The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WhineyMagiciann5
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 512 times Debate No: 88778
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
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.
WhineyMagiciann5

Pro

Figured i'd give it a shot. Though vice will most definitely resort to insults, i will point a few things out.

Only 2,000 characters, absolute minumum
Only 12 hours, absolute minimum
Restricting evidence
As you see, he is making it as hard as possible for his opponent to answer his question.
Should they answer his question, he proceeds to call them mentally in and insults them in numerous ways.

He also refuses to answer his own questions. He also fails to answer how being an atheist effects how you know truth from fiction

As i simply wanted to bring these things to light,y argument will be in the next round yet vice MUST answer these questions

How does ViceRegent rationally know truth from fiction?
How does being atheist affects ones ability to know truth from fiction?
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Because this fool violated two rules, he automatically loses the debate.
WhineyMagiciann5

Pro

Very cute vice, as i am well within the parameters if the site to point these things out.
Tell me what rules i have "broke" and then rell me where they are stated.
Future message to thise who vote, i'm doing this on mobile as i di not see a need to take my opponent seriously.

I will keep this short and concise as i honestly don't feel the need to take my opponent seriously

ON TO MY MAIN POINT!!!
The main argument will be explained mainly in the form of an example
The premise con sets is that all atheist fall under some kind of delusion that prevents them from seeing the world as it "truly" is. The simple process that can show thos wrong is verification. The simple process of showing something correct by doing it several times, along with other methods. I already know what my opponent was thinking, "how do they know their senses are valid". Thing is, they don't need to be. Repeating a process using the same person/people can possibly lead to the same observation of results. Yet if another does it, different results can be yielded. That would show that there is something wrong with the results on one end. If many different groups of people can reach the same results on the process, it could be considered fact. There is also the fact that atheist and theist scientists agree on things that aren't religous matters should give a few flags to your thoughts vice

Now that my opponent has a history of not having an actual argument, il cut him some slack and just have him answer a few questions.
What rules did i "break"?
Where were these rules stated?
How does being atheist affects ones ability to know truth from fiction?
How does ViceRegent rationally know truth from fiction.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

In the words, this tool validates his senses with his senses, which is circular reasoning. He has now failed a third time. He loses.
WhineyMagiciann5

Pro

Once again, vice ignores evelidence, not even taking it into consideration.
Did you not just hear me talk about how having different people coming to the same conclusion can establish truth. Did you miss how atheist and theist can reach the same conclusion when you say atheist are deluded while theist aren't

And again vice regent fails ro answer what he considers in his own words "the most basic of philosophical questions".

I'll give you one more chance to answer them vice.

What rules did i break?

Where were these rules stated?

How does atheist affect my ability to know truth from fiction?

How does vice regent rationally know yruth from fiction?

Answer these, or be shown for the arogant, hypocrite you are.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ROFL. You cannot me that obtuse? How do you know what other people claim to have done without those same senses? You dont. So you are still reasoning circularly, which is still irrational.
WhineyMagiciann5

Pro

So vice doesn't answer any of my questions, Quite disappointing.
Vice preposes the idea that all atheist are having the exact same delusion, without evidence. Quite the claim, is it not?

He still doesn't answer any of my questions, showing major hypocrisy
He doesn't say what rules i broke, Or where they were. His attempt to discredit, done extremely poorly at that.
Fails to answer "the most basic of philosophical questions"

This is more disappinting than i thought it could be, and i wasn't expecting much from this.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
My inbox has officialy broke. :'(

Doesn't matter
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
And that kind of reasoning is also grounds for the removal of those votes. They either haven't been reported, or the debates aren't moderated based on their recency (if they're over a month past the end of the voting period), whether they're full forfeits, or whether they're troll debates. The standards by which we assess debates are objective, and they're applied the same way across any debate with any voter. There's probably subjectivity somewhere in that process, particularly in instances where a vote is very close to sufficiency, but for the most part, it's a process that requires little active thought on my part since most votes fail to meet the same basic standards.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
@whiteflame,

Noted. but I still feel that leaves alot of room for subjective judgement in regards to what you feel is objective or even adequately expressed. I see plenty of people voting and leaving a reason as simple as "Con wins."
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
That's... a confusing statement. I don't see where I've contradicted myself. But I'll try to answer it while I clarify a couple of things.

First, I don't deny you your ability to have an opinion, any opinion, on a debate. You're perfectly allowed to post your opinion, and you're even allowed to vote and award points based on that opinion so long as it a) pertains to what was actually said in the debate, b) shows that you actually read the debate and incorporated specific points from the debate in your decision, c) you explain every point you allocate, since your vote should not automatically count for more on the basis that it's your opinion (everyone's views matter), and d) you provide meaningful analysis that shows that you compared the points made in the debate and came to a decision based on that comparison. If your goal was just to let everyone know how you perceived one side's arguments, then you could have posted in the comments. You chose to award points. That's the problem, and I think, the major disconnect between your understanding of the situation and mine. There's a difference between giving a reason why you liked one side and giving an RFD, which focuses on how the decision was couched in the context of the debate.

Second, no, we cannot contact every person whose votes are reported, mention that they should change their vote, monitor them until they do, and then reassess the vote and perhaps repeat that process ad nauseum. It's not feasible. My time is already spread thin as it is, and that would have me monitoring a multitude of accounts, checking back to many debates day-by-day, and staying in contact with tens of members at a time. Removing votes is a more feasible alternative and results in a very similar outcome: voters learn of deficiencies in their votes and can correct them. The major difference is whether or not there are consequences, and I think there should be in order to make sure that the point is understood and taken as important.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
No offense whiteflame, but you cant tell a voter to give his REASON for voting the tell him he cant have an opinion on the matter. Thats contradicting yourself.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
All reports, save those on which I have a conflict of interest, are analyzed by me. Airmax double checks them, and Blade-of-Truth contacts the members about it, which acts as a triple check. So technically, we all do every one of them.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
You failed to point out that the experiment would be repeated with Different groups of people. You only bring up where i mention the same group. And about stories that can't be tested. We just simply don't test it.

I don't know what happened after the first vote but on that first one. Even if you did explain arguments, you lacked RFD for S&G, conduct, and sources.

@whiteflame. Do you take all the reports by your self or do you divide then in some way with Bladeoftruth and airmax?
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
I vote for Con. Because he made the ONLY convincing argument.

chipmonk reason for voting against Pros conduct. Pro immediately began not by refuting con's resultion. But instead asking Con how does he personally tell fact from fiction? Which is besides the point of con's resolution and shows dishonesty towards the debate. As well as making a host ofnother accusations towards con without sources or verification. Entirely juvenile.

Reasons for voting against pros argument. As already stated below, and in my previous vote that was moderated for lack of reasoning for SG Pts. Reasoning for voting Con is bc Pro cannot
Capitalize " I", when referring to himself.

Con's argument was never refuted only his person attacked as, Con states ""how do they know their senses are valid". Thing is, they don't need to be. Repeating a process using the same person/people can possibly lead to the same observation of results. "
In other words, con admits atheists cannot actually know fact from fiction as he said himself, his senses dont need to be valid. He only bases his truth on repeated observations. Ergo, he cannot be making any kind of validation about evolution. Or any other claim that he is unable observe repeatedly. Like god. Making him unable to tell fact from fiction; if he were indeed told a fictional tale. He would need to observe test and repeat. In the event that that type of mechanism is unavailable, indeed pro admits he cannot tell fact from fiction.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
No need to thank. Just stating something that more people should know if one of their votes get removed.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
I appreciate that, thanks.
No votes have been placed for this debate.