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

How do atheists ratiionally know truth from fiction?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
JudgeSchreber 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: 12/13/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 98031
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
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.
JudgeSchreber

Pro

I'll open with an ideological contradiction: The question which my opponent was kind enough to "put in capital letters for those to (sic) dense to get it" is, how do atheists claim to know truth from fiction? Put simply, how do we atheists know what's real?
My opponent then lists every avenue one is not allowed to use, presumably resulting from past frustrating debates. This is where I find a massive issue - my opponent has effectively said, "explain your epistemology, which is different from mine, but it can't be different from mine." That's lines 6-8, within which my opponent makes claims to an objective reality - disproved, of course, by this debate.
The obvious route to choose from this uncomfortably inefficient point would be science, as that is the most objective proof one has that god does not exist. However, my opponent seems to believe that "science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid." Not only does this misuse the phrase 'begs the question,' it also rejects the most damning evidence against the bible.
If one cannot consult philosophy or science, which my opponent deems irrational, how could I debate? First, one should realize that the only argument my opponent has effectively dealt with is subjective realism or moral relativism. Luckily this leaves me Jean-Paul Sartre, everyone's favorite playwright. Page 10 of Being and Nothingness is decent here - after I reject Nietzsche's 'worlds-behind-the-scene' [also known as the supernatural - see "God"] I find I can examine the phenomena of nature. I am aware of my existence in totality, and have proved, through interaction with others, that I exist, as do they. This is called rational thought - a revolutionary concept situated around phenomenology and dedicated to only believing that which is backed up by evidence. In Descartes' cogito, no one specified the thinker. Atheists change that by thinking for themselves and challenging normalcy.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Again, we have another atheist fool assuring me that he does know things and yet is unable to tell me how he knows anything. He loses the debate. Next.
JudgeSchreber

Pro

Again, we have another debater who thinks they dictate the outcome of the debate. Unfortunately, that's what voting is for. I'll keep this short considering my opponent missed the part of my speech where I defined knowledge-production and awareness of self without god. I'll just paste that here: "after I reject Nietzsche's 'worlds-behind-the-scene' ... I can examine the phenomena of nature. I am aware of my existence in totality, and have proved, through interaction with others, that I exist, as do they. This is called rational thought - a revolutionary concept situated around phenomenology and dedicated to only believing that which is backed up by evidence."
I'll expound on this: instead of applying 'I think, therefore I am' to all situations, a Sartrean atheist constantly questions the nature of being as observed by the Other - also known as everything that's not me. This is basically a cross-check of existence in totality: if I question the nature of my being, I only accept good evidence of my own existence. I do my own thinking as opposed to either letting a holy man on a cloud do it for me, or, as is unfortunately the case more often than not, not thinking at all.
I'd like to go over why I win the debate:
1. the question initially asked: how do atheists claim to rationally know truth from fiction? The answer: by engaging in critical thought concerning existence and everything.
2. I answered the question, but the only answer presented? "another atheist fool assuring me that he does know things and yet is unable to tell me how he knows anything. He loses the debate." This is awkward, considering I did tell my opponent how I know reality is real: via interaction with it. Not only do I use my senses, I also use rational channels of thought crafted by rational thinkers. These even fit within the slightly irrational guidelines posed in the original post.
3. I've won that I can philosophize, so I can know reality. Game over. Or to quote, "Next."
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

To this poser's credit, he tries to answer the Q, but his answer, which is:

the question initially asked: how do atheists claim to rationally know truth from fiction? The answer: by engaging in critical thought concerning existence and everything.

is utterly meaningless and begs the question of how he knows he is thinking at all, as opposed to be a merely bio-chemical mechanical machine that reacts to environmental stimuli in keeping with the laws of nature.

If this is the best you fools have, please stop responding and murdering innocent electrons.
JudgeSchreber

Pro

Where is meaning located? In the author, text, or interpreter? In this case, obviously not the interpreter, who has disregarded my response, preferring to respond in a way that ignores the premise the answer was given on. If the Con had read the page of Being and Time I mentioned (even the shmoop, for questionably-existent god's sake) we would be saved this incoherent response. The question Sartre answers, as I've made clear since my first speech, is the same one my opponent has recently posed: Who does the thinking in Descartes' cogito? Over the course of far too many pages, he reaches his conclusion - he refines the cogito to be this: I am aware of by being-to-itself and my propensity towards being-in-itself (the latter of which is unquestioning), therefore I am able to question the validity of my existence. Man must question the validity of his existence in order to reach the conclusion that he exists. As for the "biochemical machine" bit? Sartre addresses that in the first page. By page two, he acknowledges we're reducing existence to science. Remember that reference to 'worlds-behind-the-scene?' That's Nietzsche, reminding everyone that the spiritual, the supernatural, etc. aren't real. They have been disproved. I respond to environmental stimuli. It's in keeping with the laws of nature. I engage in critical thought. A table doesn't. Neither does my pet dog. The murdered electron doesn't either, if anyone was wondering.

So in conclusion: my opponent failed to clash with my argument that rejection of the existence of god is key to perception of reality. I turned his argument, he dropped it twice. That's a reason to vote for me, as the fool with evidence, regardless of whether or not I am a fool and regardless of whether or not I obey the laws of nature.
Sartre and his text have meaning, despite what my opponent would have you imagine. My interpretation is valid and better than Con's lack of one. Pretty good for a fool, I'd think. Especially in 2000 characters.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

As this fool continues to run from my Q and beg the Q, he loses the debate. Moving on.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
How can theist possibly know that they are theist ?
Posted by JudgeSchreber 1 year ago
JudgeSchreber
why am I confined to the same amount of characters per speech that I am confined to in this comment box? 2000 makes real argument formation harder than necessary, as does my opponent's insistence on being Con when they pose the initial argument and the first speech.
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.