The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
matt8800
Pro (for)
Winning
2 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 2 votes the winner is...
matt8800
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 87290
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
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 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
matt8800

Pro


I happily accept ViceRegent’s challenge to a debate.


The title of the debate is worded as a question and VR is taking the Con position. I interpret that as meaning that VR’s premise is that atheists do not/cannot rationally know truth from fiction.


Since the burden of proof is on VR, I await his argument as to why atheists cannot know truth from fiction.


Good luck!


Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

And this loser broke two rules: 1) he failed to answer the question and 2) he accepted this debate before and showed he had no idea how to know truth from fiction. He loses.
matt8800

Pro

On the home page, it says:

“Debate.org is a free online community where intelligent minds from around the world come to debate online and read the opinions of others."


Definition of "Debate": a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

https://www.google.com...

This is not interrogation.org. This is debate.org. That means that each person has to provide their argument as to why their premise is correct. Then the voters decide which party has a better argument. If you provide no argument whatsoever, then all I have to do to win is simply provide an argument.

In this debate, I will show two things:

1. I will provide evidence that an atheist is able to know reality from fiction, which Con will be unable to refute.

2. Con has no evidence or reasoning to base his conclusion on.

How do you know you are not actually a dog? The question is nonsensical because there was never any evidence that you were a dog in the first place. If I asked you how you knew you weren’t a dog without using your reasoning and your senses, what would you say?

Since VR has asked me how I can know reality from fiction without using my senses or reasoning, I will provide evidence that the voters can either agree with or dismiss.

Here is the evidence I submit:

“And this loser broke two rules: 1) he failed to answer the question and 2) he accepted this debate before and showed he had no idea how to know truth from fiction. He loses.”

In my reality, those are the exact comments that VR posted as his argument in round 2. If the reader/voter agrees that I copied the text perfectly, it is an indication that my perception of reality is correct.

Can VR provide any evidence that I don’t know reality from fiction?

Can VR explain without using his reasoning (which comes easily for him) how he knows he is not a dog?

Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
matt8800

Pro

Wow, this is a first. VR doesn’t have anything to say?

At this point, VR is probably saying to himself, “How did this guy accurately perceive what I typed and repeat it back to me verbatim? He’s a tricky one and he makes some points I cant argue with”.

While I may give the impression that I am just showing off my powerful reality perception powers, that is not my point. If a monkey bangs on a keyboard long enough, statistically speaking the monkey will eventually type a coherent sentence by accident. To show that my correct perception was not just a statistical improbability that became reality, I will once again show that I am correctly perceiving the reality of what VR is or is not communicating:


“ViceRegent forfeited this round.”

I submit the above sentence as additional evidence that I was able to correctly perceive the reality of what appeared in VR’s argument section and repeated it back perfectly. So far, so good :)

Definition – “Reality”

1. “the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.” Source https://www.google.com...


Coincidently, VR’s inability to provide reasoning or evidence for his premise is evidence in itself that VR may only have an idealistic or notional idea of why he is correct. By the very definition of reality, it appears that VR may be unable to correctly interpret reality.

How ironic would it be if it was actually VR that doesn’t know reality from fiction as opposed to others? Is it possible he might actually be the one that is mentally ill and not realize it?
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
matt8800

Pro

VR must have finally realized he was on the losing end of this pet argument of his. I am sure he is currently trying to figure out how to apologize to everyone for his poor behaviour.

Or he got so angry he had a heart attack.

Probably the latter.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
matt8800

Pro

VR has conceded that I am correct that atheists rationally know truth from fiction. He is forgiven for his ignorance.

Please vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by EmperorDao 9 months ago
EmperorDao
read the debate... one thing to say, holy hell matt
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
lol...thanks ayden
Posted by Ayden_Linden 9 months ago
Ayden_Linden
Matt8800, i debated this buffoon and I laugh so much at your response in round 2: 'this is not interrogation.org, this is debatte.org' Get f***ed VR XD I usually conduct myself in a more professional manner, but i can see it being made quite clear the VR refuses to do the same, so yes, major pros to you matt, get f***ed VR, i look forward to your response, either of you, and i hope you both have a great day!
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
I think what VR is saying is that Christians don't rely on their senses or reasoning and somehow that is a good example for everyone else. I guess I can see how his argument would make sense to him since one would have to abdicate senses and reasoning to believe in the bible.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
VR is under the delusion that all knowledge presupposes gods existence. The Transcendental Argument is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately (though unwittingly) presuppose the Christian worldview and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals.
http://www.johnstonfamilyministry.com...
https://carm.org...
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
5% win ratio, has gotten answers but dismisses them, refuses to answer our questions, ad hominem constantly. you have no right to insult us until you prove yourself to accept evidence and answer questions.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
How's that win ratio VR? Still below 5%? Don't insult members when you have such a low ratio.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
VR, you have not proposed an argument to run away from FYI. I'm waiting though ;)
Posted by Bennett91 9 months ago
Bennett91
Ha ha ha what a troll.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 9 months ago
lannan13
ViceRegentmatt8800Tied
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
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
ViceRegentmatt8800Tied
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.