The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DStallman
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...
DStallman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 98790
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

ViceRegent

Con

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.
DStallman

Pro

To clear a few things up, we are debating how someone who does not believe in God or any gods can tell truth from fiction rationally. I'm going to go ahead and put out there that rationally means by use of logic or reason, truth means fact, and fiction means the opposite of true. I just wanted to lay out the basics so you can correct any of this in the second round in case I take this argument in the wrong direction. Also, I will be using the term "believer" to indicate someone who is not an atheist.

To be honest, though I myself am not an atheist, I cannot see any relation between one's observance of any faith and one's ability to distinguish truth from fiction. Regardless, on with the debate.

Atheists determine truth from fiction the same way that believers do: through observation and analysis. For example, I observe that the walls of the room in which I am sitting are blue. Using my knowledge of what the color blue is, the lighting in the room, and the fact that I have no known vision problems in regards to color perception, I have analyzed and affirmed my observation, and it is now a fact to me.

Thus, atheists and believers use the same process to distinguish truth from fiction. The disparities between the viewpoints come in on the analysis of certain observations. For example, a believer and an atheist may witness a family member recover from an illness which was declared fatal. Their observations in this case would be the same. In this case, the believer might take into account his prayers and faith that God would bring healing to the family member and attribute the recovery to God, while the atheist might attribute the recovery to some sort of medical anomaly based on the genetics and physiology of the family member.

As such, the process by which atheists and believers differentiate between truth and fiction is identical; it is their application of this process from which the differences arise.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Tell us how you know your observations and the reason you use to interpret them are valid?
DStallman

Pro

Given that this is supposed to be a debate, I was expecting more of a response than a single sentence, but that's none of my business.

See my previous round of debate for an explanation of rationality in general. The thing is, I can't prove my observations are valid any more than you can prove yours. Consciousness itself is what proves things true to individuals, so each person's perspective and interpretation of truth and fiction will vary slightly because of an immeasurable number of differences that will affect their analysis of their observations.

Now, in order to keep me from be the only one who makes any points during the debate, how do you, as I believer like myself, know that your observations are valid?
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Notice what this fool says: he bases his truth claims on his observations, but he has no idea if his observations are valid. In other words, he literally knows nothing. This confirms my thesis that atheism leaves its adherents utterly ignorant. This dude has lost the debate by admitting that he knows nothing.
DStallman

Pro

I don't think you understand; I'm not an atheist. I'm just trying to explain that there is not any difference between how atheists and believers know truth from fiction.

Also, how can you prove that I am a fool if you cannot prove that your observations are valid? Also, how can you prove that I lost if you cannot prove that your oberservations of my claims are accurate or valid?
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

I love it. This fool continues to make truth claims after destroying his own credibility by admitting he has no rational way of knowing anything. Did I not say he was blind?
DStallman

Pro

I'm just putting something here so the debate can finally be over. If anyone actually reads down this far in the debate without getting aggravated and leaving, thank you for your consideration, and please read through my arguments, as I'd like to feel like this wasn't a complete waste of time.

Also, warn anyone away from accepting any debates from my opponent, particularly on this topic. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
So Stupidape, the most fitting name I have seen on Debate.org to date, admits that he has no rational way to know truth from fiction, but then insists that I accept his truth claim that I don't either. Sorry, dude, but once a guy admits he is ignorant, I stop taking his truth claims seriously. But I do like how a blind man insists that because he cannot see color, no one else can either. How funny.
Posted by DStallman 1 year ago
DStallman
How many times has this debate been posted before? I just thought it looked easy.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe...
Posted by Thaxorin 1 year ago
Thaxorin
He has promoted atheism just by his actions of constantly posting the same debate over and over again. And calling his opponents fools. Sorry but it's not helping him.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"SO, BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY ATHEIST CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?"

A combination of anecdotal, testimonial, empirical, experimental evidence, reason, and intuition.

"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."

I use others senses and reason to help me validate my own senses and reason. This helps reduce bias. Note, this could still be considered circular reasoning though. This is because to hear other people's reason I have to hear them which is my sense of hearing.

The problem is though is theists have the same problem, they have to use their five senses to read the holy scriptures. If there sense are wrong, they cannot read the holy scriptures. If you use your five senses to hear someone else read the scrpitures you are still using your five sense and thus circular reasoning. In other words, you argument is an argument for nihilism, since if we cannot rely upon our five senses then effectively theism is out.

Since nihilism and atheism are compatible, by your own reasoning you have promoted atheism.
Posted by Lois_gray 1 year ago
Lois_gray
wow you're posting the same debate again?
ignorance and denial is all i'm gonna say....
Posted by fishhunter61 1 year ago
fishhunter61
Not this again.
Posted by Black-Jesus 1 year ago
Black-Jesus
How many times are you going to have this debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
ViceRegentDStallmanTied
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 to Pro because con was quite rude and called pro a fool on multiple occassions. Arguments to pro because he broke down the thinking process of atheists and believers and explained how they use their observations to determine reality, which was never countered by con.