The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
luci_daisies
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 363 times Debate No: 87757
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

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
luci_daisies

Pro

In your first sentence, you state that "Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality." The title of this debate is "How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?". This means that you assume that theists can rationally know what is real and what is not, which makes it seem as though you think that theists are the guardians of rationality.

Furthermore, I would ask the same of theists. In the Bible, (Matthew 5:31-32) it basically states that you commit adultery if you marry a divorced woman. Yet, Christian men do this. How do you choose to discredit certain Bible verses, while praising others?

This brings up the whole Old Testament-New Testament debate. How do you decide that half of a book doesn't count. You could argue that God was different back then and that he made some mistakes, yet if someone kills a bunch of people and then applies for a job under you, you would obviously say no, even if the person says that they've changed.

I would love to see any evidence proving that theists know that this is truth, and this is fiction. What magical powers do theists have that help them know what the atheists can't?

Please do not use God as an argument, as God relies on faith. This (in my opinion) is an invalid argument as you need faith to believe in God and there is no telling if your faith is valid or not.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

And this fool loses the debate by the rules because he failed to tell me how he knows truth from fiction. Another atheist loser bites the dust.
luci_daisies

Pro

This is a one sided debate. No matter what I say, you will discredit it by throwing words around and making them sound as though they make sense.
Debates are where both people answer each other's questions with logic. As you have not answered my questions, I will assume that you are unable to do so, and therefore, I win the debate.
I answered your question with more questions, which you will not answer. Therefore, this debate has ended because you refuse to participate.
I suggest you answer my questions that I posed in Round 1, otherwise this debate is over.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Strike 2 - Still no answer to the Q of how this fool rationally knows truth from fiction. She gets one last chance.
luci_daisies

Pro

First, I would like to applaud you upon using my correct pronouns (she), as you have called me a "he" in previous 'arguments'.

I asked you nicely to explain to me something else first, before I explained my reasoning so I could better interpret your views on this issue. Yet, you seem to have an extreme allergic reaction so such logic, so I will attempt to explain how I know truth from fiction.

I know truth by morality and research (existing information). When presented with the Holocaust (in books & history class), I decided that it was not right because not all Jews were terrible, and they weren't even bad to begin with. I know fiction by taking in existing information (no, Harry Potter is not possible because there is no such thing as magic, or at least the kind in Harry Potter & I know this because I have never heard of it and no human has seen such a thing happen with proof).

I would still love to know how theists rationally know truth from fiction. So, if you are willing to give any argument on that, then I will look at it.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

By morality? Category error.

By research? Question begging. How do you know what you are researching is true or that your apprehension of it is true?

By existing information? Same problem. Same questions.

You do know I said rational way, right?
luci_daisies

Pro

I gave you my opinion, I explained it to you as rationally as I could. You refrained from answering my questions. Therefore, I hope anyone voting on this debate will realize that I answered as best I could, while avoiding calling my opponent a fool and a loser (see beginning of Round 2).
There is no way to reason with my opponent, and therefore, I bid adieu.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

Strike 3. I have no doubt that was you being as rational as you know how. Unfortunately, you failed. I win.
luci_daisies

Pro

Say whatever you want, but you are not the one voting on this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: klaralein// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con never provided an argument, so argument goes to Pro. Con used no sources while Pro used sources (the Bible), so sources goes to Pro. Con was rude and disrespectful while Pro was not, so conduct goes to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side provided an argument and the other side didn't is not enough " the voter needs to be clear about how Pro's argument affirmed the resolution. (2) The same holds true for sources. The voter has to explain how Pro's sources contributed to the debate and not simply say that Pro had more sources, as that's insufficient reasoning.
************************************************************************
Posted by squonk 9 months ago
squonk
"...observation is our only source of information about the world. The models we then formulate [through science] are attempts to rationalize our observations and put them to practical use. These models may contain mathematical abstractions, but it is a mistake to assume that these abstractions relate in any direct way to whatever may be the elements of an ultimate reality that lies beyond what we detect with our senses and scientific instruments. Of course, for the models to be successful they must have some relation to reality. But we have no way of knowing what that relation may be. Furthermore, they are constantly being replaced by new and better models, so how can they possibly represent absolute reality?

[...]

Short of define revelation, for which no evidence exists, I know of no method by which we can determine what is ultimately real. The best we can do is make ever-improving observations and describe them with ever more accurate models.

[...]

I am often misquoted, without any citation, as having said, 'There is no connection between models and reality.' Allow me to make it as clear as I can: if a model agrees with the data, then it has something to do with reality. We simply have no way of knowing if the elements of that model correspond to any elements of reality."

BOOM QUESTION ANSWERED, CASE CLOSED
Posted by squonk 9 months ago
squonk
ViceRegent is mentally ill. Stop feeding his OCD, responding to these debates.
Posted by Briannj17 9 months ago
Briannj17
Vice why don't you open up your messages. I want to talk to you.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
It is like these fools never heard of the red herring fallacy.
Posted by luci_daisies 9 months ago
luci_daisies
To klaralein: I know, it is quite unfortunate, this allergy he has. I attempted to get him to answer my questions, yet he just responded with how he had won the debate because I asked him questions. It doesn't really make much sense, but oh well. If he manages to actually answer questions, then I will be very surprised, as he has shown that he is incapable of such things.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
See, Vice suffers from something that causes him to have an extreme allergic reaction when he tries to create arguments, so he actually can't answer your question, Magician. Vice can only make insults and nonsense claims, otherwise he has a terrible allergy attack when he comes in contact with any form of logic. It's quite tragic, really.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
If it is so basic vice then how do theist do it?
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
How does one respond to a fool who thinks that the most basic of all philosophical Qs is "stupid"? You don't waste your time.
Posted by IndianaFrank 9 months ago
IndianaFrank
This appears to be a very stupid debate. Are you trying to say only people who believe in god know truth from fiction ? Obviously the only way is to have evidence to prove what your saying.
No votes have been placed for this debate.