The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
missmedic
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
missmedic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 324 times Debate No: 86762
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
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 atheist know truth from fiction?

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL TRUTH FROM FICTION, DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS DEBATE.

And please do not respond if you have responded before or if you admit you have no way of rationally know truth from fiction, or if you believe you make up your own reality, or if all you have is "science", 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 circular reasoning is not rational.
missmedic

Pro

Same as everyone else, except you, you are either insane or delusional.
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.
adjective: insane
in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.
Now you don't get to pick one, that is for our readers to decide, you see you would never know if you are one or the other or maybe both. Now you could ask a professional, just make sure he is not an Atheist.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Unfortunately, this tool violated the rules and, thus, already lost the debate.
missmedic

Pro

Just by asking, your question presupposes that my senses and reason are valid.
There I did it you lose, loser and I win.
Back to you, oh and try and say something that is not insane or delusional.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
missmedic

Pro

The way I know the truth is with a proper epistemology. Epistemology is the explanation of how we think. It is required in order to be able to determine the true from the false, by determining a proper method of evaluation. It is needed in order to use and obtain knowledge of the world around us.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
missmedic

Pro

Its seems he likes disrespect as much as the rest of us, but I don't quit.
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.
There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells you what god demands, you have no reason to accept it as true. In fact, it should be rejected. If he claims to have knowledge which you are incapable of achieving, his beliefs must be rejected. If one has to accept the knowledge of others, he must use reason in order to decide which others to listen to. Again, if there is no evidence or contrary evidence for accepting a person's beliefs, it is not an act of reason. It is an act of faith.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
missmedic

Pro

Thanks VR it was fun, truthfully.
Please vote pro and thanks.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
question answered....................................
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
When you come up against a person who views disrespect as the proper means of relating to people, you know that this is a person not worth dealing with. This is a person outside the realm of mutual respect, and once outside, respect for this person no longer applies.
Mutual respect is the foundation for honesty, trust, and meaningful communication. In order for relationships to remain healthy, both the man and the women must be equally respected and appreciated. Mutual respect is defined as a proper regard for the dignity of a person or position.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Stop your moralizing and answer my Qs.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
VR you consistently make the same debate and insult people. Missmedic has been incredibly respectful in her debating and you immediately insulted her. Gain some respect. You clearly are religious, what would God think of your insulting and harassment to these fellow debaters?
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
This will be an easy win, thanks VR.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
... What tool?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
ViceRegentmissmedicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture