The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Ayden_Linden
Pro (for)
Winning
5 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 3 votes the winner is...
Ayden_Linden
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 663 times Debate No: 87041
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
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
Ayden_Linden

Pro

To Con, firstly, because you are questioning Atheists or Atheist beliefs, than I must assume that you are either agnostic or creationist, as those are the only two other major positions to take other than being an Atheist, So, I must also ask you a question before I get into my response to yours:

How can you conclusively prove that the works of any religion or religions prove the existence of any deity or deities? Because the most conclusive possible 'evidence' you would have is the texts and doctrine put forth with said religion(s) You do not thus have an conclusive or provable evidence to back up your claim, while i do not know what religion(s) you affiliate with (I would appreciate it if you put that information forward in the next round or your next response, as it s essential for this debate.) There is no concrete evidence to suggest that you, through your religious beliefs, can conclusively state that you in fact can distinguish a deity or deities as factual rather than fictional, because neither you 'nor anyone else throughout the history of man can prove the existence of a deity or deities, the belief that one exists or the statement that one exists is subjective at best.

Now, on to my response to your initial statement:

Atheists (At very least the vast majority of them.) Can distinguish truth from fiction by using the Scientific Method, as outlined as follows:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Now, I will demonstrate how this method will work and how to apply it in the next round, but I await your response, best of luck to you!
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Here we go again.

The scientific method relies on your senses and reason. How do you know your senses and reason are valid? You may say others back you up, but you only supposedly know that through your senses and reason. And to use senses and reason to validate senses and reason is circular reasoning and irrational, which I to say you do not have a rational way to know truth from fiction. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you how you know your senses and reason are valid without circular reasoning?

BTW, I am not interested in a time-wasting demonstration. Just answer my Qs or lose the debate.
Ayden_Linden

Pro

You had at no point stated that demonstrations are against the rules, and thus i am perfectly following the rules, if you have me automatically lose the debate i believe thoroughly that everyone will look in my favor, although you started the debate and set the rules, i have adhered to every single one of them, and thus if you were to suddenly make more no one would look in your favor for changing the rules for something while said thing is occurring, so if you would like to do that, than be my guest, shoot yourself in the foot for this debate and have me win by default, I invite you to do so

Also, the senses have been thoroughly backed up do to neurological testing based on their reaction to the environment around them, it has been shown abundantly that when our senses are faced with an enviroment or a change of circumstance that befits their use, they will, in fact, adapt and change to them, so not only is their physical evidence to back up the fact that our senses are accurate, but there is also neurological evidence. You also did not answer my question as to what religion(s) you adhere to and thus i have no basis to go forth on said basis, although in the name of fairness you truly should announce your religious affiliation, due to the fact that I have already done the same, the senses are all we humans (and, by extension, you) Have to go on for any process for which we go through, be them bi or small in their effort and impact, thus, because both you and I only have said senses to use to come to a conclusion, and because of this, you cannot claim that we cannot distinguish 'logic' and 'fiction' from one another due to the fact that by your statement You could not do the very same thing yourself.

Thus, that argument and statement is invalid and serves no purpose in this context. If you are to ask questions as to the existence of a creator or creators, please use legitimate arguments, not this hypocritical arbitrary statement which is demonstrably falsifiable.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Any demonstration would be a red herring to this debate, proving once again that atheists are irrational.

And how to you know your senses have been validate by "neurological testing" other than by your senses? Hint: you do not, which is to say you continue to reason circularly and irrationally.

So, I ask again: But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you how you know your senses and reason are valid without circular reasoning?

Ironically, you speak of fairness, which is not a concept derived by the scientific method, which means you do not believe you own claim that you know stuff via the scientific method. How iconic.

Anyway, back to you. Show us how you know your senses and reason are valid without relying on circular reasoning. You do know what that is, right?
Ayden_Linden

Pro

Ayden_Linden forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

I ask for reason and I get irrationality. Atheists have no way of knowing truth from fiction, which is esactly what God says about them.
Ayden_Linden

Pro

I invite you to quote any doctrine form any religion saying those words the atheists do not understand rationality,, and I believe that saying that fitness does not adhere to the Scientific Method is ludicrous, due to the fact that the Scientific Method, during its procedure, is completely unbiased and relies solely on the results that come out of the conditions set out to come to a conclusion, thus, due to the fact that it is unbiased and relies solely on fact, The Scientific method is fair, and also not only that, but you seem to be misconstruing Atheists as in all believing in the Scientific Method, not only is the Scientific Method demonstrably fair, but it also is not the only thing Atheists believe in, it is only part of their reasoning to show why they do not believe in a creator or creators, because none demonstrably exist. You clearly do not understand the Scientific Method, and I suggest you get yourself a reasonable education before entering such serious debates, I have read the Catholic, orthodox, and Protestant Bibles, as well as the Sunni Qur'an and the Torah, I am well versed and educated in religion and religious doctrine, but it seems demonstrably clear that you do not understand not only the Scientific method, but the very tenants and ideologies of Atheists themselves

Thus, that statement is incorrect on several levels.

Also, no, i cannot prove anything that my senses are true beyond my senses themselves, but i pose a question to you:

How can YOU prove that your senses are lying to you?

Human beings (and, by extension, you) Rely solely on senses, it is how we interpret everything we do in this world, every action and reaction we do in this world is through our senses, be them big or small, minute or massive, it is through our senses we do such things so how exactly do you propose we use anything other than our senses when it is demonstrably true that it is the only tool at our disposal. How convenient you avoided this part last time
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

The fool saith thus:

Also, no, i cannot prove anything that my senses are true beyond my senses themselves....

In other words, he knows truth from fiction by his senses, but he has no way of knowing rationally if his senses provide him truth. This is merely a fancy way of saying that unless he can reason circularly or irrationally, he cannot know truth from fiction, which is exactly what I accused him of. He has conceded the debate. I win.
Ayden_Linden

Pro

Ayden_Linden forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
Nice job describing vice's character
Posted by DavidMancke 9 months ago
DavidMancke
@ViceRegent

How do you know you didn't kill someone the last time you drove a car..?
Posted by DavidMancke 9 months ago
DavidMancke
This guy in only here to massage himself through the doubts that are plaguing him. What's more is VR doesn't even know scripture (You can surmise this guy is some ilk of fundy Christian, since they are the only ones that engage in this kind of faith based antagonism to my knowledge.)

The Bible would suggest that what he is doing here is not only a preoccupation with, "the cares of the world," but he ignores the words of Paul, "Be all things to all men," while simultaneously trying to evangelize. It's truly curious pattern, and he is not the only one like this I've encountered either.

He has a very limited vocab and a few stock pieces of rhetoric and is the poster child for confirmation bias. You could say anything, anything at all, "carrots are not cabbages" for example and he would jump though his mental hula hoops to see it as confirmation of everything they believe.

It makes me think of someone that drinks a fifth of liquor everyday, and insist they don't have a problem.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
I still remember the squirtle squad episodes. I just play the games competitively now.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
#SquirtleSquad
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
I literally just noticed the squirtle pic. ha!
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
WaraiOtoko, unfortunately one of my biggest flaws is that I have an incredibly low tolerance for stupidity.
Posted by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
How do theists rationally know truth from fiction?
Posted by WaraiOtoko 9 months ago
WaraiOtoko
Squirtle why are you in everyone of this guys topics? I think I talked to him once and it was clear all he does his cover his ears and yell LALALA in his own deluded world.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
Vice, you lose every debate you have with this topic. Stop asking it, you fool. Your views are clearly wrong if you lose EVERY SINGLE TIME except for one due to forfeiture.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
ViceRegentAyden_LindenTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
ViceRegentAyden_LindenTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
ViceRegentAyden_LindenTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never provided an argument. Conduct points to pro due to forfeiture, but he never engaged in the debate via argument; only opinion.