The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Macdaddy4sure
Pro (for)
Winning
10 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...
Macdaddy4sure
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 89265
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
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.
Macdaddy4sure

Pro

1. The question is flawed: "How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?" Let me expand the question.
How do beings know truth from fiction? How humans know right from wrong? How do we know right is "right" and wrong is "wrong". How does one answer or argue a question that has an assumption built into it?

2. My opponent asserts in his first paragraph states, "Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality." Are you able to provide true evidence for this claim?

3. If rationality is the key for one to attain and/or attain truth, how must one be rational? In Boolean Algebra, or formal mathematics, 1 and 0s or true and false values respectively. By definition, or identity, one thing must be equal to another thing or that thing is not that thing, but that thing must be that thing, thus it is that thing. Thus, 0 + 1 = 0 + 1 and 1 != 0. Substituting true and false, true = true, false = false, and true != false. All of my previous statements are true, by definition. If Boolean Algebra did not work would computers work? Would light switches work? If an apple is not an apple, then are we going to debate that an apple does not exist?

If one were equal to anything other than itself, it would not be one, and that is a true statement. Would you agree this is a valid way for attaining truth or must there be another way? Although, you cannot answer that question without knowing truth. If this is not a valid method of attaining truth, please provide another method in which we can attain truth; otherwise, any argument we present is circular.

Regardless of the observer, humans, is 1 = 1 and 0 = 0 and 1 != 0? Is Macdaddy4sure = ViceRegent ?
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

All that blathering and my opponent did not answer the question. Strike 1.

With your next post, answer the question asked.
Macdaddy4sure

Pro

Your question answers itself.
If the context is rationality:
http://imgur.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Strike 2. Last chance to tell me how you rationally know truth from fiction?
Macdaddy4sure

Pro

How do you know this is strike 2 and not 100?
Oh and I have another round, this is not my last "chance".
fact != fiction
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Strike 3. This fool has refused to answer my Q and, therefore, automatically loses the debate. Who is next.
Macdaddy4sure

Pro

My opponent claims to know the truth and refuses to share it.
Oh and I am next.
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BackCommander// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con behaves like a child who cannot rationally interact with another human. Pro, like so manner before them, debated Con in a way that was fair and concise.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't explain any of the point allocations, merely stating what he believes to be problematic with the way Con behaved. The explanation for why Pro's argumentation was good is too generalized, and could be applied to any debate. While these could be bases for awarding both conduct and arguments, the voter should: a) not engage in belittling either of the debaters, b) explain each point allocation rather than providing a general reason why he's against and for the given sides, and c) specifically analyze the points made in the debate where possible. Lacking that, the vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sipiri// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: My biases: I have problems affiliating myself with pro's position, but it would be more honest to say I lean towards pro. Conduct: Both sides acted a bit snarky, but con resorted to name calling. Spelling and Grammar: Con submitted four major errors and seven minor errors. Pro submitted two major errors and four minor errors. Arguments: Con offered no argument. Pro explicitly answered the implied question of "Can atheists know truth from fiction?" with a resounding 'yeah, kind of'. Technically, any answer to this question would result in a win. Con should re-phrase their initial post if they wish to remake this debate. Pro provided conditional 'yes' predicated on the assertion that logic is true. Con dropped this conflation, so for the purposes of this debate logic was true, resulting in a victory for pro. Pro also implicitly answered the explicit question "So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?" by implying that they could. Sources: to

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter has to do more than just state that there was name calling in order to award conduct " specific instances must be cited. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. Merely comparing numbers of errors is not enough, as one side must have produced a case difficult enough to read in order to award these points to the other. That has to do with reading comprehension. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to also establish that Pro's sources were relevant and not merely that he had them.
************************************************************************
Posted by Axonly 8 months ago
Axonly
Wow, Vice REALLY hates Atheists xD
Posted by Macdaddy4sure 8 months ago
Macdaddy4sure
If we are allowed to use logical fallacies as ViceRegent suggests in his comment referencing them; I invoke the fallacy fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Sipiri 8 months ago
Sipiri
Con: Work on your phrasing of your opening questions, your conduct, and your ability to recognize whether your own rules were followed. Pro followed all of your rules and you still failed to engage him. Even if he replied that he had transcendent knowledge given to him by a purple pigeon, pro still would have won since you never engaged him. You stacked the deck and you still didn't manage to win.

I'm re-posting my vote explanation here because the last part was cut off by the character limit:

My biases: I have problems affiliating myself with pro's position, but it would be more honest to say I lean towards pro.

Conduct: Both sides acted a bit snarky, but con resorted to name calling.

Spelling and Grammar: Con submitted four major errors and seven minor errors. Pro submitted two major errors and four minor errors.
Arguments: Con offered no argument. Pro explicitly answered the implied question of "Can atheists know truth from fiction?" with a resounding 'yeah, kind of'. Technically, any answer to this question would result in a win. Con should re-phrase their initial post if they wish to remake this debate. Pro provided conditional 'yes' predicated on the assertion that logic is true. Con dropped this conflation, so for the purposes of this debate logic was true, resulting in a victory for pro. Pro also implicitly answered the explicit question "So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?" by implying that they could.

Sources: Sources go to pro, since they were the only one to have sources.
Posted by MDAN 8 months ago
MDAN
Ahhhh but the question is vice ... How do YOU know what illogical is??? I don't think you actually do but once again I'm sure everyone else and I would love for your actual view which we all know by your evasive nature in regards to the question is going to be simply cringeworthy
Posted by MDAN 8 months ago
MDAN
It's laughable how you don't understand and comprehend things but you literally write as though you are all knowing. What the hell please stop you're making debate.org a joke ! Please resort back to Facebook posts if all you want is to argue with no understanding. It's the place for uninformed opinions to roam free so obviously it's a better site for you :)
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
Well, since is "answer" is illogical, it is pointless to ask him further. Moving on.
Posted by MDAN 8 months ago
MDAN
:) okay you probobly can't put two and two together as we can all tell by your round one comments :))))) asserting truth from fiction (based on their world views AS ATHIESTS). So what I'm saying is a human who is an atheist assert truth and fiction because of .... Which is what your title and whole argument says so don't make me out like the fool that's all I was simply stating
Posted by MDAN 8 months ago
MDAN
I answered the question. Your acceptance of this answer is irrelevant... And also symbolises how you should be treated as a debate opponent (like a lacking knowledge "I've gone to private schools my whole life I must be superior"dweeb)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hakkayo 8 months ago
Hakkayo
ViceRegentMacdaddy4sureTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's conduct was poor over all, simply denying and refusing to debate, ultimately eschewing the point of debate being a two way discussion. Pro's argument by the benefit of being the only argument was more convincing. Con listed no links while pro provided multiple.
Vote Placed by davidsondw17 8 months ago
davidsondw17
ViceRegentMacdaddy4sureTied
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 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: Pro offered some argument for this debate, while con did not. This is the only reason I am voting for Pro. Pro's argument was not really convincing, however Con's question wasn't really inviting for any real discussion either.