How do atheists ratiionally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (5)
The is an unsupported assertion. Unless you can prove that atheists believe they are guardians of rationality, I will ignore this assertion.
"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."
That is true (sort of). But none of this has anything to do with your debate topic. Your topic is "How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction". Yet in your argument, you seem to be arguing against the notion that atheists are guardians of rationality. Pick one.
"So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheist know truth from fiction?"
Let's first define some words. Since Con hasn't done this already, I will:
Atheist: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Rational: "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic"
Rationally: "By reasonable or logical means"
Truth: "...in accordance with fact or reality"
Fiction: "Something that is invented or untrue:"
Untrue: "not accordance with fact or reality"
Topic I will be discussing: "How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?"
In other words "How do people who don't believe in God know fact from fiction by logical means?
We don't. Logic is something you can use to separate obvious lies/fallacious arguments/assertions from legitimate and valid arguments using our knowledge of how the world works. (Rest of argument in comments sections)
I just said that we use logic and scientific method. What more do you want?
"Debate over. Thank you for proving my point that atheists are literally and totally ignorant."
Everyone is literally and totally ignorant. Nobody on this earth knows anything for 100% certainty, not just atheists. Regardless of belief (or lack thereof), everyone is ignorant of absolute truth. And even that's questionable (maybe we do know for sure some things).
Anyway, you have it backwards. We use logic (knowledge of the universe through science and scientific method) to sort through legitimate and illegitimate claims. If a claim is legitimate, it can be tested further (scientifically).
For instance, the following argument is logically valid:
P1: If it rains, grass is wet
P2: Grass is not wet
C: Therefore it is not raining
The above argument is entirely logically valid. Is it true? Not necessarily (grass could be under a roof). We can prove or disprove this scientifically.
However, the following argument is not logically valid:
P1: If it rains, grass is wet
P2: It is not raining
C: Therefore, grass is not wet
Logically not valid, neither is it scientifically true. Therefore, it should be rejected.
This is how logic and science works hand in hand.
But I will left you have enjoy your moment of cognitive dissonance by telling me: How do you rationally know that your senses, which provide you the data by which you use empiricism, provide your valid information about reality?
And please do not answer with anything that relies on your senses, for then you will be merely begging the question, which is irrational and not responsive to the OP.
Yes I did in the comments section, continuing from my previous argument.
Besides, you keep coming to the same stupid conclusion that my atheism has left me totally ignorant. This is incorrect, my brain has. Since my brain is not entirely omniscient, I cannot (and no one else can) know anything for absolute certainty...and that includes you. For a 46 year old, you sound very immature.
"But I will left you have enjoy your moment of cognitive dissonance by telling me: How do you rationally know that your senses, which provide you the data by which you use empiricism, provide your valid information about reality?"
Well, the fact that every single one of my senses and other machine senses are all in harmony convinces me that the reality I detect is in fact reality. The likely photos of everyone else's senses being wrong is very very small.
"And please do not answer with anything that relies on your senses, for then you will be merely begging the question, which is irrational and not responsive to the OP."
Let me see if I understand your claim:
You say that my atheism (lack of beleif in God) has left me entirely ignorant of true reality because my senses that detect reality may not be detecting reality?
If reality isn't the reality we can detect than the true reality isn't worth considering if we can't detect it. The reality that all my senses detect is true to my sense and brain. Anything beyond that is baseless speculation.
And no, I'm not begging the question. Your claim that atheists cannot know reality from fiction because we cannot know for certainty whether reality is actually reality. I'm saying that our senses tell us that the reality we sense should be reality enough, and any truth and fiction based on that realit can be identified with science and logic.
continue in comments section
And my claim is simply that your worldview has left you ignorant. You have confirmed this to be true with each of your three posts. The debate is over. I win.
Furthermore, your basing your conclusion that "atheists are totally ignorant" on an assumption that a reality beyond our senses is true, which is not a reasonable assumption. You also assume that our lack of omniscience of object reality has left us totally ignorant, which is a wrong conclusion to come to. Simply because human beings don't know for absolute certainty the truth of reality, doesn't necessarily mean that a reality beyond our senses and reasoning skill exists. On the other hand, of course atheists and human beings of all kinds can reason relative to the reality we experience.
But you are no different, and that's a fact that, regardless of how much you deny it, is true. Since all of your senses are limited to how your brain processes them you can never fully know whether anything is true either, so your debating something based on sloppy assumptions.
Assuming the reality we sense is indeed true reality is not an unreasonable assumption because every sense we have agrees with each other. Also considering the fact that we evolved to adapt to our environment also supports that assumption, because if we weren't sensing true reality, we would soon die out.
The only thing we know for certainty is:
I think therefore I am
We know almost nothing truely objectively
But I guess your again going to resort to an argumentum ad nauseum in your argument so it's utterly pointless debating you. First demonstrate that a reality beyond our senses exists and support your assumption and then I'll debate you in regards to whether atheists can tell that reality from our own.
Argument ad nauseum. That's all I can say at this point. You have completely ignored all of my arguments and have vomited the same BS over and over again. Same debates, same arguments, same answers, yet ignores all of them. I'm sure any voters can see that. I have said in the comments section (continuing from my arguments because of your stupid 2000 character limit) that science and logic can be used to sort lies from truth.
I have said that your conclusion that a person is entirely ignorant simply because a person doesn't know for absolute certainty that the reality we detect is in fact true objective reality is wrong.
I have said that you base your conclusion that atheists know nothing on the baseless assumption that there is a higher reality we can't detect.
I have said that the things we do know for certainty is "I think therefore I am" and that we know nothing.
I have said that our evolution depends on detecting actual objective reality to survive. Adapting to a reality that doesn't even exist is nonsensical.
You ignored everything I say without much rebuttals, and have left your position and argument extremely vague. You also simply dodge what I say all the time. May I suggest that you actually argue rather than repeat something over and over again?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro for officially giving the debate some guidelines by which to operate around. Argument went to pro for making a good on a problem with Cons assertion: assuming reality is not as perceived is simply not reasonable. Con has set up a situation in which it becomes incumbent to demonstrate why their assertions are true, however falls back only to: "Once a man admits he knows nothing, we can safely reject any truth claim he makes". This is fallacious at face value.
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.