The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kalleth
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
Kalleth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 604 times Debate No: 87647
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
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.
Kalleth

Pro

Okay, so you want a simple and non-scientific answer to this question or at the very least, an answer than can be reached without resorting to scientific method. The way that people, (Because this applies to everybody, not just atheists) distinguish reality from fiction is based on the judgements that they make personally. Empiricism relies on the knowledge that our senses are all that we can know for certain. Because without our senses, we're just floating computers with no stimuli. That being said, the stimuli must be interpreted by our brains before we can draw a conclusion on what to make of it.

So when I see a flower, the way I know that it is real is by being able to experience it with my senses, and influence it. I can smell it, pick it up, feel it in my hand. The distinction that people make between reality and fiction (generally, refute this is you like,) is that we can influence reality, and interact with it, unlike fiction. Because once somebody creates fiction it can only function as designed by the creator, and somebody who perceives the fiction is merely a spectator. You could say that video games are one exception, however these are still only influenced under the rules of the creator of the game. We still have the sensory experience, but not the influence. So to bring it back to atheism, since atheists have no way of influencing deities in religion, they cannot conclude that it is real, regardless of their sensory stimuli.

I've tried to follow the conditions of your debate as well as I can, and I hope that this will be a constructive discussion. I await your next argument. :)
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

How do you know the "interpretations of your brain" are valid?
Kalleth

Pro

Simply, because if the way my brain interprets things is INvalid, then the way I see the world will be skewed anyway. The judgements that I make, if they are made on faulty stimuli, are still the only judgements I can make. What I find to be valid will be valid for me. It's why humans can have differing opinions, because of different life experiences, recent events, and environmental factors. A brain interprets things as valid or invalid, and that means that no matter what it's interpreting, it must be true for that thinking individual. That people can be persuaded to change their stance is only indicative that brains can make new judgements based on new stimuli. It means that everyone has to communicate and interact to reach a common agreement about reality. This is where stuff like the common good, social norms, and common sense & knowledge come from.

I would in turn ask you, why it is that you believe that people can't distinguish reality from fiction, and specifically in this instance, why atheists are wrong for deeming religions to be fiction, since they have no way of empirically assuring themselves of these faiths?
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

In other words, he has no idea if his reason and senses are valid, which means that he cannot know truth from fiction. Another atheist bites the dust. Indeed, he is arguing that he could be mentally ill and no only have no idea, but it does not matter. How foolish. I win.
Kalleth

Pro

Actually, it means that your interpretation of reality and mine can differ, and both be valid to ourselves. It allows for and adjusts for disagreement, and my point proves that atheists can distinguish rationally between fiction and reality, at least as well as any religious person can. For the love of Descartes, could you please address my arguments and refute them instead of just denying them or brushing them aside? You don't win, you are being a bigot. PLEASE give me something to work with!

Furthermore, although really, I doubt you're paying attention at this point, it's the people who read this debate who decide who wins. We can't have a resolution until you actually come to terms with the fact that you need to rebutt me, not deny me!

Since you seem to think that this is the sort of thing that's done to opinion, I disagree. You lose and I win.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

In other words, you are saying reality is not objective, which means, per the rules of the debate, you lose.

Sorry, but rules is rules.
Kalleth

Pro

Reality is objective. How you view reality is subjective, you lack wit.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

You continue to be unable to tell me how you rationally know reality from delusion. The debate is over. You lose. Man, I love exposing these arrogant fools are unreasoning animals.
Kalleth

Pro

ViceRegent darling, you haven't provided a single godsdamned point for your own position, and I think that it's quite hilarious that you have such an inferiority complex that you feel compelled to repost 27 times in a row. The entire point of this site relies upon the common knowledge that we can all make rational decisions, and distinguish reality from fiction, fact from faith. Truth of the matter is, you sir, lack the balls, the cajones, the orbs, to actually defend your stance and acknowledge my arguments. Your bigoted and self-entitled manners are a definite blow to your cause as well as the faith you wish to represent, and it discredits you. Self-denial is the first stage of grief my friend, I hope you can reach acceptance in a timely fashion. I truly am remorseful that this debate couldn't be more constructive, but you really are a frustratingly stubborn individual. So much so, that after five rounds of debate, I still have no godsdamned clue why you are for Atheists being unable to distinguish reality from fiction. Adieu.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kalleth 9 months ago
Kalleth
Oh look, you lost.
Posted by Kalleth 9 months ago
Kalleth
VR, tell me how I can't tell truth from fiction. Can you do that?
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
And yet VR still has a winning ratio at 4%. ROFL
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
And yet he still cannot tell me how he rationally knows truth from fiction. ROFL
Posted by Kalleth 9 months ago
Kalleth
Yay! I get five bucks.

And yes, the entire website you're posting debates on requires without mention that people are able to interpret reality, and come up with an opinion. The fact that you doubt people can distinguish fiction from reality is both your weakest, strongest AND ONLY defence in this debate. I've poked holes in it repeatedly.

But remember, the important thing is that you're smarter than all the atheists. Yep.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
So this moron's great defense of his epistemology is that he can know reality from delusion because come web-site presupposes he can. ROFL. What is all the more hilarious about this is that this web-site does not such thing. God is right, atheists are fools. And then even more hilarious is that he has no idea why anyone would doubt his ability to know reality from delusion?
Posted by Kalleth 9 months ago
Kalleth
So this debate. It was...interesting. My closing statement pretty much said my thoughts on it, but just because he can respond here in the comments I have to ask, Vice, why the hell are you on this site? You clearly can't conduct a proper debate. Or carry an argument. Or even mildly defend a stance. What the hell are you here for?

(five bucks says he says something along the lines of "To PWN ATH31ST N00BS!!!")
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
That made absolutely no sense vice.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Of course, no one has to pretend the atheist intellect does not exist.
Posted by TuracoPersa 9 months ago
TuracoPersa
I propose that from this point on, we all pretend ViceRegent doesn't exist.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
ViceRegentKallethTied
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 proof or arguments, so due to his disrespectful responses I gave conduct to Pro. Again, Con provided no arguments, so arguments goes to Pro as well.
Vote Placed by philochristos 9 months ago
philochristos
ViceRegentKallethTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As best I can tell from the first paragraph of Con's first round statement, the resolution of this debate is that "Atheists can tell truth from fiction" or "Atheists have a rational way to tell truth from fiction." ViceRegent is Con because he denies this resolution. Con did not stipulate the burden of proof in this debate, but since he initiated the debate and denies the resolution, and since he expects his opponent to make arguments in defense of the resolution, I judged this debate under the assumption of a shared burden of proof. Pro's main argument is that atheists can tell truth from fiction by whether they can influence the subject matter. Con made no effort to refute this argument. Nor did Con offer any argument in defense of his own point of view. The win obviously must go to Pro. Pro could've easily gotten the conduct point as well after Con's insults if only Pro had maintained the high ground.