The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
TheBlondePenguin
Pro (for)
Tied
4 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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 87140
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (4)

 

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 atheists know truth from fiction?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. 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
TheBlondePenguin

Pro

Hello, and I am happy to debate with someone who clearly understands that red herrings are very important to us atheists. I understand that for anyone religious it may be difficult to grasp the possibility that God may not exist, yet I will try nonetheless to persuade you and our voters that atheists do in fact have ways of knowing fact from fiction, and our only excuse is not only science. However, science is one of the largest reasons why atheists do not believe in a higher power, so if possible, I would like to use some types of science (as well as other things) to support my opinion.
With the introductions and formalities out of the way, let the debate BEGIN!
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Answer this Q:

I rationally know truth from fiction by the following method, _________________________________________?
TheBlondePenguin

Pro

I rationally know truth from fiction by the following method, which is sheer logic intertwined with historical facts.

The earliest time period in which religion is believed to have existed is 223,000 BCE. During this time period, Neanderthals, as well as other early hominids, are known to have buried their dead and marked the dead using stones. These stones were sometimes even marked with symbols of some kind.

"Why is this important?" You may be asking yourself.

Because religion was so the early hominids, and hominids today, could explain the seemingly unexplainable, and have a goal to work towards. In this case, an afterlife of some description. Furthermore, the threats of the time period, when hominids could only defend themselves with primitive weaponry, were more than enough to take a group of full-grown men (or women) down. So why wouldn't they want to believe that some being of higher power is looking down on them?

You may question how this applies to modern times, but the reasoning holds up to the test of time.

As human beings have begun to learn more and more about how the world works, there is less left unexplained. Furthermore, a human being's biggest threat nowadays is another human, and they are currently easier to defend yourself against than a saber-toothed tiger. And even if up against a saber-toothed tiger, it would be far easier to defend yourself with modern weaponry than with some clubs. Therefore, the reason for religion to be believed in is steep decline, as shown on this graph: http://tobingrant.religionnews.com...

This graph shows how obsolete religion is becoming in the modern world, and this only further supports my reasoning.

Now for my question:
Why are some religions polytheistic and others monotheistic if both claim the higher power(s) have revealed themselves to certain prophets? And then, why are only some people chosen to receive these "holy messages?"
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Are you so ignorant that the following words can spill on the screen and you not see how irrational they are?

I rationally know truth from fiction by the following method, which is sheer logic intertwined with historical facts.

Really, so you know facts by facts? Great. That is helpful. Ok, how do you know fact from fiction?

Good grief, atheists are fools.
TheBlondePenguin

Pro

Considering that for the four other debates I viewed in which you participated in, you lost, perhaps you would stand more of a chance at winning if you considered actually arguing your point and not acting like you are a 10 year old who has just been told Santa doesn't exist.

And as you set up some rather restrictive rules, I really had no choice in responding with something that you thought didn't qualify.

So how about you answer one of my questions and prove your point before it ends up as another one of your failed insult-fests.

Now that that is out of my system, I will further prove my point.

Looking back on your past debates, I noticed you brought up "God," as in one, and how the bible mentions that all atheists are "fools." However, upon looking into the bible further, I would like to bring up something that has been nagging me for a little while.

Why does the bible constantly contradict itself if it is a text that you are supposed to use as a guideline for your own life? Shouldn't such a text be near perfection when telling it's stories?

Here's a few contradictions that you could explain to me:

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

PRO 4:7: "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding."
CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

EXO 33:11: "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
JOH 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time."

Then there is also that the bible incorrectly describes the world as flat, even though we know it is round.

MAT 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

I love it when a fool tries to pretend to be rational by introducing red herring after red herring, hoping no one notices his intellectual cowardice. But I did.

Dude, tell me how you know fact from fiction. If you cannot or will not, you lose the debate per the rules.
TheBlondePenguin

Pro

Since it is obviously not clear to you yet, it is the inconsistencies in religious texts and religious history that allow us atheists to understand that there is no higher power. We atheists know there is no higher power because we ask ourselves questions about religion and realize, if there were any other answer, it would support the idea of God. But all of these have answers that actually support the idea that God doesn't exist. Ask them to yourself and try and give yourself a viable answer for these things occurring.

Here are a few questions:

If there was truly a God, why is there still crime and violence?
Why does God not respond in any way when I pray?
Why are there so many different religions that all have prophets who know different things?
Why are certain people chosen as prophets and others aren't? Why isn't a message sent to everyone?
Why would God approve of massacres, wars, and the burning of innocent people in his name?
And the list goes on and on...

Now I would like to bring something else up.

You have brought no reasoning to the table that backs your claims that we (atheists) cannot know fact from fiction, which appears to only enhance my argument. I've given you a few questions already in my previous responses that you can base an answer on, so then you can prove me wrong. Unless, of course, you're admitting defeat, and can't prove that these questions and facts I've given are meaningless. And just calling me a "fool," a "moron," or any other insult I will also take as you admitting defeat.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

I have asked this fool three times to tell me how he rationally knows truth from fiction and he has failed to answer three times, preferring to interject irrational red herrings. He has forfeited the debate. I win.
TheBlondePenguin

Pro

TheBlondePenguin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: klaralein// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con for forfeiture, but otherwise con providing no case or counterarguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are unexplained. (2) Arguments aren't sufficiently explained, as the voter only analyzes the arguments in the abstract and never specifically explains the decision with the given arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ozzyhead// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied. Although pro forfeited, con's use of the word "fool" on a few occasions and just out right attacking is poor, plus his use of sarcasm is disappointing. No spelling mistakes by either side. Pro actually argued, con never argued he only asked questions, which isn't a debate. He did not point how atheists could not be able to tell truth from fiction, nor did he point out how someone who is not atheist tell truth from fiction.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are unexplained. (2) Arguments aren't sufficiently explained, as the voter only looks at Con's arguments and fails to analyze anything specifically argued by Pro or the burdens in the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
Legit questions because I never understood this.

How can God call all non-Christians "unreasonable animals... incapable of rational thought or even independent thought", yet he loves all of his children equally and forgives everyone?

And if God has a plan for all of us, why are there people with cancer? Why are there countries that for centuries have been living in poverty without proper food and wealth? Why did God make disease and virus'? Depression, schizophrenia, suicidal idealization, why did God make this? Why did God's plan for many of us involve such terrible quality of life?
Posted by condeelmaster 9 months ago
condeelmaster
"I would not waste my time on these fools if I were you. " **Makes a thousand debates about this**

LOL
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Freezra, I would not waste my time on these fools if I were you. They are utterly mindless. Scripture says they are unreasoning animals. They are incapable of rational thought or even independent thought. All they do is Google something and then parrot it. They are immature children. Treat them as such.
Posted by FreezraTheFrostDracolich 9 months ago
FreezraTheFrostDracolich
PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." this is referring to the faithful will grow in their faith
ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." this is taken out of context
PRO 4:7: "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." its onething to be wise and its another to apply wisdom in anything
CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. use complete context
EXO 33:11: "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." this is simply saying god talked to Moses as a friend face to face
JOH 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time." this is not the complete verse this also needs to be in context and he was constantly in relation with God
Then there is also that the bible incorrectly describes the world as flat, even though we know it is round.
MAT 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
dude this just refers to the statement of how he took him to a mountain to try to deceive him into bowing down to Satan.
In conclusion stop taking stuff out of context it does not make it correct if you rearrange it to the way you desire. actually read the book before you fight against it. Like read the NIV version or something but if you still want to make a point to show something wrong read it, keep it in context, don't rearrange it because that is wrong and is not what the book states. If you wont read it then i think you've possibly lost this
Posted by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
The site needs more of these debates. You should keep doing them ad nauseam.
Posted by difference 9 months ago
difference
What condeelmaster said.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
If it is so basic then why dont you answer the question vice? Or do you just not know the answer.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
It is amazing that not one these unreasoning animals can answer this most basic of all philosophical questions.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
ViceRegentTheBlondePenguinTied
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: FF.
Vote Placed by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
ViceRegentTheBlondePenguinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made no arguments, but does get conduct points due to forfeiture.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 9 months ago
famousdebater
ViceRegentTheBlondePenguinTied
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
ViceRegentTheBlondePenguinTied
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.