The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
happystick107
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
happystick107
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 86206
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

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?
happystick107

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Wow!

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.

Wow!
happystick107

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

>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.
happystick107

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

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?
happystick107

Pro

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'.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

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".
happystick107

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 10 months ago
canis
VR. will never know anyting. That is why he/ she became a theist..What is the Brown "thing", (truth or fiction), in the toilet, (truth or fiction)...God must have an answer, (truth or fiction). I can look up in a bible/koran, (truth or fiction)..The answer must be truth, (truth or fiction). If not. I make fiction = truth. And i will never be able to know truth from fiction...saved.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 10 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
@ViceRegent. How does being an atheist make perception of reality different from theist?? Because logically their mind dont work that differently.
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
Funny. Pro admits to knowing nothing, but insists I believe his truth claim that he does know something. It does not work that way.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 10 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
You call us trolls yet you are the one who always turns the thoughtful comment section into something full of hate.
Posted by Briannj17 10 months ago
Briannj17
This is not set up in debate format. Unless you take out the word "how" it belongs in the forums.
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
I wish I could find away to block these trolls as a way to save bandwidth.
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
I wish I could find away to block these trolls as a way to save bandwidth.
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
i am agnostic
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
intentionally obtuse. I love how these fools are terrified of cross-examination. They know in their hearts that their positon is irrational and they know that if they try to defend it they will look like fools. So they run. What they do not realize is that also makes them look like fools.
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
is it not true?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Briannj17 9 months ago
Briannj17
ViceRegenthappystick107Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
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.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 10 months ago
Ozzyhead
ViceRegenthappystick107Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had nothing to really argue. Con seemed to be condescending from the start