The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
difference
Pro (for)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
difference
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 349 times Debate No: 87712
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

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 atheists know truth from fiction?

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.
difference

Pro

An atheist can rationally know truth from fiction because of God
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Yep, atheists are mentally ill.
difference

Pro

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.

Isiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Deuteronomy 32:39
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

Exodus 4:11
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?[1]

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.[2]

Sources:
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Well, I owe difference an apology. I assumed that since he was answering a Q for atheists, he was one. But atheists are reprobate, which means they cannot know right from wrong and know nothing.
difference

Pro

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.

Definitions:
Prophet: a member of some religions (such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) who delivers messages that are believed to have come from God.[1]
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.)
or:
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.)
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Of course, to be a Christian is to have direct revelation from God, making the premise of the argument false.
difference

Pro

ok.
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.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

Actually I did, but reminding him that atheists are reprobate per Romans 1. He needs to read better.
difference

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by difference 9 months ago
difference
Forgot to cite [1]

Sources:
[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Wow, these fools cannot reason their way out of a paper bag.

But tell us mostirrational, where does objective morals come from in the universe of evolved pond scum?
Posted by mostlogical 9 months ago
mostlogical
Con you have proven you are delusional by saying atheists are immoral. If you are going to ask your opponent to make rational arguments you should do more than make an unsubstantiated statement. I am an atheist and I know more about what is right and wrong than anyone, you don't have to believe in God to make rational decisions.
Posted by difference 9 months ago
difference
2,000 characters isn't as much as I thought. Had to delete a chunk from the second round. Might not be enough for the third :/
Posted by FaustianJustice 9 months ago
FaustianJustice
Typically, circular arguments are considered irrational if the premises are in just as much contention as the conclusion.

Think about that for a second.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Allow me to illustrate, empiricism requires you to use your senses and reason. How do you know your senses and reason are valid?
Posted by szexiv 9 months ago
szexiv
How is using empiricism as an argument circular?
Posted by EmperorDao 9 months ago
EmperorDao
How and why are you still doing this same topic? wasn't the last guy enough for you? You forfeited the rounds and he proved how he can perceive. And even so, he's an example of my arguments, no two atheists truly think the same. I really don't understand the point anymore in this fu*ked up crusade of yours. There's a time to simply cut your losses and move... that time came for you awhile ago. You prove nothing by continuing this insane argument, all you're doing is showing everyone that anyone who thinks like you can just easily act like you. And it's all negative. Stop and think and just cut your losses and move on, you may earn more respect like that.
Posted by JayShay 9 months ago
JayShay
How does ViceRegent know how to rationally spell "rationally?"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 9 months ago
philochristos
ViceRegentdifferenceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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.