The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
blamonkey
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
blamonkey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 89306
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
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.
blamonkey

Pro

I am under the assumption that the first round is acceptance. If at all possible, can you define atheism in your own terms? I found countless definitions and would like your input. Regardless, this debate also does not represent my opinions, just my passion for a fair debate. So, if I offend you, apologies. Thanks, challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Please just answer the question. Thanks.
blamonkey

Pro

I hereby affirm the resolution that atheists can tell reality from fiction..
C1. Atheist hard to define
Atheists may still believe in a universal presence that does not correspond with anyone"s viewpoint but can be equally provable. In fact, according to a Pew Research study on November 6, 2015, roughly eight percent of atheists believe in a universal power or god-like figure, but again, still consider themselves atheist. People can define themselves as atheist yet still consider a godly or universal power likely. Atheist is a label like Christian. Both follow a set of beliefs in either pursuit of heaven, understanding a physical realm, or even trying to understand the metaphysical. Not only this, but if we were to consider a literal definition from Merriam-Webster of atheist, we would see the definition as "One who believes that there is no deity." We can realize that the way people identify themselves greatly differs from a literal translation. The definition vastly differs if we look at Cambridge, where they define an atheist as one who doesn't believe in God. Regardless of how we define atheism, we need to realize that a handful of people can see spiritual truth while still considering themselves atheist by believing in a spiritual power, even if it is against religions.
C2. Biases and prejudice.
We all have prejudice inside ourselves. This limits our viewpoint and understanding of the world. It is only when we become masters of understanding and leave our judgements behind when we can become completely objective. This does not take a mainstream religion or belief in god. Even some self-named Christians, such as the Westboro Baptist church are shown to have some level of ignorance.
In conclusion, I have shown that religion has little to do with objectivity when spiritual truth is involved.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

I am still waiting for this fool to answer my Q?
blamonkey

Pro

First, remember what I had stated in the first point, objectivity has very little to do with religion to begin with, thus, the resolution itself is flawed. Because atheism can be defined differently depending on interpretation, (see both Merriam-Webster and Cambridge definitions.) This is because one can still believe in a godlike figure or universal power while still remaining an atheist. What this proves is that you can still have spiritual truth or reality which I am assuming you are talking about due to still believing in a universal power or godlike figure, regardless if you are an atheist or any other major religion.

Secondly, I brought up prejudice. This is important because it shows that regardless of what aspect of blindness to reality we are talking about, at the very least the vast majority of ourselves has prejudice. Since prejudice against people is very common regardless of what major religion you follow, any mainstream religion has very little to do with objectivity or spiritual truth. I used the Westboro Baptist Church as an example. Quite frequently, they show their bias against homosexual peoples by picketing funerals with signs saying things such as "God Hates F**s" and a plethora of other disgusting signs that does not bring people closer to any god or spiritual truth, which is the ultimate reality. Of course, this is not to say all people invested in religion are terribly ignorant, just like some atheists can have no prejudice.

As clearly shown, the main problem with this resolution is that it is too broad. I have shown countless ways to define atheism and have shown how since we all have biases and prejudice, we all are blind to reality until we cast off such prejudices, which does not take a spiritual master or to be part of any religion. Not only this, but we need to realize that religion has very little to do with objectivity in the grand scheme of things, as all people can be used by a God to achieve great things.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Stire 3. He loses. This fool did not even understand the Q. LOL
blamonkey

Pro

Thanks for the debate.
I will respond to the previous argument made. I, in fact, do understand the question. This is simply a critique of the resolution, showing how it always favors an affirmative ballot. I have shown that there is no link between religious belief and objectivity. I have shown that atheists can define themselves as whatever they like, regardless of the literal translation, to simply mean they do not believe in the Christian God. Also, many literal translations, including the Cambridge and Merriam-Webster examples I used earlier show that the definition of Atheism changes drastically on what school of thought you are from.
Secondly, let us observe the point about prejudice and bias. I have shown an example of how prejudice and bias altered our objective view of the world. I interpreted the resolution as spiritual objectivity, or how one views a spiritual realm or godly figure to enhance one's spiritual mastery, and understanding of others. Ergo, with bias we cannot truly understand the world objectively since we are looking through a scope of indignation and bias. I have shown how anyone can be truly objective by letting go of bias and prejudice, regardless if you are a spiritual master or an atheist by giving you an example of a group of people who claim to be religious in their subjective view of the world. Again, this is not to say that some religious people are not enlightened, just like some atheist people are enlightened.
Furthermore, my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments made with any case or counterpoint. They simply stated that I did not understand the question, and provided not a single explanation as to why or how I should interpret it. From this, I can only assume that my opponent has no case and is simply trying to confuse me. This clearly shows that I am the only one with points that are not effectively refuted.
I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate, but, clearly, one should vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Buckethead31594// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Easy win for Pro. Though, I doubt this could be considered a debate by conventional means.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. Just a restatement of the decision without any explanation of any of the point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hakkayo// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously had no real argument and was just trying to stroke his own ego, he met an actual intellectual and fell flat on his face.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to examine arguments made by both sides.
************************************************************************
Posted by blamonkey 8 months ago
blamonkey
Your opinion is noted ViceRegent. However, in response to your previous comment, I am not trying to write grammatically correct, I only desire to prove my point. Also, please do not take offense to what I say, remember, this does not even reflect my opinion, only my desire for a structured debate.
Thanks,
blamonkey
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
This fool cannot even write a sentence in standard English.
Posted by Hakkayo 8 months ago
Hakkayo
Viceregent has no argument MAXIMUM DAMAGE CONTROL, is this a debate or a tball homerun contest for blamonkey
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
Yep, when some fool says I am "blown out", it must be true. These fools are mentally ill.
Posted by Hakkayo 8 months ago
Hakkayo
lol viceregent got blown out and just insults blamonkey, what a joke
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
the only way to distinguish between truth and fiction is by the absolutes, sense and math
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
Theist have no god. Atheist have no god = No difference between T/A...Theist have a god. Atheist have a god = No difference between T/A...
Posted by Nivek 8 months ago
Nivek
Humans are fallible. The problem with your case is that you assume that our belief is infallible. You need to just change and overhaul your definitions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by random_noob 8 months ago
random_noob
ViceRegentblamonkeyTied
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 argued that an atheist is hard to define, his point being that truth is something that relies on the individual. So, someone who considers himself an atheist could see spiritual truth the same way theists do. He adds that religion/theism/atheism has very little to do with objectivity or truth. Con, instead of debating, he resorted to name calling, and did not argue. Poor conduct from Con, called his opponent fool twice. Arguments to Pro also, Con did not address Pro's points, which sound reasonable.