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.
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.
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.
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.
peace out little guy
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 11 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||4|
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).
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.