The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DavidMancke
Pro (for)
Winning
18 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 3 votes the winner is...
DavidMancke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 86829
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

ViceRegent

Con

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, what atheist can give me a rational way atheist know truth from fiction?

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL TRUTH FROM FICTION, OR IF YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THIS Q OR IF YOU DENY REALITY IS OBJECTIVE, DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS DEBATE.

And please do not respond if you have responded before or if you admit you have no way of rationally know truth from fiction, or if you believe you make up your own reality, or if all you have is "science", 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 circular reasoning is not rational.

if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.
DavidMancke

Pro

I support the affirmative position that rationality is best supported and protected by a non-theistic framework inasmuch as it pertains to non-theological or religious questions or paradigms of policy and ethics.

For the purpose of organization of this debate the affirmative offers definitions of terms set forth in the resolution, as well as resolutional analysis, observations (on case) and advantages (off case) harms of the CON position are contextually established.

Definitions:
Rational(ity/ism): For the purpose of this debate the affirmative present the definition of "logical cogency AND consistency with observable evidence. This reflects the traditional formulation of the concept set forth by folks Immanuel Kant and more recently, Jes"s Moster"n.

Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

RA: The aff intends to engage the merits of understanding the observable universe and implications (policy or value oriented) that proceed/extend from a; secular or non-religious paradigm. Purpose: to avoid asking "how do you know what you know" calling into question all faculties for empirical observation; tedium.

Ob1; Secular observation provide insulation from biases that are inherent to religious and theistic thought. One need not identify as an atheist to yield the advantage. ( advantage; better results/science + education)

Ob2; Empirical value vs religious value: Secular paradigms yield more practical and often more egalitarian value sets than non-secular traditions. Sexual virginity has no inherent value to be empirically observed, but holds high moral premiums in religious traditions and societies. It's value often brings folks to harm. (Con harms 1) Likewise; there is no empirical value to suffering, convincing folks that suffering has inherent merit has historically supported institutional harm; chattel slavery and "divine right of kings" for example. (CON harms 1; example 2 and three)
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Dude, answer this simple Q: How do you know truth from fiction?

BTW, rationality is not subjective and, thus, has nothing do with your observations.
DavidMancke

Pro

The negative side asked to minimize the scope of the debate, "how do you know truth from fiction" In all fairness, this is complete departure from dialectic tradition. This is not what you asked, it specifically dealt with atheistic paradigms in comparison with non-atheistic paradigms.

To win the debate the Negative must show (convince) that non-secular paradigms better uphold rational understanding of truth. Your last response re-framed the question to me, but did not address your burdens in the debate. In the dialectic tradition, you have already lost. The last round would flow to the affirmative.

That said, on with sufficient refutation, and I will try to accommodate the negatives restructuring of the resolution.

This resolution, and debate as a whole for that matter, doesn't deal with absolutes, but what has been shown to be better over the course of the debate and which side does so best while meeting the burdens set forth. That was made clear in the 1AC's RA.

Non-theistic paradigms yield better and more just observations and are wholly more inclusive than religious ones. Religious paradigms frequently have inherent harms (God extolls suffering; slavery is good, divine right; slavery is good) Non-religious paradigms don't lend to that.

Voting issue #1: Non-religious paradigms have better reasons to be used. (advantage 1, 1AC)

The neg asks, "How do you objectively know truth from fiction?"
Through empirical observation of phenomena beginning with falsifiable hypothesis and requiring reproducible experimentation. (example; speed of falling objects) Moreover, the affirmative position has a better grasp on reaching the aim stated above by eschewing bias [more than religious paradigms] The aff position also avoids the harms of the negative position.

Voter #2: Falsifiable hypothesis and reproducible results (verification)

Voter #3: Advantage: Better education and science conducted under non-religious paradigms.

Voter #4: Inherent harms of neg position.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

What is with this tool and wasted words?

After blathering on needlessly, he finally says what I said he would say in the opening round:

Through empirical observation of phenomena beginning with falsifiable hypothesis and requiring reproducible experimentation. (example; speed of falling objects)?

But how does he know his observation (either the original or the reproduction) are valid? Deluded people rely on their observations all the time and come to conclusions that are contrary to reality all the time. So how does he know his observations are not the product of his deluded mind. In anticipation of his saying that other people agree with him, putting aside that this is the ad populum logical fallacy, how does he know they do not share his delusion or that his belief that they agree with him is not also the product of his deluded thinking? Indeed, to use one's senses to validate one's senses is circular reasoning, irrational and fails to answer the OP.
DavidMancke

Pro

I addressed this applesauce in the opening RA. You are attempting to structure a tautology, and doing a horrible job. Judges were given good reasons to ignore this dilemma. In dialectic debate, you loose, massively.

Moreover you have failed to understand the purpose of the dialectic. Thesis compared with antithesis achieves synthesis.

You also suggest that I am leaning in for an argument you have "pre-labelled, 'ad populum.' Never saw this termed like that in Hurley's logic, but I don't ask my students to buy the new book each year. Old ones are so much cheaper. For your sake I will get an update copy.

I don't need any popular support to win, because as I stated, this is about the argument that is "best" not timeless and irrefutable. You are echoing David Hume's thought experiment of the pool table regarding causality. It is a fascinating topic, and completely non-topical here.

PRIMARY VOTER: The negative should be dropped because they shift on the definition of truth, and in fact don't even offer one. Good thing our judges are not so easily duped.

For this debate, objective truth is best defined as: robustly supported by empirical bodies of evidence. Having little or no evidence to the contrary.

You need to focus in on the concept of robustly, because it caries the day. I have shown you how the affirmative better upholds the defense of objective truth by deferring to robust bodies of empirical evidence.

There is ground for the negative to clash with here too, without appealing to some vague tautology or some rabbit hole diatribe that is more reminiscent of a petulant child repeating, "but why, but why!"

Since the neg has eschewed all conventions of debate (including no new argument in rebuttals I am guessing) For the fun of it I intend in Round 5 to use Scripture to show that you cycle of misunderstand the question is actually not congruent with a "robust" body of widely embraced theology.

Go Falls!
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

If this debate was about how to have a debate, no doubt this tool would do great, but for now he is being irrational.

Let me give him one more chance:

After blathering on needlessly, he finally says what I said he would say in the opening round:

Through empirical observation of phenomena beginning with falsifiable hypothesis and requiring reproducible experimentation. (example; speed of falling objects)?

But how does he know his observation (either the original or the reproduction) are valid? Deluded people rely on their observations all the time and come to conclusions that are contrary to reality all the time. So how does he know his observations are not the product of his deluded mind. In anticipation of his saying that other people agree with him, putting aside that this is the ad populum logical fallacy, how does he know they do not share his delusion or that his belief that they agree with him is not also the product of his deluded thinking? Indeed, to use one's senses to validate one's senses is circular reasoning, irrational and fails to answer the OP.
DavidMancke

Pro

During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln once said, "I have yet to find a General that can face the arithmetic of this war, but when I do it will mean the war's end."

This seems quite appropriate for today's debate, the negative has been shown overwhelmingly not only the Affirmative case, but his own burdens, and has failed to face either, perhaps because he doubts his faculties in a real contest. "Why", is a question for the ages, especially with how the Negative has abused the concept.

The negative tries to drag us into the weeds with him, ostensibly to confuse the judge(s) or perhaps prevent a ballot altogether. Once again, it's fortunate the rest of us are not so easily duped.

The negative didn't carry a single burden, not one. They offered no argument of their own, and no reason to vote for the argument he failed of offer.

All the negative did was try to disqualify empiricism on the basis of reducibility. If he was a lawyer, he would be broke. If he was a judge he would be disbarred. Based on his argumentation though, we can rejoice that there is no chance of Mr Regency having either occupation.

To make this easier for the neg, I zeroed his focus down to the concept of "robustly", but lets use a "real world" example since it seemed from the comments he really wanted a "real world debate experience." We have a good one too!

Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt, or the lack there of, carries the day in court. It comes up all the time in court, and pertains to everything the judge or the jury considers. If it's beyond reasonable doubt, it passes muster. This requires robust support. If that sounds familiar, it should.

Reasonable doubt is a great comparison for the "applesauce" that the neg is trying to force feed us. It works for this debate and in the real world.

If he ignores this example, drop him!

Moreover, there are inherent harms (theocracy and the fall out) to his position and inherent advantages (education and science) to the affirmative.

Vote Aff!
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

This has to the most irrational tool yet. His obtuseness has to be intentional. But he still has not answered the questions, though he has the logical errors down pat. Oh well, moving on to better game.
DavidMancke

Pro

I want to thank folks that took the time to read this one. I came at my opponent pretty hard for structure, but I have been out of saddle for a step now, and those of you that know structure can tell mine. I beg/presume your forgiveness, because given the contents of today's debate, it should be no surprise I'm counting on the debate veteran's ballot.

"I sincerely hope that McClellan knows that Richmond is south. It seems last time nobody told him." -Elisha Hunt Rhodes

One almost has to wonder where my opponent hopes to go. They offer no context. We do!

This is about the definition of truth, and in all fairness, I didn't set that out as a voting issue, specifically. What the affirmative did was set forth the contextual definition of "truth," when it provided the terms, "robust"and "empirical"

The reason the affirmative offered these was because this is a comparison of "truth" paradigms; specifically, truth paradigms departed from religious notions compared to truth wedded to religious notions. The affirmative showed you why secular paradigms are more practical, and better uphold social good. You didn't even challenge that.

My opponent claims that I am irrational. Absurd! Moreover, they ought to understand in debate that we offer merit with claims, or a "warrant" if you will; a reason for accepting the claim. After that one proceeds to show how the accepted claim impacts the debate. My opponent ignored every one of these conventions. They also never offered any other argument against mine, beyond an insipid "claim" of "irrational" and never tried to show WHY...???

The negative carried not a single burden, while the Aff met every one offered. This should be enough to vote Aff. Even so, the negative has failed to grasp the value of the dialectic, and debate as a whole.

We do not gather merely to bluster upon our preferences.

(It bears mentioning that I promised to use the last round to refute recalcitrance via Scripture, this will be in the comments)
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
I like how its vice that thinks he is so smart and the one in charge. when in reality he has not answered a single one of our questions and we are the ones who find this laughable!
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
Thank you, DavidMancke.
Posted by DavidMancke 9 months ago
DavidMancke
I seems to recall something about the blind leading the blind.. where was it suggested the two would end up..? Alas, it escapes me.

You may also recall the story of servants given talents, and the wicked servant that buried what he was entrusted with out of fear of failure. The lesson was it's preferable to attempt ones charge (meet burdens) and fail than to squander the opportunity because you are afraid to too proud to fail.

Your rhetoric (to use the world loosely) and attitude are both deplorable. You claim everyone else is dissonant, when a small degree of self-reflection would make clear to even someone as stubborn as yourself, such a claim is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't identify with any religion, and I don't identify as non-religious either. I'm a theological Treebeard (no one is on my side)

But you ought to understand if your intent is to play "big boy ball" you have a responsibility to rise to the occasion. It seems like you are here to massage your own feelings and practice some odd form of confirmation bias. Perhaps you would be better served by going to confession or something of the ilk, where you can actually resolve your questions or doubt in a proper venue. If you are having or are on the verge of a crisis of faith, this will not help you through it.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
I do love the cognitive dissonance of all these truth claims when not one of them can tell me how they know truth from fiction.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Professing to be wise, they have become fools. Well said, God.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Professing give wise, they have become fools. Big time.
Posted by DavidMancke 9 months ago
DavidMancke
I come from a Parli (NPDA) background, where we didn't used the kind of evidence in CX or old school policy debate. the craft was a bit more rhetorical in nature and the quotes were for the purpose of flavor and to drive a point home. In both cases my "source" for the civil war quotes were the works of Ken Burns. Overall I included them because they are entertaining quotes and contextual.

As for my regal opponent, the question that comes to mind is what happens when an unstoppable force (the affirmative case) meets an unmovable object (ViceRegent)

His problem in entirely attitudinal. It reminds me of the GOP these days, making bombastic and wholly unsupported claims, and when the overwhelming consensus come down against him the plugs go in the ears and the head into the sand. It's sad really, but see it all the time.

I guess I can be blamed for taking the bait to begin with, but the guy has no interest in learning, the dialectic or debate. He also has no interest in the truth.

BTW ViceRegent, the Bible repudiates recalcitrant behaviors from here until kingdom come. If a Biblical set of beliefs is important to you I would advise you consider that.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Sources? Do not any of you atheist fools know what begging the question is? We are dealing with self-justifying axioms. Sources are irrelevant. Do none of your people know how to think? The downside to being an atheist is that you already believe you know everything, making learning irrelevant.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Sources? Do not any of you atheist fools know what begging the question is? We are dealing with self-justifying axioms. Sources are irrelevant. Do none of your people know how to think? The downside to being an atheist is that you already believe you know everything, making learning irrelevant.
Posted by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 9 months ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
RFD (continued) - ran out of characters
Sources: Con used no sources. Pro cited several quotations that illustrate the tactical side of this debate. While the use of quotations was secondary to the argument and poorly cited, at least they were there and improved the readability of the argument with analogy.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
ViceRegentDavidManckeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ViceRegent provided no argument.
Vote Placed by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
ViceRegentDavidManckeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: as usual vice doesn't make an argument, while pro did. no choice.
Vote Placed by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 9 months ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
ViceRegentDavidManckeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: B&A: No vote. Like I care. Conduct: This was like a pickup basketball game. Con says "No one can beat me.? Pro picks up the ball, cross-over dribbles left then right, breaks ankles drives to the hoop, goes up for the slam, and Con tackles him. When confronted with someone who plays by the rules, Con gets thrown off his troll game in Arg 2. Pro is clearly setting the debate parameters Con failed to set in Arg 1. Arguments: In arg 2, 3, 4, Con fails to address any of Pro?s arguments. He merely asks rhetorical questions about delusion. Pro rebuts the question by addressing definitions of terms (" truth is best defined as robustly supported by empirical??) and often goes third person, referring to himself as ?the affirmative? and his opponent as ?applesauce?. Pro correctly identifies: "The negative didn't carry a single burden, not one. ? Pro did a lot of unnecessary fancy dribbling of the basketball while Con tried to foul, but in the end, Pro made the easy layup.