The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lmorrow
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
lmorrow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 88993
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
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.
lmorrow

Pro

Assuming that by saying "knowing truth from fiction" you mean proving or disproving the validity of existing evidence. You can do a few things. Though it is difficult to know anything with absolute certainty you can create hypotheses, develop predictions, gather data, test predictions, develop theories, and make observations. This of course is the scientific method. You can also use experimental evidence to isolate different variables and rigorously test those variables and see what happens. Finally for thing that cannot be easily tested in a lab like the big bang theory You can use observations that can be validated many times over and using different methods and attempt to explain those observation using mathematics and logic. Using these methods many things like evolution, the big bang theory, and the age of the earth and universe being 4.5 billion and 13.8 billion years respectively can be proved true beyond reasonable doubt (90-100% chance of being true/accurate).
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

So you rely on your senses and reason, which you then validate with your senses and reason? As I said, that is circular reasoning and irrational, which means you have NOT provided me a rational way you know truth from fiction.
lmorrow

Pro

I do realise that it is hard for me to know whether or not my senses are being controlled by a new world order organization to deceive me into taking in false information as a way to manipulate history and create an indefinite totalitarian police state. But the fact is that statistically it is far more likely that I can trust my eyes and ears than that. Also using your argument I could dismiss everything you say in the same way but I chose not to because it is simply not a very good argument.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Your epistemology is irrational for the reasons stated. Therefore, your silly class as to stats abs what you can say about me is irrelevant. And it is not hard, but irrational.
lmorrow

Pro

lmorrow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
lmorrow

Pro

You may have noticed that through this entire debate you haven't put forth any good arguments other than that i cannot trust my senses when in round 1 you said not to join this debate if you don't believe in reality not to join this debate. Throughout this debate you have said nothing but "using reason and you senses is not rational" which implies that you don't believe in reality meaning you have already broken the rules that you yourself have put forth. Also throughout this debate you have used this debate to kill any meaningful discussion. And finally assuming you are religious (which I think you probably are.) by claiming that atheists don't know what they're talking about and you useing the same argument over and over again you are placing on me the burden of proof when in fact you have the burden of proof because you are the one making the claim.

(I couldn't respond last round because when you posted your last argument it was 10:30 where I am and I was asleep)
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by red_x 8 months ago
red_x
Hey vice, if your so smart, how do you rationally know truth from fiction?
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
Perhaps Debate.org needs to step up safe places where immature atheists can go to be protected from ideas that do not appeal to their mentally ill minds?
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
ViceRegent=someone who does the same exact thing to the point that the moderators have to remove the debates. will think it has won even when given a perfectly legitimate answer and shown for the arrogant hypocrite it is.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
Toll = one who exposes the irrationality of atheists when their self-esteem cannot handle it.
Posted by WhoWouldnt 8 months ago
WhoWouldnt
Don't feed the trolls.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
I love the bad logic that fools like Greg post, all while being unable to tell me how they rationally know truth from fiction. ROFL
Posted by klaralein 8 months ago
klaralein
VR challenge me. Unless you're scared.
Posted by Greg4586 8 months ago
Greg4586
Saska I think it's pretty clear at this point that he himself can't derive reality from fiction, as he has demonstrated both through his failure to answer the question, and his performance throughout this debate/comments
Posted by Greg4586 8 months ago
Greg4586
Saska I think it's pretty clear at this point that he himself can't derive reality from fiction, as he has demonstrated both through his failure to answer the question, and his performance throughout this debate/comments
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
I have to laugh when an ignorant fool tries to insult me. I give his opinion the value it has.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by red_x 8 months ago
red_x
ViceRegentlmorrowTied
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 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: ViceRegent has overused the whole atheist thing to the point where he is using the same argument for every debate, plus he isn't very nice to his opposition.
Vote Placed by Saska 8 months ago
Saska
ViceRegentlmorrowTied
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 did not actually put forth any arguments. Given that the resolution was formed as a question, there is no onus on Pro to prove a statement true or false. If Con had worded it "Atheists cannot rationally know truth from fiction" then the onus would have been on pro to prove something. Pro did not do a great job of arguing anything, but at least pro put forth a reasonable argument. Conduct goes to pro because as pro pointed out, con broke the rules listed in round 1.