The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
The Contender
King-La-Ding
Pro (for)

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  
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: 1/24/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 380 times Debate No: 99276
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
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.

NOTE TO ALL YOU LOSERS POSTING COMMENTS. IF I DO NOT THINK YOU COMMENT ADD ANYTHING RATIONAL TO THE DISCUSSION OR I CANNNOT USE IT TO MOCK YOU, I DO NOT BOTHER RESPONDING
King-La-Ding

Pro

Allow me to explain how myself as an atheist, rationally deduces truth from fiction. It's like this, I'll use an example to explain it.

The way I ascertain the truth of any claim, is by taking what I know about the claim compared to what has been factually verified, very simply. For example Johnny Cuckold says that the orange that is not in the fridge is the color orange, and yet I have no proof of disproof of this claim. What I do have is previous scientific knowledge of the fact that the orange is a fruit, and it is the color orange. So with this I can operate under a presumption but not a 100% certainty that what he has told me is true. However if I did not have this previous knowledge, the rational position would be to be agnostic on this, or neutral so to speak, as I both have no anecdotal or hard evidence for this orange being the color orange or not, but also have no previous logical scientific knowledge, so logically can not have a strong position on this outside of an assumption. However one I open the fridge, I can, using my sense of sight, verify the color of the orange, so in fact let's say the orange was in fact orange, using this concoction of both my previous knowledge and what I have just observed, I can deduce that that the claim made by Johnny Cuckold is true.

So to summarize, this is how an atheist or agnostic theist for that matter can rationally deduce the truth factor of a claim relative to it being true or false, I can take my previous knowledge to form a presumption or inference, but the full truth can be obtained not through a deduction but through hard evidence or observations as said above. It's actually very easy to think about, not a difficult concept to grasp.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

It is like these people never heard of the circular reasoning fallacy.

How do you know what you learned in the past is true?

And did you really say you know deduce truth by truth?

Dude, stop wasting my time. Next?
King-La-Ding

Pro

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you started.

'How do you know what you learned in the past is true?' This is the resolution you proposed for the debate: "So, by what method does any atheist claim to rationally know truth from fiction?"

What I initially established was obvious, the concept behind distinguishing truth from fiction relies on the ability to ascertain the truth of any claim or statement. So then your resolution comes into play not just in form but in practice, I, as an agnostic atheist, wished to describe to you a rational method in which the truth can be ascertained. Your idea that since scientific or logical knowledge can not be 100% true always, and is possible false, then that means that there is no way to discern truth from fiction. The flaw in that is that the debate is about a rational way to figure out the validity of a claim, and whether the knowledge is 100% true or not is irrelevant when it comes to this process because that's not what the debate is about.

"And did you really say you know deduce truth by truth?" What the fu(k does that even mean? B1tch if you refuse to debate your own debate then concede the debate. You've been destructionized deal with it, move on.
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
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by HalfAnOnion 11 months ago
HalfAnOnion
There are two different types of atheists, which would you be referring to? An Agnostic Atheist Or Gnostic Atheist?
Posted by Mkakee 11 months ago
Mkakee
We can never truly know the truth for the truth is only the truth until proven otherwise. I, myself rely on things I can feel, hear, touch, or see, as evidence to support a claim. This claim is what I call the truth. No matter what my religious beliefs we all have different truths and can never know for certain what is reality. My answer is atheist don't know everything (hard for an atheist like myself to say) but nor to theists, blacks or whites, (even the occasional orange). We are human (I hope) and we depend on others and ourselves, our memories to find our reality. Realities are different for different people.
Posted by canis 12 months ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe..It feels good... Truth or fiction..
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.