The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Aguilajoyce
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 363 times Debate No: 89073
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
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.
Aguilajoyce

Pro

Hi there...

I don't know about the guardians of rationality, but I will say that knowing the difference between truth or fiction is valuable for atheists and theists alike, although it is very much left to one's own discretion which he/she chooses to acknowledge... Tee hee tee hittle... On to the argument!!!! lol

So here's mah(my) shtick... Truth is derived from assumptions applied to reality...What's reality you say? (I heard you)
Reality is the reconciliation of what we want to happen and what actually happens, i.e., we come to reality via the realization that we cannot externalize/push away the bad stuff, and internalize/control all the good stuff (Yes, it's Freudy-poo, but it works)... So we must learn early on to modify our assumptions about life and the actions to which those assumptions lead, in order to get the consequence/results that we desire/ or avoid those that we don't.

So as we come recognize that the external world does not yield to our desires (bad experiences), then we begin to test other assumptions in order to arrive at good experiences/desired consequences. This, essentially is how we arrive at truth, by testing our assumptions in the external world (which we cannot control). The truths at which we arrive are then reinforced every time we apply an action to the external world and get the anticipated consequence, if the consequences go tits up, we have to find the 'rogue' variable, or 'rationally' acknowledge that the 'truth' IS no longer.
Any assumption that is not subject to the scrutiny of testing/application is fiction...not to say that it is inferior 'truth' but rather that asserting it as such, can be considered irrational...
That's about the size of it...let me know if I've misunderstood you...

I've noticed the buoyancy of this debate... It just keeps surfacing...lol... I'm not criticizing, only curious as to what you're looking for...

Thanks for the opportunity, and reviewing...
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
Aguilajoyce

Pro

Continue from round one!!!!
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Sorry about missing the last round.

Putting aside your gobbledygook, how do you know "what actually happens"? How do you "test your assumptions"? How do you know that is a valid testing method. You have begged the question, not answered it.
Aguilajoyce

Pro

Well putting aside your dyspeptic disposition, my answers to your questions are as follows:

How do I know what actually happens? Because I observe, yes using the fabulous five and reason, the changes in the external world.

I test assumptions of truth via actions/engaging the external world

I know that actions and the senses and reason are valid means of testing for truth because:

1. I am a conscious being, consciousness is the state of recognizing self-hood vs other. So in order to be, I must know that there are things in existence that are independent of, or not me.

2. Experiential knowledge (truth) dictates that I cannot control the external world. Which means that my subjectivity, i.e., rationalization of the sensory input can only go so far, before it is indeed in conflict with reality' (irrational).
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Your "reasons" for knowing your senses and reason are valid are non-sequiturs and beg the question. Concerning 1, The deluded can be self-conscious and they are deluded. Thus, that is no help. And to claim you know the truth based on experience is merely claiming you know the truth from your senses and reason, which is to say you validate your senses and reason with your senses and reason, which is circular reaaon. Try again with something rational.
Aguilajoyce

Pro

I think you have misplaced the functional meaning of senses. The five senses have no meaning in and of themselves. Their only meaning is what they apprehend in the external world. Ex. to entertain the sense of sight is one has to concede the existence of the external world. One cannot see, without seeing 'something' or having an object of that view. We can't even verify sight without the external world. So you cannot 'detach' senses from the external world, because it voids their meaning. They are functionally interdependent.

Consequently, if you refute the reliability of the senses, you void the validity of the existence of the external world, as the senses are our only means of knowing the external world, and the consequent reality, and truth. So you must concede the validity of the senses or else you're asking something that cannot possibly be posed/answered (as a rational person).

And finally, the claim of circular/begging the question is faulty for the same reason. If the senses ARE the external world (our only evidence thereof), then the external world (consequences) becomes the validation for truth, not our senses. There is no distinction between the input from our senses and the external world, for perception purposes, they are one and the same, so the senses are not only 'the ability to," they are the world, from which we receive undesirable/desirable feedback.

Of course the vulnerability is always faulty interpretation or the faulty sensory receptors, but as such errors will influence the assumption, which will affect the (tested) action and will result in consequences/outcomes (that are independent of our motives, beliefs and shortcomings), the process of arriving at/consistently evaluating truth is still reliable, because all is (rationally) based on our interactions with the external world. So the deluded are still subject to reality! Whether they adhere to the truths revealed, is the distinction b/t rational/irrational.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imnotacop 8 months ago
imnotacop
This dude, vice, has actually managed to turn himself into a laughing stalk on this site. Honestly dude, you're way too full of yourself, and a complete A** as well. You've been shut down at every turn, people who try and discuss something with you in a kind manner (which is a privilege you haven't earned) end up getting blindly insulted by your fallacious, self aggrandizing and completely unearned behavior. I have no degree btw, I'm studying law and political science. Am I supposed to be ashamed of that? It's honestly sad that you claim to have a degree that requires intelligence that you clearly don't have. It's pathetic the way you fell into that argument, in such a blatant display in insecurity. There's no such thing as a science degree. You've studied all biology, physics, astrophysics, political science, medical science, the science of law? Do you even understand how a degree works, how fields of study are divided? Your attempt at seeking smarter than you really are isn't even well thought out, ironically.
Frankly, you've earned being put down like this. And it's a shame that it'll likely be in vein, as you clearly lack the intelligence to take anything you aren't predisposed to with any consideration. You should study a science, though. You might learn how logic actually works.
Posted by Jjjohn 8 months ago
Jjjohn
If you cannot answer the question, ViceRegent, I understand. However, I'm generous, I'll give you another chance. explain why rationality depends on absolutes. How do you know one cannot rationally validate one's rationality?
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
something like that
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
he wants you to have away at his blood like he do Jesus, 1 big infected swarm of moths in a jacket factory
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
vice regent is a needle pillow for god
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
And he runs away again. Moving on to more intelligent and less cowardly game.
Posted by Jjjohn 8 months ago
Jjjohn
ViceRegent said: "So what you are saying is that your worldview provides you no way to rationally valid itself? "

ViceRegent then said, " We are not talking about rationality, but your ability to reason. Learn to read."

Learn to read is good advice - perhaps you should start with you own messages.

"BTW, how do you know those reasons you believe your senses correlate to reality are true?"

You have failed to respond to my point. before I answer your question, explain why rationality depends on absolutes. How do you know one cannot rationally validate one's rationality?
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
We are not talking about rationality, but your ability to reason. Learn to read.

BTW, how do you know those reasons you believe your senses correlate to reality are true?
Posted by Jjjohn 8 months ago
Jjjohn
"So what you are saying is that your worldview provides you no way to rationally valid itself? "

Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that rationality can validate itself. By the google:

"Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action."

'one's reasons to believe" is the key. If you have reason to believe that your senses are correlating to reality, then you are being rational. You haven't offered any reason why rationality depends n absolutes.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
So what you are saying is that your worldview provides you no way to rationally valid itself? You are stuck with irrationality? I agree, which is why I am not an atheist.
No votes have been placed for this debate.