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?
Atheists know truth from fiction the same way any other sane person would, they gather the evidence and relevant information, then make an informed and rational judgement on the topic. On the subject of creationism for example, they would take into account any evidence for or against the theory and, if the evidence disproved the theory, they would look into another idea.
Evidence is merely another word for data. Having data does not tell you into which category (truth or fiction) you put the data. The question is how do you know into which category you put the data. Can you please answer the question asked. Thanks.
And no, saying "I make a rational judgment" does not help, for the issue is not do you make a judgment, but which standard do you make a judgment.
Evidence is not merely another word for data. Data is simply information whereas evidence is information which backs up or proves a point. The easiest way to decide which 'category' to put data into is to find out the source of the data. If the source of the data is an experiment or something similar then it must be true, if the 'data' is simply a claim written down without any reasoning or scientific basis then it cannot be considered to be true.
>The easiest way to decide which 'category' to put data into is to find out the source of the data. If the source of the data is an experiment or something similar then it must be true, if the 'data' is simply a claim written down without any reasoning or scientific basis then it cannot be considered to be true.
Where did you get this idea? Is it true? How do you know?
I need to start limiting my debates by age with the hope of getting more intellectually mature people.
I was stating the simple fact that data obtained from research and experiments (first-hand), is more valuable than data that is not obtained this way. Questioning this fact seems illogical to me. I was under the impression that this would be a formal and mature debate, the point of a debate after all is to get closer to the truth. There should be nothing personal about a debate and getting offended over one defeats the point.
So, you know what is true and what is false based on what "seems logical" to you, whether it actually is or is not logical is irrelevant as long as you conclude it is not logical. But then we are left with asking how you know your reason is valid. You have assumed it is throughout the debate, though that is what the debate is about. If one assumes their way to their conclusion, they have begged the question, which is circular reasoning, which is irrational, which means you have no provide me a rational way to know truth from fiction. I would like to give you a chance to redeem yourself by answering this Q: How do you know that you are not some deluded person locked in a mental ward who only thinks they are logical when just the opposite is true? You will agree that if you are deluded, what seems logical to you is utterly irrelevant in knowing truth from friction, I hope. So, with your last post, tell me how you know you are not delusional?
What you are questioning here is the basis of our entire reality, how does any individual know that they are not just a brain in a jar somewhere being fed information through a computer. This is not just true of atheists, this is true of every living creature with a brain. However since we are answering questions based on our reality, questions that only exist because of the brain that we use to perceive reality, it only makes sense to assume one key detail - 'The information fed to our brains by our bodies is 100% accurate'.
Excellent. You have admitted that your atheism has left you literally ignorant. You can be delusional and you have no way of knowing one way or the other. Given this, I cannot take your claim that what is true for atheists is not true for everyone. You have lost the debate by answer the OP Q with "We cannot".
Once again, atheism really isn't a factor here, nobody can know for certain whether they are delusional or not, it is simply an assumption we must make before we can make any progress. We could spend all our time answering the same question repeatedly 'is this reality?', but at the end of the day we will be no closer to knowing. I am still unsure as to why atheism is the target of this debate.
Reasons for voting decision: Con insulted atheists and that is a breach of conduct to insult someone's beliefs with no facts or sources. Neither of them used sources so neither of their arguments were any better either. In conclusion conduct to con.