The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
The Contender
John_C_1812
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
ViceRegent has forfeited round #3.
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: 12/26/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 668 times Debate No: 98453
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

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.
John_C_1812

Pro

The question: By what method dies any atheists claim to rationally know truth from fiction?
Answer: The method by which any atheist is claimed to have rationality of known truth from fiction is. The Separation of Religion and State.
The Question is answered.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

What is amazing is that this fool actually does think this answers the question when it is irrelevant to the question. This reprobate loses the debate.
John_C_1812

Pro

If a response does not include how the rule had been violated. The instigator forfeits. As winning of this debate was simple about the answer.
If a response does not address how a separation of religion by its State is not relevant to truth and fiction, we both have lost the debate. As this is a method o reason that can be applied equally in a non-biased way to both truth and fiction, yielding separate results for both.
Note a Separation can be measured, a measurement can be calibrated in such a way to verify its accuracy independently from the organization requesting the measurement.
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
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Lookinggatissues,
Under optimal conditions I would agree. However the atheist is actual describing the same religious faith, just in denial, and not a factual presentation which can be accused as an Anti-Christ or false profit of GOD. By Religion. There is another representation.

A representation is not an attempt at interpretation, it is safe equal say. When the possibility of a GOD having a described "States" that is a position that could have been reached of "Supreme as a form of - Being" not person by self-evident being. Meaning real and not a Anti-Christ.

A group of church or religions may be bias as they have a performance regiment of public services that does in fact describe this possibility as a crime.
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
John_C_1812 posted,"....You-r misunderstanding is based only on the belief that a person who is not Atheist could not represent a view point to answer a question."
The attempt by other humans to explain other human beings concept of God.
This attempt to interpret how An Atheist would describe God and explain how they conceive God reminds me of the "Three Blind Men and an Elephant" .
" .....an old Chinese folktale about three blind men who encountere an elephant for the first time...."
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Chris330 I am not Atheist, I can establish a non-religious definition of GOD. Several of which qualify as describe by popular organized Religions. Then going on to establishing principle to a number of other religious understandings. The question was answered if you need help in understanding the basic reasoning behind the answer let me know.
You misunderstanding is based only on the belief that a person who is not Atheist could not represent a view point to answer a question.
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
You posted that,"Mr. Edison's knowledge, is knowledge that we all have access to, he did not use magic. "
Now we all have access to electric lights but there wasn't electric lights, no one had knowledge of the electric light bulb, until Thomas Edison invented the electric light bulb. The electric light was magic to those who never had electric lights brought about because of the intuitiveness and genius of Thomas Edison.
You posited "Mr. Edison did not make a knowledge claim about how the universe came to be. When someone claims to know something no one can know, their claims cannot be considered valid.
Is the universe finite or infinite?
Why is the future unknowable?
What is the purpose of death?
Why are humans so fallible?
Why do humans matter?
Why does time exist?
Why does anything exist?
These questions that you asked are all philosophical questions like How many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Mr. Edison's knowledge, is knowledge that we all have access to, he did not use magic. Today we all can understand the knowledge he used. Mr. Edison did not make a knowledge claim about how the universe came to be. When someone claims to know something no one can know, their claims cannot be considered valid.
Is the universe finite or infinite?
Why is the future unknowable?
What is the purpose of death?
Why are humans so fallible?
Why do humans matter?
Why does time exist?
Why does anything exist?
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
Response to Post by missmedic..... 1 day ago..... Title of subject...How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction
lookingattheissues2's response to missmedic... DEC. 28th.2016
(A) You replied,"To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms..."
lookingattheissues2's response... DEC. 28th.2016
A person can be aware of a particular knowledge and still not be able to make use of that knowledge themselves.
( B ) You posted, "When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that others are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid.
For your statement to be valid, it wouldn't allow for any new inventions, Thomas Edison, for example and the electric light bulb. Others, no doubt probably when using the kerosene lamp thought how inefficient that source of light was but didn't have the capability, the natural intuitiveness, of Thomas Edison.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Knowledge is knowledge about reality. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms.
When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that others are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid.
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
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.
In a book titled, " Tradition," by Edward Shils, he writes "...It is the nature of the active mind that it aspires to know what it does not know ;it postulates the prior existence of a pool of knowledge...," that pool of knowledge perhaps comes from the atheists parents, or from other secularists, atheists.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
No entire group that large does one thing chris, and it is foolish to use words like never. However I would love to hear how theists can rationally know truth from fiction.
Posted by Chris330 1 year ago
Chris330
Nice challenge question! But, I see John_C_1812 isn't answering the question. Atheist will never answer any challenge question without a fallacy.
This debate has 2 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.