The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
16 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 4 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 513 times Debate No: 86521
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

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 atheist know truth from fiction?
MagicAintReal

Pro

Since no definitions were supplied by Con, the instigator in this debate, I shall supply my own.

1. Definitions

atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

rationally - in a sensible or logical manner.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

know - be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

truth - that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

fiction - fabrication as opposed to fact.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

delusion - an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

2. The Resolution

I affirm that atheists can rationally know truth from fiction.

Atheists are humans, and humans have the capacity to be aware of truth by way of observation and inquiry, because of the human brain's properties.

Atheists contain this brain, which grants them the ability to observe and detect external verification in the form of what is generally accepted as reality, in opposition to delusion.

3. Con

Con asks for a rational way to know truth from fiction without belief in a god or gods.

If something or some concept can be demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions about the subject material of the demonstration and subsequent replication, then that something/concept is in accordance with fact.

This leads to a general acceptance of reality, and atheists can detect this acceptance, negating delusion.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Amazing that he does not see the problem?

The only way he knows what has been drmostrated, replicated, predictive, etc., is via he a senses and reason. But how does he rationally know they are valid? Perhaps his senses and reason are faulty and what he perceives is fiction. How does he solve this problem? He relies on his senses and reason to validate his senses and reason, which is circular reason and irrational. In other words, he has no RATIONAL way to know truth from fiction. Next?
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks Con for that lengthy, well-thought-out rebuttal.

Con mentions:
"The only way [Pro] knows what has been drmostrated, replicated, predictive, etc., is via he a senses and reason."

My response:
In this debate, "know" means "be aware of through observation."

So this is the deep structure of Con's claim:
"The only way Pro is aware through observation is via his senses."

Con, can you provide an example where one can be aware through observation WITHOUT using one's senses?
If not, then we must agree that observations are contingent on one's senses, and that knowing something, by definition, is always an end result of using one's senses.

Con buffoonishly posits:
"But how does [Pro] rationally know [Pro's senses] are valid? Perhaps his senses and reason are faulty and what he perceives is fiction."

My response:
By way of observation I sense things.
By way of external verification, through demonstration, replication, and accurate predictions, my observations become reliable, in accordance with what is generally regarded as fact; this is antithetical to fiction.

Con whines:
"He relies on his senses and reason to validate his senses and reason, which is circular reason and irrational. In other words, he has no RATIONAL way to know truth from fiction."

My response:
I rely on EXTERNAL VERIFICATION of EXTERNAL senses and reason to validate my observation via which I'm aware of things/concepts generally accepted as in accordance with fact.

This is of course all accomplished in a sensible, logical manner, because it relies on the sensibility of external verification.
Using external verification to determine if your observations are reliable is sensible and logical, and leads you to what is generally accepted as in accordance with fact.

Con is ignoring the agreed on definitions in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

I do not care how you idefine knowledge, fir you cannot know rationally that definition is right. And besides, tautologies are irrational. Now provide a rational way to know truth from fiction or lose the debate.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Wow Con, you say so much by saying so little...nah you just really don't say much at all quantitatively or qualitatively.

Con pouts:
"I do not care how you idefine knowledge, fir you cannot know rationally that definition is right."

My response:
Well, it just so happens, that the way that I define the word "know" is generally accepted as fact, given the source I provided, and is the only definition in this debate that readers can reference for the word "know."

I can, in a sensible manner, be made aware, through observation, that the definition is generally accepted as fact; I do know if the definition is right.

Con starts barking:
"Now provide a rational way to know truth from fiction or lose."

My response:
By sensibly observing that which is generally accepted as in accordance with what has been demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions.

You got anything new Con?
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

How does he know it is generally accepted as fact when he has no rational way to know truth from error. Indeed, he speaks to the ad populum fallacy, which contradict his original claim. Evolved pond scum is so confused

He then begs the question and still has not told he how he knows his observations are valid. These people do not even understand the issue. Are there no rational atheists on this site?
MagicAintReal

Pro

Con wishes to know:
"How does [Pro] know it is generally accepted as fact?"

My response:
Other people and related stimuli either provide verification for your observation or they don't, and if the verification can be demonstrated and replicated, then your observations are generally accepted as fact.

We know that brains can accurately detect stimuli in the correct position in space.
"The components of the circuitry for orientation discrimination are recruited differently according to the position of the stimulus. In ventral occipital areas and putamen, rCBF differences between discrimination and detection are higher when central stimuli are used."
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org...

This demonstrates that our brains are reliable, atheist or not, at accurately detecting stimulus.
This also indicates that our brains' observations are reliable, so if verification is occurring, our senses can be trusted.

Con misleads:
"he speaks to the ad populum fallacy"

My response:
Ahhh, I'm afraid there are in fact exceptions to the ad populum fallacy, and this is indeed one of those exceptions.
When the proposition is about whether or not something is a widespread belief, or, in this case, a generally accepted fact, then the ad populum is valid, because it demonstrates a general acceptance; it's not fallacious, Con my man.

Con adds:
"He then begs the question"

My response:
No, I follow the definitions of the debate, as they are generally accepted as fact, so when you ask me how do I know the truth, I take that to mean "How am I aware by observation of that which is generally accepted as in accordance with fact?"

So my response of external verification is not a tautology or begging the question, because, external verification is the stimulus, not the action, of knowing something.

Con, why is it that I need to believe in god in order to distinguish fact/fiction when I have a perfectly reliable method?
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

When you boil away all of the dross, what this dude is saying is that his observations verify his observations, just like I accused him of doing with R2. He has begged the question and thus acted unreasonably. Because he acted unreasonably, he failed to provide a rational way to know truth from fiction. He loses. Now that he has twice failed to provide what I seek, I ask him to stop responding to my debate challenges.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Nope I use external observations and external stimuli,
Con never addressed my explanations from peer reviewed articles so...I extend all arguments. I'll stop accepting when you stop spreading misinformation.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
I like to think of it as slowly chipping away at a cement block in his ignorant, bigoted, self-aggrandized brain.
Posted by TheEpicTricycle 9 months ago
TheEpicTricycle
I did this same "debate" with viceregant and its rather irritating because he just repeats his self-refuting argument and then insults you when you devastate it.
Posted by IamUK21 9 months ago
IamUK21
Its called massive doses of psilocybin.
Posted by IamUK21 9 months ago
IamUK21
Intelligence level.
Knowlede wisdom
Experience Insight.

The rest are distracted with santa claus.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
Sticks and stones
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
Do you regard pond scum as organic?
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
It is hilarious how indignant evolved pond scum gets when you refuse to take them seriously.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
maybe he uses magic
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
The comment below is how he presents his argument. That is all he has to offer. That is the extent of his reasoning and he is arguing that he uniquely knows reality.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
It is funny watching evolved pond scum pretend to be rational.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
ViceRegentMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cites the oxford journal to support his/her stance and the oxford dictionary to support their literary definition. Con does not provided any sources. Sources point to Pro.
Vote Placed by TheEpicTricycle 9 months ago
TheEpicTricycle
ViceRegentMagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Viceregeant's arguments were devastated over and over, so he just decided to insult people. He never cites nay sources. I am going to be reporting this as spam because he keeps posting these with the same result.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 9 months ago
kkjnay
ViceRegentMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Perhaps ViceRegent should stop creating these debates, as he either doesn't wish to argue his stance, or is unable to. ViceRegent continues to use debates as a platform for personally insulting those with different beliefs, and not for the intended use which is debating. MagicAintReal demonstrates superior spelling and grammar skills in this debate, so I will award those points to Pro. However I will be reporting this debate as spam as I have seen this debate, verbatim, at least three different times created by ViceRegent.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 9 months ago
FaustianJustice
ViceRegentMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro provides sound definitions to structure the debate with, and as previous debates of similar nature demonstrate: give some rails for this conversation to travel on. (source points). Argumentation of similar brains is an excellent diffuser of Con's assertion, as well as the basic understanding of stimuli being external for validation as opposed to internally "perceived" and assumed to be true. Pro also had better spelling, there were many distracting occurrences in Con's argumentation.