The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Icelandictreebeard
Pro (for)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
Icelandictreebeard
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 275 times Debate No: 89159
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

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.
Icelandictreebeard

Pro

Fiction, and non-fiction, truths and falsehoods.

These are constructs created to define and classify objects, phenomena and ideas into broad categorizations based on internal-consistency.

While I would acquiesce that humanity's individual, human ability to determine some kind of absolute, unquestionable, pure truth is impossible- simply because everything can be challenged- this does not discount the need and basis for true and false.

Humans have decided that the whole true/false thing is a positive and helpful way to ponder things, enabling our feeble, weak human brains to make sense of hugely complex objects, phenomena and ideas.

We do this, by looking at the internal consistency of stuff. For example, we decided that for an object to be categorized as true or false, we can determine whether the object has matter, whether it looks a certain way, whether it has some kind of logical being.

Similarly, with god, we can look for internal consistency. I grant that you can say- shut up mate you have a feeble, weak human brain and so what's the point in trying- but I think you're missing something. Let me explain.

Lets say that there turned out to be no factual evidence for Jesus, the bible was a piece of performance art and Christianity was a scheme brewed up by a pesky teenage megalomaniac..... this does not mean we know there is no god. It simply, and importantly means that within the system of logic that we use, OUR Jesus and god are not the answer to anything.

So, while athiests or whoever can't "rationally" prove that anything really, REALLY exists, we can still know truth from fiction. I am stating that truth and fiction and different from reality and un-reality (?)...

I am not saying that Jesus is fiction, or that athiests know the truth .... but that they COULD know truth from fiction given the right evidence within the context of this framework of true/fiction.

Get it?

Peace out
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Oy vay, more question begging irrationality, but since this fool admits that atheists cannot rationally know truth from fiction, he loses the debate.
Icelandictreebeard

Pro

Lol nope you didn't read my argument. I completely and utterly and confidently and calmly dispatched your case as I pointed out that athiests can know truth and fiction.

Re-peruse what I wrote and get back to me, or don't.

BTW unless I did approach the question from such a point you had not really set up an argument. You said how can we know truth from fiction, but not to talk about science or evidence types or conciousness etc. so if you then end up just talking about whether we can know ANYTHING then it stops being about atheism and god, but rather about nihilism and cogito ergo sum etc.

You need to reflect and decide what you want to debate.

lol
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

You said, "So, while athiests or whoever can't "rationally" prove that anything really, REALLY exists.." We agree. Debate over.
Icelandictreebeard

Pro

oh my, nope nope nope.

You must realise that I just said athiests can't prove RATIONALLY that anything exists, not (as your question asks) that athiests can't RATIONALLY know truth from fiction..

its the difference from being able to tell if harry potter was a book character or a living person (Truth in terms of defenition) ... in contrast with a metaphysical, absolute sense.

SO my argument (a fair one and one that fits within the bounds of your silly question) is that athiests can tell if your god is true/false but not whether it (the god) exists.

You could have engaged with this interesting line of argument about what makes up belief, but instead you have decided that victory triumphs over debate.

You have decided that the person answering your question can't try out unexpected lines of reason, instead you chose to look for things to quote horrendously out of context.

You will not find god on an internet debating site, especially when you ask silly little questions like this, but you could have engaged in an interesting and enlivening meeting of minds.

Lol,

peace out little guy

shame
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ROFL. Is truth real? You have no idea, by you own admission.
Icelandictreebeard

Pro

'thou who rolleth on the floor shalt be punisheth by death' - psa
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheJazzPoliceman 8 months ago
TheJazzPoliceman
ViceRegent... He may be an idiot, a jerk, and a troll, but to those of you who want to take the question seriously, consider this: how do theists rationally know truth from fiction? Is it because "God tells you", or is it because of your common sense and logic?
Posted by Jjjohn 8 months ago
Jjjohn
Pro delivered a sound spanking to con on round 2!
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
53 times of the same debate. he has only won due to forfeitures. unless you enjoy dealing with idiocy, do not accept.
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
MagicAintReal
DEBATERS DO NOT ACCEPT, NOTICE THAT THIS IS THE 53RD INSTALLMENT OF THIS EXACT DEBATE!!!
Do not feed the annoying troll.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 8 months ago
Ragnar
ViceRegentIcelandictreebeardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: COnduct for false claim of concession. Arguments for dropping the entire case (pro solved the riddle type debate, pointing out some way that atheists can through their means of reason, know truth from fiction).