The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
darth_timon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

How do atheists ratiionally 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 98025
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
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.
darth_timon

Pro

I'll bite on this one. Your question is how atheists know truth from fiction - firstly, I would seek clarification here - when you refer to 'truth', in what context do you apply the term? Is it in the sense of 'fact from fiction', in respect of our existence and the world around us? And what is the counter-point to this? Are you addressing your side of this debate from a religious perspective?

Your opening argument tells people to not use science, as science is based on senses. What would you use to judge the world around us, other than our senses? Observation of the world we live in has been central to our progress throughout human history. If not for applying principles of observation and deduction, how would we have ever developed the wheel, much less anything else?

How do I know my senses are valid? I know my sense of touch is valid by the simple observation that if I touch a flame, it burns and hurts. I know my sense of hearing is valid because I can hear my daughter singing, even though she's supposed to be asleep.

The manner in which you have set up your question is deliberately designed to remove the most straight-forward and best means of addressing it. I would have to ask why? What would you replace observation and study with, when determining what is fact and what is fiction about our universe?
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

This dude is confused. He pretends he does not understand my question, but answers it anyway, proving anything are delusional.

He then says he knows his senses are valid because they provide him valid sensory input. Really? Man, I love the smell of cognitive dissonance and question begging in the morning. Dude, how do you know that what you perceive as a candle that burns is not really your daughter singing? And try not to argue irrationally this time.
darth_timon

Pro

With all due respect, from the increase in the rhetoric (which was also present in your first post), I have to draw into question why you posed this question, in the manner you did. You failed to address my point about what you would replace study and observation with, and failed to explain why you need to remove this principle from the equation.

It seems to me you need to remove science from the equation because you are arguing (however subtly) that the key reason we perceive anything is because God or a deity of some description is the driving force behind how we separate fact from fiction. This is why you are keen to remove anything that can threaten this notion - and why you are attempting to reject argument framed from a scientific perspective. You cannot argue against principles such as nerve impulses firing signals to our brains that tell us we have heard a sound or experienced a physical sensation, so you seek to remove them from the discussion entirely.

That is intellectually dishonest. You are trying to stack the deck so you can get only one possible answer.

How do I separate the fact that 1+1 = 2 from the fiction that 1+1 = 3? Because we have built complex machines from such facts, and if they were in fact, not true and not demonstrable, these machines should cease to function. They are built upon our observed understanding of the universe, and this is not fiction, otherwise we not be able to use this understanding to help us create things like microwave ovens and computers.

I wonder if you will now attempt to address my rebuttal, or will you ramp up your rhetoric again?
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

This fool continues to beg the question. He continues to say his senses are valid because of what his senses perceive. I will ask him one more time: how does he know that the candle that he perceives to burn his fingers is not really his daughter singing? I will put this more simply with the hope he will get it this time: the world is full of delusional people. How does he know he is not one of them.
darth_timon

Pro

From your increasing hostility I have to call into question whether you want a rational discussion, or merely a platform from which to spout anti-scientific propaganda. I will ask YOU once again - why do you feel the need to remove science from the equation? Why are you afraid of rational explanations for why we experience the world in the fashion that we do?

How do I know when I have burned myself? Because the nerve endings in my finger process the sensation and send it to my brain. What alternative suggestion do you have for how I know I've burned myself? What is YOUR answer to the question? Or will you continue to fail to address the arguments presented, in favour of your bizarre insistence that we cannot use logic and observation to reach conclusions?
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Now he has run from the Q I actually asked substituting it for one I did not. Amazingly, what this fool does not get is that I am denying he has any way of knowing he has burned himself given his worldview. He proves this by not even understanding what I am asking him let alone having an answer. He loses the debate.
darth_timon

Pro

Your declaration of victory is premature.

Your question is dishonest. Since you cannot argue against scientific means of measurement you seek to remove them entirely. You have asked this question multiple times within the past few days or so, and I suspect you will get similar answers. They won't be the answers you're looking for, but that's because won't play your game.

Let me ask you - how YOU know you have burned yourself? Because God told you? Are you capable of answering your own question in a logical fashion, or would you shirk from this, using insults to cover the weakness in your position?

This debate, and some additional thoughts, can be viewed here, if anyone wants to take a look. http://meerkatmusings.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by AlexaGeek 1 year ago
AlexaGeek
Because I can't vote, due to restrictions on my account, I'm simply going to state my opinion on the debate.

Pro acted respectfully and attempted to understand the opposition and argue on their terms. Con repeated the same argument, as far as I can tell. I don't believe Con even set up a fair debate. Con's criteria don't make sense, and Con doesn't even bring up evidence for why they refuse to accept senses and observations. I don't say this simply to discredit Con's argument, I know for a fact that human sensory is flawed and I could probably find scientific proof for that claim if I bothered to look. Pro's arguments were decent, considering what Con was providing. Pro could have discussed in more detail the ability to confirm observations by having others observe what you are observing, though this is basically the foundation of science and I doubt Con would have accepted this. Overall, Pro did incredible against Con.
Posted by darth_timon 1 year ago
darth_timon
All done. Please vote, it would be nice to take this guy down a peg or two.
Posted by JudgeSchreber 1 year ago
JudgeSchreber
I'm glad to know I'm not the first to put up with that opening argument. Who else got 2,000 characters to respond?
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
ViceRegent loves Norse Mythology
Posted by kbailey 1 year ago
kbailey
Also, I'm NOT an atheist. So don't pull the whole "ur a foolish athiets" crap on me.
Posted by kbailey 1 year ago
kbailey
5. "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."
Another "poisoned well" fallacy. Also, "if you had nothing rational to say then, you will *have* nothing rational to say now" is logically and rationally wrong, for it implies people cannot learn from their mistakes.
6. "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 all you have is "Biblical scriptures", do not respond to this debate, for the Bible relies on your mind-numbing sense of what 'rationality' is." Also, "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"? How the hell do you rely on the Bible then? I understand your point here, but you cannot use the same logic your against as logic to propel your argument. That's called being a "hypocrite".
I am tired of seeing your mental gymnastics on Debate.org. If you want to argue, that's fine. But piss off if you think that your way is the best way and they can only use your logic that you pulled from your bowels.
Posted by kbailey 1 year ago
kbailey
Your entire "spiel" about how atheists are "ignorant" and how science proves "nothing" is nothing more than a steaming load of hot, wet mouth diarrhea.
1. "Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality."
Who says this? While I do agree that there are some atheists who put themselves upon a high pedestal (as does any sort of group you would find; you being an example of the kind of radical-ity I'm talking about), you can't pretend that there are some people who are extremely rational. Props for providing a sweeping generalization to fuel my claim.
2. "But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction."
Alright; then what is your definition of truth vs. fiction? Judging by your paragraph, you follow a branch of Christianity. How do we know that the Bible is anything more than a book some men wrote nay more than a couple thousand years ago? Why is that a "truth". Please, prove to me your existence of God using this "rationality" you so egotistically boast about. (Side note: that "question" of yours was supposed to end with a question mark, not a period.)
3. "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?"
You go on later to talk about red herrings and all of these fallacies you know "so much" about, when this is, to me, one of the biggest fallacious crimes you can commit. This, my friend, is called "poisoning the well." You've already set everybody else arguing with you up for failure because you're backfiring their claims, similar to a child who's plugging their fingers inside of their ears and screaming "la-la-la".
4. "So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?"
"So, what Christian can give me a rational way Christians know truth from fiction?" That counter-question should allow you to think. (continued)
No votes have been placed for this debate.