The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
14 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 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 729 times Debate No: 87361
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
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
Wylted

Pro

I do not accept my opponent's rules. A too liberal interpretation of them, could make this already tough 2000 character debate impossible to win.

Since this debate ia philosophical in nature, it reasons thag the definitions should be philosophical in nature. The purpose of language, is that it is a tool to communicTes effectively. Meepi g in mind that it is more of a tool for understanding, than a prescription for how to talk, I will explain the proper definition.

The Pragmatic theory of truth can get complicated, but I'll lay it out ina simple way. My opponent is correct in saying that truth can not be known by atheists (or theists) for that manner, under the traditional definition. That in effect makes the definition useless, so we adnust the definition accordingly.

Truth is simply defined as "useful knowledge in communicating" . If me and my opponent look at a cow and he sees a pink cow, while I see a purple cow, neither statement "purple cow" or "pink cow" is true. It's useless information, and therefore false. What is true information, is tge statement about it being a cow. I can look at him and tell him to smack the cow in the rear, and he can use that information , and act accordingly.

In The same way, me and my opponent are having a debate right now. That knowledge is useful for people observing, to know what's going on. We are able to call that information true.

This theory is useful in both a subjective or objective universe. It is a definition useful to atheists and theists alike.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
Wylted

Pro

My opponent has contacted me and threatened to kill me, if I don't forfeit the debate. His actions are intolerable.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Wow, this fool is delusional. And a liar. But since he admits that he cannot know truth from fiction, the debate is over. I win.
Wylted

Pro

Actually idiot, I took the time to define truth and precisely mentioned how it was knowable. Please don't reproduce.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

"My opponent is correct in saying that truth can not be known by atheists (or theists) for that manner, under the traditional definition."

Enough said.
Wylted

Pro

My opponent has not challenged how I have defined anything, nor has he challenged any of my arguments, nor has he provided any of his own arguments. This is an auto win for me. My opponent is also continually sending me PMs calling me a nigger. I'd appreciate if he stops, since Jesus is black.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

You conceded the debate. There as nothing left to challenge, for you alredy lost the debate. But thanks for confirming you are a delusional liar.
Wylted

Pro

My opponent has conceded the debate, and is either retarded or stupid. I can't figure out which. He never challenged the definition I provided, nor any of the arguments. Seeing as how my arguments stand unchallenged, and my opponent has provided none, I reccomend a vote for me, and sterilization for him.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 9 months ago
Wylted
I was actually nust trolling him. He never messaged me
Posted by CodingSource 9 months ago
CodingSource
@Wylted: screenshot his messages and report it to airmax1227 to teach this guy a lesson. And by saying that Jesus is black...you're right.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
In all fairness, we don't know what VR knows, except that he hates atheists, does not answer questions and he can't debate worth shlt.
Posted by Wylted 9 months ago
Wylted
What Klaralein said
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
Right, stupidity prevents VR from knowing anything.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Right, atheism prevents an atheist from knowing anything.
Posted by difference 9 months ago
difference
@klaralrein
"You must prove that atheists rationally know truth from fiction, but you can't do anything that could make sense as proof, such as mention science and senses."

An atheist couldn't truthfully admit that he can't know truth from fiction either. His claims about his atheism can't be trusted since they aren't rationally founded, though it would be the only way to know that he was an atheist in the first place, unless God reveals to you his beliefs.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
I never received a PM from VR. I suspect that Wylted is not being honest.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
Wylted - if that's true, forward the message to the moderators and have him removed.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
Wylted claimed that VR threatened to kill him.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
ViceRegentWyltedTied
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: Con forfeited, giving conduct point to Pro.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
ViceRegentWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited a source to support his pragmatic theory of truth argument. Con offered no protest of the use of this source, nor did Con support his argument with a source of his own. Also, Con forfeited a turn.
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 9 months ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
ViceRegentWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a turn, meriting loss of conduct. Pro provided arguments and Con, instead of refuting them, personally attacked Pro. Pro takes more convicing arguments because his arguments stand unrefuted and Con did not provide any. Pro cited a source while Con did not, so Pro takes most reliable sources by default.
Vote Placed by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
ViceRegentWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided no arguments, forfeited, and was insulting to Con. Con provided arguments and responded every time.