How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
"Humans cannot know anything for certain."
There are levels of ignorance. There's ignorance as we usually use it, then there's meta-ignorance, where our senses themselves could be wrong, and then there's meta-meta-ignorance, where our reason itself, the way we try to judge whether or not we're likely to be wrong...is wrong.
On the level of meta-meta-ignorance (reason), no humans of any kind can reasonable claim to be any more knowledgeable than any other. We are lost together, as it were.
If we grant the basic premise that we might as well treat our reason as valid, NOT because we actually know it is, but because we have to ACT; if we don't want to suffer hunger and pain, and we might as well use reason as not, if it works for us, in other words, if we put aside meta-meta-ignorance for practicality's sake, then we can try to have a local kind of knowledge (always shadowed by our ultimate meta-meta-ignorance, but we're putting that aside for now) on the meta level, and the normal level.
On the level of meta-ignorance (senses), we ALSO don't (maybe Nick Bostrom does) know anything for certain. We could all be in a matrix simulation, and nobody can even claim that that's unlikely (except Daniell Dennett and Nick Bostrom), so we're all ignorant together again.
But if we put aside that higher level of knowledge, again, for practicality's sake, then we can have a local level of knowledge about things like if the sun is up, how does water feel, how do waves function, what use is probability theory, etc.
Again, not pretending that we REALLY know these things, for they are shadowed by our meta-ignorance, doubly shadowed by our meta-meta-ignorance.
But, on this local level of knowledge, if sense and reason stand, this is where atheism shines. On this level, people have vastly different levels of knowledge and understanding, and theism arises from mistakes on this level, losing on 3 levels, rather than just 2.
Thanks. I win.
You win this debate.
And atheists win the debate about reality.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con is clearly being unnessasarily rude for essentially no real reason
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.