The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pajamaphilosopher
Pro (for)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
Pajamaphilosopher
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 269 times Debate No: 90111
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
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.
Pajamaphilosopher

Pro

*Differentiating truth from fiction = DTF*

I'm extremely interested as to how you'll show an atheist's methods of DTF are different from the methods of any other individual.

You mention circular reasoning, and that if "you validate your senses and reason with your senses and reason, you lose the debate." This is an obvious catch-all sort of semantic trap. It would mean neither side could use senses and reason to make a sensible or reasonable point, because such a point would rely on senses and reason.

This means you too would be unable to make a sensible or reasonable point.

It lends itself to neither position in this debate. That being said:

Atheist's, like most humans, take two steps in DTF.

1. Identifying Information
(Note, to satisfy your extreme demands, this does not need to involve senses. For example, a blind, deaf, individual with no sense of touch or smell could still identify abstract information about themselves, such as "I am in space" or "I am in time." These identifications could exist much in the way mathematical truths exist, as abstractions and abstractions only, requiring no physical senses.)

2. Legitimizing conclusions
(Note, to satisfy your extreme demands, this need not require reason. For example, through an abstract perception such as "I am in space" or "I experience time" existence would be a necessary predicate; such as an object being blue makes being colored a predicate. This is a conclusion that requires no reasoning, but by definition, is legitimized by available information.)

Also, to deny atheists have a way to DTF requires you defeat this syllogism:

1. All Atheist's are humans
2. All Humans have some method to DTF
3. Therefore, Atheist's have some method to DTF

Note that:
- A challenge on (1) would indicate desperation
- The veracity of the method in (2) is irrelevant. Your question asks 'how', not 'how effective'
- The veracity of the atheistic method to DTF in (3) is irrelevant to its existing as a process

Cheers
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Can you simply answer this Q:

Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by ____________________?
Pajamaphilosopher

Pro

*Differentiating truth from fiction = DTF*

The following statement reflects the information from my first post inserted directly into your question.

### Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by identifying information (which does not require senses, e.g. abstract information which is extrasensory), and legitimizing conclusions (which does not require reason, e.g. conclusions that are true by definition).

My 1st post stated:

"Atheist's, like most humans, take two steps in DTF."

...my 1st post then explained these steps in a context within your terms, directly answering your question, which is:

"Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by ____________________?"

This was already fleshed out in my 1st post, which it appears you did not read.

Atheists employ the same method by which all humans rationally know truth from fiction, including ourselves.
Again, this also can be shown deductively in that:

1. All Atheist's are humans
2. All Humans have some method to DTF
3. Therefore, Atheist's have some method to DTF

Once again, note that:
- A challenge on (1) is out of context
- The veracity of the method in (2) is irrelevant. Your question asks 'how', not 'how effective'
- The veracity of the atheistic method to DTF in (3) is irrelevant to its existing as a process

### To restate things simply, this syllogism points out that Atheists do, in fact, have a way to rationally know truth from fiction (differentiate truth from fiction, DTF). This way is identical to how all humans DTF, and therefore, there is no sense in saying that an atheist is unable to DTF.

For simplicity, the sentences I have hashed (###) support my position, and discredit yours. How I could present things more simply/clearly? Please, if you have more questions, ask them. I'd also recommend you articulate arguments discrediting the hashed points. They are very clear.

On your end, you have yet to give a reason to believe atheists cannot rationally know truth from fiction.

Cheers
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

So atheists rationally know truth from fiction by information? ROFL. How do they know the infornation is true?
Pajamaphilosopher

Pro

No. You misquote me. As I stated in my 2nd post:

"Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by identifying information, AND legitimizing conclusions."
(for clarity, parentheses removed, caps inserted)

Coincidentally, Identifying information AND legitimizing conclusions is the same means by which you think that "atheists cannot rationally know truth from fiction."

You identify what atheist's believe, and from this information, conclude that they cannot know truth from fiction. All humans follow this same method. This proves my point.

Therefore the statement:

"Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by identifying information, and legitimizing conclusions."

...stands. In order to disprove this, you would have to show a distinction between how an atheist's methods for rationally knowing truth from fiction are different from the methods of any other individual.

Also, the syllogism:

*Differentiating truth from fiction = DTF*

1. All Atheist's are humans
2. All Humans have some method to DTF
3. Therefore, Atheist's have some method to DTF

...stands. And proves that atheists have a method to rationally know truth from fiction.

On the other hand, you have still not given a reason to believe atheists cannot rationally know truth from fiction.

Cheers
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Can you tell me how atheists know this information is true?

It is amazing that this is the best they have.
Pajamaphilosopher

Pro

This is self evident:
Knowing something is true = Knowing truth from fiction

Your question:
"...how atheists know this information is true?"

Is functionally identical to your question:
"how do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?"

...unless you are able to demonstrate a functional difference between these two questions, it is a simple restatement of your initial position.

Once again, I offer my two uncontested evidences that atheists rationally know truth from fiction:

(1) ###
Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by identifying information (which does not require senses, e.g. abstract information which is extrasensory), and legitimizing conclusions (which does not require reason, e.g. conclusions that are true by definition).

(2) ###
*Differentiating truth from fiction = DTF*
1. All Atheist's are humans
2. All Humans have some method to DTF
3. Therefore, Atheist's have some method to DTF

You have still yet to lob any challenges at either of my arguments. You have still presented no arguments or reason to believe atheist's cannot rationally know truth from fiction.

Cheers
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

ROFL. This fool just admitted to circular reasoning. But he has one last chance to tell us how he know the information upon which he relies to know truth from fiction is actually true. If he cannot tell us, he loses the debate.
Pajamaphilosopher

Pro

You say:
"This fool just admitted to circular reasoning."

My 4th post made no mention of my own arguments relying on circular reasoning. My 4th post argued that you employed circular reasoning. You made no effort to defend yourself as to whether or not you made use of circular reasoning.

You say:
"But he has one last chance to tell us how he knows the information upon which he relies to know truth from fiction is actually true."

I stated my arguments for this repeatedly. For clarity, I will state them again, in the context you've put them in.

1 ###
Your question: "...how he (atheists) knows the information upon which he relies to know truth from fiction is actually true?" was shown to be functionally identical to your question: "how do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?" You did not address this.

2###
These functionally identical questions can both be answered by the statement:
"Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by identifying information (which does not require senses, e.g. abstract information which is extrasensory), and legitimizing conclusions (which does not require reason, e.g. conclusions that are true by definition)." This statement does not rely on sense or reason to be true, and falls within your given context.

3###
It is also deductively irrefutable that:
*Differentiating truth from fiction = DTF*
1. All Atheist's are humans
2. All Humans have some method to DTF
3. Therefore, Atheist's have some method to DTF
This is properly basic. Even you use a method of DTF to rationally know truth from fiction. This is true by definition.
And again I state, the accuracy of the method itself is irrelevant to its existence.

Most Notably: You presented no arguments that atheists cannot DTF. You only criticized mine.

I presented uncontested arguments that atheists DTF.

I am not even an atheist. I believe in a Personal Creator God. What you do here though my friend, is just embarrassing. It is bad philosophy.

Cheerio
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hakkayo// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave a great argument that remained on opposed throught. As I have mentioned in previous debates of this kind, a failure to debate is rude and unwanted in this community.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than state that Pro made an argument for his side and was consistent. It needs to be clear why Pro is winning, which requires assessing a specific argument they presented, even if the other side barely argues.
************************************************************************
Posted by Hakkayo 7 months ago
Hakkayo
Oh man I've never seen a quadrapeligic fight mma before but I feel like the debates are the closest thing to it. Congrats on being in the 97th percentile VR here's to hoping you can make it to 100.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
Another losers bites the dust. Who will be next.
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 vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
the only way to distinguish between reality and religion is by the absolutes.. without senses it is impossible to know anything
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
listen to vice regent is how
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
It is like these fools were taught to speak nonsense
Posted by Pajamaphilosopher 7 months ago
Pajamaphilosopher
missmedic
Thank you!
and
oh... my... god... what even.
Posted by Pajamaphilosopher 7 months ago
Pajamaphilosopher
missmedic
Thank you!
and
oh... my... god... what even.
Posted by zookdook1 7 months ago
zookdook1
66th repost.

Vice

You can stop now.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 7 months ago
SkyLeach
ViceRegentPajamaphilosopherTied
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: I already figured VR for a troll since he's posted this debate more than once verbatim. Pro made good arguments which, as usual, VR failed to address AT ALL. Pro is just wasting people's time by making them use their time and effort for no purpose. He isn't making argument, he's making his opponents argue for no purpose. Pro gets points for an honest showing and earnest and well thought argument. Pro can get a life. I call troll