How do atheists ratiionally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (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.
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.
I answered your question without referring to science or the senses...
I argue that atheists can rationally know truth from fiction in the same way that theists can; because of God.
Note that both ViceRegent and I refer to the abrahamic god.
I will delineate why I think ViceRegent says that atheists are like solipsists in the next round and why it isn't much different for theists, at least according to how he's barely defined the two terms.
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
39: See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of My hand.
1 Samuel 2:3
Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed.
1 Samuel 2:7
The LORD makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and He exalts
1 Samuel 2:6
The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up
After Moses says he is not eloquent:
Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?
There's nothing that we can do without God, and it is true for all of God's creation. Because there is God, we have knowledge. A believer who later becomes an apostate does not forget what he knows, nor does he lose himself. He, like all of God's creation, is still under the influence of God.
We have knowledge, and can rationally distinguish truth from fiction in an occasionalist sense.
Con asserts that atheists are wicked without any argument. Con has not challenged anything from the previous round.
I will now delineate why, under the assumptions atheists know nothing, theists are stuck in the same state as atheists without direct revelation from God.
Prophet: a member of some religions (such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) who delivers messages that are believed to have come from God.
In this context, a theist is a believer of the abrahamic god.
In this context, an atheist is one that doesn't believe in the abrahamic god.
An atheist couldn't truthfully admit that he doesn't know truth from fiction. His claims about his atheism couldn't be trusted since they aren't rationally founded, but it would be the only way to know that he was an atheist in the first place. Even given that a theist can rationally know truth from fiction, whatever an atheists says is meaningless. A theist couldn't even know that he was an atheist in the first place! One would need direct revelation from God to know the beliefs of others, which would qualify them as a potential prophet. *This does not include reading from the Bible.
So ViceRegent is saying:
1. There are no real/honest atheists
2. Prophets are the only real theists and everyone else are atheists
3. Every believer is a prophet (which is similar to 2.)
4. ViceRegent is just a troll
If there are no real atheists, either anyone can rationally know truth from fiction, or everyone knows nothing
If prophets are the only real theists, then ViceRegent might be a prophet
If every believer is a prophet, knowledge and the ability to know truth from fiction quits being meaningful given that theists have split into Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with more divisions within each.
*The Bible is not direct revelation of God. Reading the Bible takes reliance on other people who you have no way of knowing whether they are rational are not (learning a language, learning to read, knowing that the bible is reliable etc.)
Anyway, Con still hasn't challenged that atheists can rationally tell truth from fiction because of God through occasionalism. At least it shows that the ability to distinguish between the two isn't discerned by one's belief or non belief in God. Either that, or no one knows anything.
Vote Pro. If for some reason it's still not clear who's won this debate, you can trust me. God told me so.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con is clearly not interested in having a debate. He made no arguments, and he made no attempt to refute Pro's argument. The conduct point also goes to Pro because Con said atheists are mentally ill.
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.