The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lois_gray
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Lois_gray
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 708 times Debate No: 98770
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
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.

If you actually answer the Q, I will challenge you to a longer debate. If not, you will stop polluting my screen sooner than later.

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.
Lois_gray

Pro

First off, we need to confirm what it actually means to be an atheist. I, as an atheist believe there is a very small chance that there is a 'God' / 'Gods', however, to me, it seems illogical to believe in most religious beliefs. MOST atheists and all scientists will say nothing is for sure, we don't even know if the big bang happened, hence why we add 'theory' at the end so it is clear that it is JUST a theory. no one can be sure of anything unless they have experienced it themselves. I could tell you I own 5 private jets at the age of 17, its easily possible that I do, but highly unlikely, you wouldn't know unless you saw it for yourself. so my point here is that atheist don't know 'truth from fiction' in most cases.

However, atheists take the 'prove it' approach. if something supernatural happened, we will be quick to try and find an explanation. of course, there are cases in which this has failed and we couldn't find an explanation. In theses cases, we just say 'I don't know', we will admit that we cant find an explanation (YET), however we must acknowledge that scientific equipment is advancing quickly over a period of time. For example, we used to think the world was flat, we proved this by looking into the horizon, and using Greek mythology. Columbus bravely sailed out and proved the earth was not flat and that the Atlantic was not filled with man eating monsters. Whereas most religious people tend to jump to the conclusion that it was 'God' or a 'miracle', yet they deny any explanation given to them simply because that would make it not a miracle. We can easily ask back, "how do religious people rationally know that it was their god/s that did this?"

(in case you think it's a little off topic- I don't really have enough characters to say everything I wanted to for this point)
in conclusion here, a lot of cases have been scientifically proved, we can explain most things without mentioning 'God'. Indeed there are cases we can't YET explain.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

And here we have another atheist loser that spills many words and yet never answers the Q. He/She/It loses the debate.
Lois_gray

Pro

I did in fact answer the question.

I said atheists do not claim to know truth from fiction, you have got it all backward. it is quite literally the other way round. and the way we DO know SOME truth from fiction is literal scientific evidence. we do in fact have evidence such as red shift and dark matter to prove the big bang theory, but like I said, we don't know for certain. and we do have actual evidence of other things too, you're better off looking it up yourself for what ever it is you want to find out.

I simply explained myself using examples.

your ignorance is barely tolerable...

please read book or two that isn't the bible/qur'an/any other holy book. (SCIENCE has also proved that some of the bible is the truth, but not all of it....again you can look this up)
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
ViceRegent: I now understand what you are getting at. Let me slightly restate the example. I will tell a blind man that the fruit is ripe when it emits the same EM wave as the setting sun. The blind man will deduce the concept of "red" and color from many such examples, eventually. It will not feel like the color me and you know, but it will work the same way, and it will be just as reliable to make inferences in reality.

About your second point: I do not ascribe any special meaning to the term "naturalism" and I didn't even use it. By natural I mean: everything that exists, the universe. Therefore, supernatural means "beyond existence". But, this is just impossible from the meaning of the terms: there is nothing beyond existence, because "existence" includes everything.

Or do you mean by "natural" the material universe ? I include in the universe everything that exists, not just matter. Nevertheless, if there was a creature that is not composed of matter, it still be subject to the laws of the universe, and would be an alien being from another planet (not more). But that is not what God is claimed to be.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
You are asking him to assume that colors exists, else he cannot know ripe means red and unripe means green. And you can call an EM wave length a "death star", it does not mean moon-size battle stations exist. Come on, you cannot be this foolish, or can you?

And if you do not tell me how you know naturalism is true and that you can know anything with certainty with your next post, I will stop wasting time on you.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
Why do you say that in my argument he must assume that color exists ? I am saying that he must assume nothing. He can discover electricity, then he can discover EM waves, then he can discover that a ripe fruit and a setting sun emit the same EM wave. He will then call this property of a ripe fruit "red". Surely, he will have a very different experience in the senses from this color (he will not feel it, like a seeing man). But he will be able to act upon the knowledge of what is red and what is not, and succeed in reality.

As to your question about certainty, please note that this is a separate thing you are firing at me. No problem, I can answer it, but this is not the issue at hand here. Feel free to challenge me to a debate on whatever topic you wish, as long is it is one particular topic. And, I don't expect to do justice to a debate here in the comments.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
And prove you can know anything with certainty!
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Boris, in your example, he must assume colors exists for you to prove it exists. That is irrational. So I ask again, how do you RATIONALLY prove color exists to a blind man.

And prove your claim of naturalism.

Put up or shut up.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
"So he must presuppose that colors exist for you to provide to him color exists?" -- no, but he already knows or can discover Electromagnetic-Waves, just as we did in the 19th century. Electromagnetic Waves can be discovered just by doing math and building electronic circuits. Hertz discovered experimental proof of radio waves, without every seeing them.

My overall point is no matter what are the senses, of a seeing man, a blind man, some animal such as a bat, or an alien creature from the universe, all it takes is rational inquiry to discover the nature of the world. Many things that we have discovered and know with certainty, such the fact that matter is made of atoms, we never saw directly.

Btw, ViceRegent, your points would be more digestible if you group them into a paragraph of two, all in a single comment.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Oh, and Boris, prove your naturalism?
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Am I the only one who has noticed how irrational atheists are?
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
It is always funny watching atheists try to prove something when all they do is prove God right when He says they are unreasoning animals.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
So he must presuppose that colors exist for you to provide to him color exists? This is called begging the question. Do you have any rational proof? ROFL
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
ViceRegentLois_grayTied
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: Conduct goes to pro because con insulted pro, as evident where they said "And here we have another atheist loser that spills many words and yet never answers the Q. He/She/It loses the debate.". Pro never insulted con. The more convincing arguments goes to pro because pro made the claim that atheists don't claim to know truth from fiction, and con's whole argument relies on atheists claiming to know truth from fiction. Con never sufficiently provided evidence that atheists claim to know truth from fiction, so their entire assumption is unfounded. For the things that atheists do believe in, pro offered science as a source for believing in something as truth or fiction. Con never offered any arguments and made a lot of assumptions in the beginning of the debate. Burden of proof would lie with con to prove why senses and reason are not valid methods of knowing truth from fiction(since these are widely accepted and valid methods), and they offered nothing to prove that they are not.