The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
MassDebater420
Pro (for)
Winning
7 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 2 votes the winner is...
MassDebater420
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 254 times Debate No: 89175
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
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.
MassDebater420

Pro

The term atheism is as I understand it, "to not believe" in deities.
In your question you refer to truth and fiction, so I believe that you are referring to the bible or another religious text.
So how does an atheist distinguish what is truth and fictional in for example the Bible/King James Bible/New International Bible/New Living Bible/New American Standard Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, to name a few.
An atheist does not believe in the first place, as far as I know so he must use reasoning & LOGIC in trying to decide what is truth and fiction.
To believe truth in "the Bible", it must refer to deities in one form or another. However there are obviously many parts of religious texts that do not involve deities. Therefore an atheist must discredit any "book/text/description" which involves reference to a deity and use reasoning for the latter. For example, the Creation is "fictional" as there is no record of how the person/people who wrote it would be able to know how the "World" was created during that time period, based on fact/science and development of human technology. So it can only be a fictional interpretation of what may have occurred and can have no real truth to it whatsoever but may contain conincidental truth. Other books that do not refer to deities can be fictional or coincidental truth, many fictional books can contain coincidental truth, whether they can be proven to be true is virtually impossible so therefore it must be fictional containing coincidental truth.
Atheists rationally know truth from fiction because they formulate a balanced reasoning based on facts & logic, believing in something that cannot be proven is in itself fictitious because it cannot be true until it is proven. This in itself is more rational than other beliefs that cannot prove the "truth".
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Good grieve.

So you determine what is true based on reason and reason based on facts and facts based on truth? Do I got it?

Have you heard of circular reasoning?
MassDebater420

Pro

Hmm, I understand how you would try to trap me except for the fact that you missed out LOGIC,
Truth is based on reasoning & logic, reasoning is based on facts, facts are based on evidence/historical records. Note my use of the word 'record' in Round 1. That is not circular reasoning if you are interpreting it correctly.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Actually, no I did not. I presumed you would claim your reason is logical, at least until your argument was reduced to an illogical circular one. I will await you solving the circular nature of your argument, otherwise, you faith the demand that you method be rational.
MassDebater420

Pro

MassDebater420 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MassDebater420

Pro

MassDebater420 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 8 months ago
The-Holy-Macrel
*psst, Vice. I know how to turn around your win/loss record.
Accept every debate created by Vi_spex.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BackCommander 8 months ago
BackCommander
ViceRegentMassDebater420Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Starting debates and then refusing to take part in them is ridiculous. Pro debated, Con didn't.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 8 months ago
Ragnar
ViceRegentMassDebater420Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: "he must use reasoning & LOGIC in trying to decide what is truth and fiction." Simple and rational. Con attempted to call out a fallacy, but did not actually point out where the fallacy was or why it was invalid (honestly a short quotation, and a link to a fallacy website would have done it; just claiming it exists does not). Were a clear standard on what rationality means presented in R1, con might also have won. As is, pro presented something, and con talked smack about it without being able to find a single hole in it. Conduct however does go to con's favor; under current voting rules, pro has forfeited less than half the rounds, thus is still eligible for argument points.