The Instigator
ViceRegent2
Con (against)
The Contender
AlexaGeek
Pro (for)

How do atheists rationally 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ViceRegent2 has forfeited round #2.
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: 12/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 169 times Debate No: 98095
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

ViceRegent2

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. But I do appreciate all of the losers who respond and confirm my view that atheists are anti-intellectual and mentally ill
AlexaGeek

Pro

Firstly, before I fully lay out my argument, I want to address one point: what "science" is. Now, you are correct that science relies on observation, but not on my observations alone. Let's go to what the University of California, Riverside, Department of Physics and Science says on the matter. According to a webpage on their website, written by Jose Wudka in 1998, titled "What is the 'scientific method'?," they describe a process in which you observe a phenomena, create a hypothesis based off this observation, then create and test predictions based on this hypothesis. How could this process be accurate? What if some factor impacts the test in a way that wasn't intended? Well, the test is repeated and the predictions are altered until the results and predictions match consistently. As Jose Wudka says, "The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation."

An individual might not be able to rely on their senses alone, but an individual can rely on observations that have been repeated by others. If 1000 people, including yourself, all see a baseball player hit a homerun, is it more reasonable to assuming that everyone had a collective delusion at that instant in that location, or is it more reasonable to assume that what everyone observed is real? The home run being real is both the simpler and more likely option, it's far more reasonable to conclude that the home run was real. If we didn't make conclusions like this, anyone could just claim that aliens ate all the food they just ate, and the only reason you think they ate that food is because the aliens messed with your brain (or any equally ridiculous claim). Therefore, if an atheist confirms their observations with the observations of others, it is perfectly reasonable for that atheist to conclude that those observations are true.

Now, if you refuse to accept this reasoning, then please tell me what evidence you will accept. Also, I would love if you would find holes in my reasoning or counter examples to my claims. I want to improve, so I want to know the exact flaws in my reasoning and how you can tear down my argument.

Source: Wudka, Jose. "What is the 'scientific method'?" University of California, Riverside. Regents of the University of California, 24 Sept. 2014. < http://physics.ucr.edu... >.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
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 missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
He does not know, he is hoping you know.
Posted by deznutz459 1 year ago
deznutz459
I don't really think anyone RATIONALLY knows truth from fiction given your definition, so how does anyone know truth from fiction?
This debate has 4 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.