The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
Winning
4 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...
Kelisitaan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 423 times Debate No: 98413
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

ViceRegent

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.
Kelisitaan

Pro

How to atheists know truth from fiction? It's called Trial and error. Basic principle, but too complicated for many people to understand.

Here is a very simple example:

Hypothesis: If I eat a leaf of kale, I will learn to fly.

Test hypothesis: Eat piece of kale, test flying ability.

Results: Unable to fly.

Hypothesis: Incorrect

It's called the scientific method. QED, you lose.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Another atheist fool who did not read the whole OP.

Moron, the scientific method presupposes the validity of your senses and reason. How do you know your senses and reason are valid?
Kelisitaan

Pro

No one knows anything 100% for sure. Your senses and reason could be invalid. The earth could be flat. The tooth fairy could exist. The list goes on. However, these things are improbable and far from rational. Furthermore, they apply to everyone, and even more so to theists, since they have already demonstrated great irrationality through their beliefs.

However, your quote specifically said: "SO, BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY ATHEIST CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?"

The key word there is RATIONALLY. It would be IRRATIONAL to assume that your senses are that far off that you don't think you are flying when you are.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

In response to my Q as to how this dude knows his senses and reason are valid, he responds that he does not. Because he does not know if his senses and reason are valid, he cannot know if anything he claims to be true is true. Given this, there is no reason for me to concern myself with his claim that it would be irrational to believe his senses and reason are invalid. As this dude admittedly knows nothing, he loses the debate.
Kelisitaan

Pro

Actually, the problem is you don't understand the definition of "know" by default includes some level of doubt. Since it is impossible to know ANYTHING for sure, no one other than retards would use the word "know" if it meant "know with 100% certainty." Yet, "know" merely implies that something has yet to be proven wrong, not that it is 100% certain to exist.

In other words, you should educate yourself on the definition of words. Let me help you out.

Fact: Something which has yet to be proven wrong
Rational: Believing in facts
Know: to believe in something which has yet to be proven wrong
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

I love how irrational this fool is. Rather than deal with the subject, he introduces a red herring about the definition of "know". What is then wonderfully ironic is that he then practices cognitive dissonance, claiming that he cannot know anything with 100% certainty, except the definition of "know". ROFL. What a poser. Next?
Kelisitaan

Pro

It's actually not a red herring at all. You are correct, one cannot be 100% sure of anything, including the definition of "know." However, that doesn't mean it's rational to throw caution to the wind and believe in crazy things that have a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of occurrence.

Your question asked how can an atheist rationally know truth from lies. I answered that very clearly for you. You simply don't know the definitions of simple words, so it's not surprising that you wouldn't understand basic logic as well.

Checkmate
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Matpat// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: WHaaaaaaaaaaaaaT?

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Wonder how they know they got the right shoe on the right fod..?
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
lookingattheissues2's comments to (CON) on topic question,".....How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction.
Atheist's only have knowledge acquired through other human beings. Since all human knowledge is very limited, the Atheists knowledge is also limited. The atheists truth is learned truth. with all the bias of their human instructors.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Wonder how they know they got the right shoe on the right fod..?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EXOPrimal 1 year ago
EXOPrimal
ViceRegentKelisitaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: "I love how irrational this fool is" Convincing Argument: Pro made some strong arguments and answered Con's question. the only thing Con had was a very poor argument that "How do you know your senses and reason are valid?". Can was also unable to answer his side of the debate. Con never shifted the BoP so he had to answer how atheists could not know truth from fiction, which he failed to do. Pro's argument with the scientific method was very strong and Con could not refute it. Overall this debate goes to Pro.