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.
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...
ViceRegent forfeited this 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.
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).
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.