The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
XkriticalninjaX
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
XkriticalninjaX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 542 times Debate No: 89854
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
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.
XkriticalninjaX

Pro

I accept. Even though it seems like a loaded question I will do my best to show you how us atheist know truth from fiction.

Firstly, by briefly looking into your previous debates with other people I know that asking you any questions would be a colossal waste of time. So my answer is very simple. We can know truth from fiction by looking at evidence. You yourself stated in a previous debate that if a man looks in a mirror and says he is the queen of England, it dosnt make it so ( I am of course paraphrasing) and with that I agree 100%. However if that man thinks it is true but it is then proven wrong through scientific research that he isn't the queen then he must not be the queen. If he were to belive he was after being told he would be wrong. It is the RATIONAL assumption that he would be wrong.

It is also worth noting that in all your debates with this question you have lost by votes. And if you didn't lose it was a draw because nobody voted.

I look foward to your rebuttle
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Apparently, you did not read closely enough. Your evidence is nothing but the product of empiricism, which relies on your senses and reason. How do you know your senses and reason and valid?
XkriticalninjaX

Pro

How do we know Santa Clause isn't real? Because there is no such thing as flying reindeer and elves. Nobody could conceivably deliver all of those presents. How do we know there isnt? Well by using scientific research. (Not that science is needed to prove Santa isn't real). We can test reindeer to see if they can fly. We know it is a REASONABLE assumption to assume that since they can't fly that out parents lie to us. Now you may also say "but how do you KNOW that what your testing is valid" and because literally any person can do the same test and get the same results.

Now if i may ask you a question (even though I'm 99% sure you won't answer it because you can't or you are a coward) how can a man\women of faith rationally know truth from fiction?

Also I'm haveing a wonderful time in this debate. Are you?
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

You are repeating yourself. I asked you how you know your senses and reason are valid. You say it is because any perso can do the same test and get the same results. Putting aside the non-sequitur, the only way you know there are other people, who are doing the same test and getting the same results if via your senses and reason. To use your senses and reason to validate your senses and reason is circular reasoning, which is irrational. If your knowledge is based on the irrational, you have no knowledge. Got anything better?
XkriticalninjaX

Pro

You do realize how idiotic you sound right? Like it isn't just me right? You expect an athiest to prove to you how they can prove there senses and reasoning without the use of science? You are striping away the only logical argument. What you want is for someone to say "we have faith in our reasoning" so you can use the "Aha!!! So you do have faith you athiest scum! MUHAHAHA!!" Argument.

The reason we belive in them is because there isn't anything telling us there wrong. Yeah people get things wrong. People get things right. Nobody can ever claim to be 100% right about anything athiest or not and quiet frankly the only people I hear saying that what they say is 100% correct are theist not atheist. So I guess to answer your loaded question. Atheist know truth from fiction based on evidence. How can we be sure our assumption is right? We cant. Well not 100% at least.

I also noticed that you refused to answer my question. You won't answer the question because you know you cant.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

I am still waiting for you to tell me how you validate your senses and reason rationally? And I have given you a reason to not believe them: your faith on them is illogical. But then again, atheists are not know for their logic. Last chance.

Amazingly, ths tool does not even understand what is being said to him and yet pretends to be an authority on reason. ROFL
XkriticalninjaX

Pro

You have yet to answer my multiple questions as well. And I dod answer the question. And I can use your very argument against you. How do you know it is illogical for me to think thag way? I think it is illogical for someone to belive Ina god when there is no evidence for such. I think it is illogical for someone to ask a question without allowing them to use proof. The question is impossible to answer you twat. I can't answer a question with evidence when you won't alow evidence.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
All these truth claims and not one of these mental midgets can tell me how they rationally know truth from fiction. They are so funny in their belief that arrogance is a fine substitute for knowledge.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
All these truth claims and not one of these mental midgets can tell me how they rationally know truth from fiction. They are so funny in their belief that arrogance is a fine substitute for knowledge.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 7 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
Dude, do I know it? I know there was a petition to celebrate his 50th repost in the opinion section that had 100% positive vote. Sadly, DDO never credited nor congratulated Vice for this feat.
Go check it out, it has some hilarious comments.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Hakkayo 7 months ago
Hakkayo
yeah i noticed, i go to each one and vote against him since he never makes an argument
Posted by make_war_not_peace 7 months ago
make_war_not_peace
viceregent has used his first argument a million times in the same debate. He keeps posting this debat over and over again. Am I the only one to notice this?
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 7 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
Btw, You are the one who doesnt seem to get logic viceregent. Logic is axiomatic by itself. You cant prove logic using logic. You simply cant. You have to take it for granted or not accept it at all.

And if you dont believe in logic, congratulations, you just admitted something can exist and not exist at the same time, so we can get over this debate cause everything is meaningless.

So which one is it?
Posted by Hakkayo 7 months ago
Hakkayo
oh man here comes another one

Viceregent lobs an easy pitch and his opponent just slams it out of the park

you'd think this wouldn't be fun anymore but each time he posts it it just gets better
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. VR you should look that word up so you can understand what axiomatic means.
Posted by zookdook1 7 months ago
zookdook1
62nd repost, still no celebration from site admins.

Sorry, Vice, I don't think it's happening.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
Unfortunately, no. You demonstrated your ignorance of the meaning of both logic and empiricism, confusing the two. And you begged the question, for each validation of your logic relies on your logic, which is to say you reasoned circularly. Please let how to think. Thanks.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 7 months ago
Brendan21
ViceRegentXkriticalninjaXTied
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: Despite a blatant bait with a loaded question from Con, Pro answers adequately and Con proceeds to ignore answer and along with it, any rationality and begins to badger Pro for some kind of other answer. Con is also 100% unable to answer Pro's own question on Con's own rationality, providing a double standard in the debate.
Vote Placed by Hakkayo 7 months ago
Hakkayo
ViceRegentXkriticalninjaXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: In a twist this time I will leave the conduct tied as I found both sides' conduct to be somewhat below what should be accepted here on debate.org I voted for Pro's argument as he repeatedly defended his argument and even answered further questions posed by con, while Con declined from answering further questions or even defending his own argument beyond his trademark denial by ignorance.