The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Pro (for)
Winning
11 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...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 86859
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
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.

IF YOU ARE TERRIFIED OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, 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
Envisage

Pro

2,000 Characters...

No definitions set by Con, so I'll set what seems sensible to make my case:

Truth - That which concords with a defined epistemological system
Fiction - Something linguistic written that does not portray actual physical events that occurred in time.
Rationally - Using logical principles
Know - Believing something that is true

I presume most contention will be around truth, and possibly know - but I don't actually see the problem here a priori.
So, can atheists use logical principles to tell between truth and fiction?
Sure, one can run simple categorical, or modus ponens arguments to know one from the other. E.g.
1. All things that are true are not false
2. This piece of fiction is false
C. Therefore, this piece of fiction is not true.
Note that I have slightly abbreviated this argument, since fiction truth claim is to the proposition that "Event X happened in time".
The religious position of atheism/theism here is essentally irrelevant to everything I have said so far, which broadly affirms the resolution (assuming that the resolution is squared around whether or not atheists do in principle rationally know truth from fiction), which seems trivially true, as it does for the rest of the human race.
Truth
The problem with the word truth is that it is poorly defined even within philosophical circles, and are rig-soaked in intuitional appeals which are (in my opinion) relatively useless. However these are used everyday, and shared amongst society. So we have a general shared notion of 'truth'. but nothing objective, or specific to what 'truth' actually is.
Therefore, as a starting point, on building a ground-up epistemological system that works, start by declaring by fiat all definitions and incorrigable experiences 'true', what is your starting point for categoricals, since we are building up a definition of 'true' here that is useful to us. Then anything that coherently follows that is also defined as 'true'. From that you have a basic starting point for epistemology.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Again, many words, no answer. Wow.

No, truth is that which corresponds to reality. To claim that truth can be defined by one's epistemological system, which is defined by arbitrary human decree is the position of the deluded individual. As the R1 makes clear, if you do not believe reality is objection, do not respond to this debate. Your position is that truth is not only subjective, but arbitrary. Nonsense. Again, if you disagree with this, the debate is over and you lose.

Hoping you are not as deluded as you claim, I will give you one more chance to answer this simple Q very simply:

I, as an atheist rationally know truth from fiction by this standard of measure: ________________________________?
Envisage

Pro

All definitions are arbitrary, they are labels for concepts when we deem them useful. The word 'truth' is just another one of them. Pro contends that "truth is that which corresponds to reality", but how useful is this concept? It rules out apodictic systems outright, moreover it ignores the concept of propositions. It is meaningless to assign truth to anything but propositions, which is where correspondence to epistemological system(s) is much more useful.


Furthermore, it doesn't automatically follow that the epistemological system of truth I briefly outlined in the opening round would not obtain 'propositions that correspond to reality' as a corollary.

Since, assuming we live in a shared reality, and that we share the same machinery by which we judge then the assumption that these subjective concepts of truth could deliver the same concept for all people, because the uniformity of nature holds. So, while on the surface the concept of truth is subjective (since I have grounded it in personal definitions and incorrigible experiences), if reality is objective, then any rational conclusion would also sensibly be objective.

Thus, none of Pro's objections here work, since any assumptions made in the epistemological system presented are assumed to be correct for the purposes of this debate, and the idea of 'objective truth' emerges as a result of this.

If there is an answer to Con's loaded question, then it would be by the standard of coherentism.

That is, the idea that certain things are not true. For example, the idea the apple is not an apple, is meaningless, it makes no sense to me to imagine that such a concept is, and thus is discarded from the epistemological system I have presented. Since this is an incorrigable experience, then it is included under my concept of truth. This is where corollary, such as propositions that correspond to reality as experiences, can have an epistemology, but it is not the underpinning concept of truth here, only an outcome.

Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Well, since this fool refuses to accept that truth is objective and refuses to answer my Q, the debate is over and he lost, adding more data points in support of my thesis that atheists have no way of knowing truth from fiction. Moving on.
Envisage

Pro

1. It is not a requirement of the debate that one accepts that what 'truth' is objective, therefore there has been no rule violation here. Truth being subjective, yet yielding essentially the same results for people because reality is objective is the conclusion I have justified in this debate - and Con has not attempted, let alone succeeded, in casting any doubt on this thesis.

2. Con has put no positive case of his own forward, which means he has no means to negate the resolution that atheists can sell truth from fiction. He has no thesis here.

Since Con has not engaged with any of my points in the debate, he concedes them all. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
Envisage

Pro

You lose boychick. You lose.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RuvDraba 9 months ago
RuvDraba
So silly.

VR is more successful in maintaining his delusion of winning a contest of reason and evidence when he does so in the forums -- and appoints himself sole arbiter of both
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
I called VR names and he quit the debate, so he can give it (name calling not answers) but VR can't take it.................. Coward.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by n7 9 months ago
n7
"Funny, my Q did not ask for some fool's opinion of my Q"

lol, why is it foolish? How much epistemology have you studied?
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
why are you so scared of explaining how theist know reality from fiction? many people have asked you the question and sent you a debate but you always decline and never answer. Why is this so???
Posted by Heirio 9 months ago
Heirio
VR, how do you tell the difference between fiction and reality?

Share your wisdom with us.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Funny, my Q did not ask for some fool's opinion of my Q. Thus, it is a good thing you did not respond.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Funny, my Q did not ask for some fool's opinion of my Q. Thus, it is a good thing you did not respond.
Posted by n7 9 months ago
n7
I'm tempted, but I doubt you'll like my answer and may accuse me of violating the rules. I would basically be arguing your question transcends philosophy of religion. You cast no more doubt on (strong) atheism than you do theism.
Posted by squonk 9 months ago
squonk
I count more than 20.
Posted by Peepette 9 months ago
Peepette
This again. How many of these have been started 6?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
ViceRegentEnvisageTied
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: Con never supplied an argument and forfeited the last rounds.
Vote Placed by SNP1 9 months ago
SNP1
ViceRegentEnvisageTied
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: Con didn't present a case or refute the case made by Pro, leaving Pro as the only one with an actual case (arguments). Con also forfeited two rounds (conduct).
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
ViceRegentEnvisageTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture