The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Samcoder1
Pro (for)
Winning
8 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...
Samcoder1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 311 times Debate No: 89773
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
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.
Samcoder1

Pro

Accepted, good luck
Debate Round No. 1
Samcoder1

Pro

I must say I am a little confused when you ask for a rational argument, and then say that I can't use science and reason which are the core foundations of rationality. The definition of rationality is: 'Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason.' (1). The 'facts' in this definition does not mean things that are objectively true, but things that we believe beyond reasonable doubt are true. As a result rationality is based on a human's subjective interpretation of the universe. Therefore my rational argument will be based on logic, which is after all one interpretation of how the universe works. The only difference between this interpretation and any other interpretation is that this one is based on demonstrable evidence. Logic and reason demand just cause before belief, and hence there is no rational case for a belief in God. As a result, it is rational to hold no belief in God, because it stays true to only having belief in the light of evidence.

We can't possibly 'know' truth from fiction as we don't 'know' anything, we can only give our best guess based on evidence and logic. This is true for science and all belief, it is just a guess. However some guesses are more likely than others. God is incredibly unlikely, as are any random ideas someone thinks up. Other things are more likely due to demonstrable evidence. Hence we hold beliefs in gravity, and no belief in a flying spaghetti monster. Gravity is far more likely as we can prove to our best ability that it's there. There is no evidence for a flying spaghetti monster, so we don't believe it.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

In other words, this dude is admitting that his atheism has left him without a rational way to know truth from fiction. He is latterly and utterly ignorant because he knows nothing. He is right and I appreciate his honesty.
Samcoder1

Pro

Not at all. There is very much a rational argument that leads to Atheism. I'm admitting that rationality may be wrong, although it is unlikely. It is possible that what we perceive as evidence in fact leads nowhere near to the truth. However a rational argument is assuming that our evidence is correct. Hence there is a rational argument, but you might argue that we don't know if rationality is correct. This is a point of view, but a silly one nonetheless.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

You said, and I quote, "We can't possibly 'know' truth from fiction as we don't 'know' anything". This is an admission of ignorance. But I do agree that atheists know nothing.
Samcoder1

Pro

To say 'atheists know nothing' is a bit misleading however, as it implies the religious do know something, which is wrong as well. The fact is that there is a small probability that what we can see and prove isn't there. Atheists choose the most logical case. In fact the religious know even less, because they are willing to believe something without evidence. If science followed that astounding logic, we would still be in the dark ages. Nobody 'knows' anything, but we make very educated guesses. The fact that you keep referring to atheists makes no sense. We are both arguing the same point, which is that our perception of the universe may not be representative of reality i.e a constant may not actually be constant in other place under different conditions which we are yet to see. However this applies to the religious and atheist alike. The only difference is that atheists apply the scientific model, something that we know yields results, and so say no beliefs without evidence, and the religious apply poor logic and wishful thinking. Thus atheists are more likely to actually find the answer. The whole question is stupid and I've been generous with my attempts to answer it.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by missmedic 7 months ago
missmedic
Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. Since our senses and reason are the means of our consciousness, their validity is also axiomatic.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 7 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
FIrst you ask for a rational way to know truth from fiction. Then you say we have to rule out science because it relies on reason being valid. Now which is it? is reason valid or not? Make up your mind dude.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 7 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
God is logically unprobable.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 7 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
you talk about rationality but, what is rational?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 7 months ago
Brendan21
ViceRegentSamcoder1Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is blatantly baiting for a "gotcha" moment, and after failing to receive it, he proceeds to banter Pro while failing to understand proper logic that is explained to him. Con is a biased debater with no intention of a true debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 7 months ago
Greg4586
ViceRegentSamcoder1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes some very good arguments about how the rational and reasonable approach to understanding the world is by taking what we can obsever and interpreting that in order to form our world view. Con's arguments largely fail when he tries to make the claim that claiming to know nothing is the "rational" approach because there is a tiny chance that we could be wrong. Pro does a very good job at pointing out that that isn't rational at all and by us using what we think exists is the only way we've progressed forwards.