The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
missmedic
Pro (for)
Winning
8 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...
missmedic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 86578
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
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?

And please do not respond if you have responded before or if all you have is "science", 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 circular reasoning is not rational.
missmedic

Pro

It is nonsensical to suggest that reason can not be used to explain rationality.
Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the objects that one perceives. Now once I've performed some conscious activity, that activity can be an object of my consciousness, albeit as a secondary object. I can observe through introspection the process I go through in identifying and integrating and I can identify and integrate those actions by means of concepts, VR. Are you suggesting that this is somehow circular. Circularity is something that applies to a deductive proof, but not all types of validation are deductive in nature. Also Consciousness is an axiomatic concept, VR. Since my senses and reason are the means of my consciousness, their validity is also axiomatic. I would have to employ them in any act of validating anything. Their validity is a precondition of the process of validating anything and your question presupposes that my senses and reason are valid. You are certainly expecting me to be able to perceive your question accurately and you are using concepts. Reason is the conceptual faculty and you certainly are expecting me to be able to understand the concepts you are using. Also VR, the senses are self-validating in a non-circular way. I can use my sense of touch to validate my sense of sight. I can also validate my sense of touch and sight by my other senses. If I see an apple on the table I can reach out and touch it. I can also take a bite and taste it and I can smell it. I can hear the sound it makes when it crunches and I can say with certainty that, yep, its and apple.
So VR how do you rationally know truth without the use of your senses and reason?
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

And yet another obtuse mentally ill atheist demonstrates an inability to read.

Foolish child, I did not suggest that reason cannot be used to explain rationality. I asked how you rationally know what you claim to be true is tue. If you do not answer this Q wioth your next post, you will lose the debate and I will move on.
missmedic

Pro

First off you did suggest that reason cannot be used to explain rationality....
("And please do not respond if you have responded before or if all you have is "science", 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 circular reasoning is not rational.").
Secondly you do not decide the winner of the debate. (eliminate ad hominem, improve your spelling and refute your opponents arguments, and make your own reasonable arguments are the way to winning the debate).

Now to answer the question: How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
I can not answer for others only myself, and the way I know the truth is with a proper epistemology.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

I must congratulate the atheists on this site, for I have never met a more arrogant, ignorant and willfully obtuse group of atheists in my 20 years of debating them.

Can you see this unreasoning animal showing her work on a college math test by saying "I use proper mathematics"? I can.

Sweetcheeks, what is "proper epistemology" and how do you know it is "proper"?

Good grief these morons are dumb as box of rocks.
missmedic

Pro

That is a good question, I am glad you asked it. Epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring knowledge. It answers the question, "How do we know?" It encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well as thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, and all things mental. It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and whether these relationships are valid or invalid.
Epistemology is the explanation of how we think. It is required in order to be able to determine the true from the false, by determining a proper method of evaluation. It is needed in order to use and obtain knowledge of the world around us. Without epistemology, we could not think. More specifically, we would have no reason to believe our thinking was productive or correct, as opposed to random images flashing before our mind. With an incorrect epistemology, we would not be able to distinguish truth from error. The consequences are obvious. The degree to which our epistemology is correct is the degree to which we could understand reality, and the degree to which we could use that knowledge to promote our lives and goals. Flaws in epistemology will make it harder to accomplish anything. Our senses are valid, and the only way to gain information about the world. Reason is our method of gaining knowledge, and acquiring understanding. Logic is our method of maintaining consistency within our set of knowledge. Objectivity is our means of associating knowledge with reality to determine its validity. Concepts are abstracts of specific details of reality, or of other abstractions. A proper epistemology is a rational epistemology.
https://selfcreator.wordpress.com...
http://atheism.about.com...
http://www.theoryofknowledge.info...
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

I gave here one more chance and she threw it away. She failed to tell me how she rationally knows truth from fiction and has, therefore, lost the debate. Moving on.
missmedic

Pro

Epistemology is the study of knowledge VR, and how we come to achieve it. A proper epistemology allows us to gain valid understanding of the world, and identify incorrect ideas. An epistemology based on reason is our means of successfully acquiring knowledge VR. An irrational epistemology, though, impairs the functioning of the mind VR. The more irrational it is, the less valid the knowledge one has is. Since philosophy is a kind of knowledge, an irrational epistemology is the destroyer of a rational philosophy. It is makes it difficult or impossible to get other parts of the philosophy right VR, since it is prevents the proper functioning of the mind.
Like all misbegotten notions VR, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently VR. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.
VR you have not defended you original claim nor have you refuted my claim, which I have explained. It is in the realm of possibilities that you may have another way to know truth, but you have yet to say how, so please enlighten me VR, I am curious as to how your thought process works, and can your thought process be practiced consistently. VR you keep declaring your self winner and say you will move on, yet you have not done either.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
missmedic

Pro

In closing I would like to say thank you, but I will not, I will warn against debating VR in the future.
VR knows nothing of debating please vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by BenJWasson 9 months ago
BenJWasson
missmedic won. ad hominem on con made me immediately vote pro before i even read the full arguments. after reading, though, i still vote for medic.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
four
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Sometimes I wonder if these fools could tell me what 2+2 =?
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
my turn
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
truth can only be in the past
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
know is true, not truth
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
ViceRegentmissmedicTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 9 months ago
FaustianJustice
ViceRegentmissmedicTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Source points for highlight appropriate use of fallacy, and backing up how an epistemology should work. Conduct points for civility. Argumentation also goes to pro for calling reasoning essentially a reflexive action of intellect. This went unchallenged, and the core of Con's assertion was challenged with the same question, to which no answer was given.