows that
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
ROFL. Things we sense are in the category of valid? How do you know this? Are there not delusion people in this world? How do you know you are not one of them?

And you dodged the first Q: which of your senses told you any of this nonsense?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.