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

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
magic_magpie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 90128
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
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.
magic_magpie

Pro

Salutations
Before I begin I have a two questions for you. First do you actually think that because someone did not have something you deemed rational to say means they wont have something new to say. People can learn and change so I find that qualifier makes for a sad view of people. Second, if someone was to give an argument for atheist's ability to think rationally that you could not refute would it change your view on atheists?
Let's begin with Descartes' s Cogito ergo sum, because it makes for a good jumping of point for telling what is true and what is fiction. The basic idea and translation is as follows: I think, therefore I am. To quote Descartes' s Meditations On First Philosophy"I am a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing". So now I rationally know that I exist. The Cogito for this debate it is just going to be used as a first step. So I know I am a thing, this is true. The next step is one of the hardest, after all knowing something exists does not give a lot of information. So I have think about what I am thinking and experiencing, feel free to try this your self. So their for is, most people, a visual is present, this is vision, an auditory input, this is hearing, and a physical feeling, called touch. At this current step senses have not been validated, we now they are real on some level, but they might not be giving us true information. So for them to be of any use validating them is the logical next step. To do this Occam's razor will be used. So we have two hypotheses one that are scenes are wrong, and things are not real as we experience them, or that they are accurate, and that what we experience is true. The later explains more and has the same amount of assumption so the former is cut using the razor. With our senses we can examine a flat plain and using Euclid's postulates validate math, from math we can collect quantitative data and then we can have science.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

How do you know you are thinking?

And you did not tell me how you validate your senses. By what means do you know if your senses are providing you true information or false information other than your senses to know that the "later explains more"?

Tell us how you know you are not delusional?
magic_magpie

Pro

So my questions get no answer that is unfortunate, and only now looking at your past debates not surprising.
sigh

For your fist question there is plenty of writings that can answer this question better than me. let me still put it this way, I am pondering that I exist so those thoughts alone are enough to conclude that I am thinking.

So we have scenes and there are two possibilities
1 They do not give us true information, and are showing us a less than true reality.
2 They do give us true information, and are showing a true reality.
The former assumes that they are false,and the world is not as it seams. So two assumptions.
The later assumes they are true and the world is as it seams, So two again.
The later however explains that the world can be observed thought senses, the later gives no useful insight in to the world at large.
occam's razor does the rest from there.

The hole point of getting to Euclid's postulates was so we had numbers with rules and explanations of what they can do. Numbers do not lie, people can lie using numbers, but numbers do not lie.
I will still humor you. I do not know if I as individual is or is not delusional. but luckily for me there are other people that I can use to test my observations by asking what they observe. If there is a certain amount of consciences, then it is pretty likely that that is the outcome.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Since you did not answer my Qs, I will repeat them:

How do you know you are thinking?

And you did not tell me how you validate your senses. By what means do you know if your senses are providing you true information or false information other than your senses to know that the "later explains more"?

Tell us how you know you are not delusional?
magic_magpie

Pro

Since you did not answer my Q's I will repeat them (I could not resist)
First do you actually think that because someone did not have something you deemed rational to say means they wont have something new to say. People can learn and change so I find that qualifier makes for a sad view of people. Second, if someone was to give an argument for atheist's ability to think rationally that you could not refute would it change your view on atheists?

I did answer your questions but I can restate for clarity

I am pondering that I exist so those thoughts alone are enough to conclude that I am thinking-thinking about thinking informs you that you are indeed thinking

Occam's razor was used to validate my senses because them giving true information explains more about the state of the world and has the same amount of assumptions as the other possibility- I put the assumptions and what they tell us for both possibilities. So the more informative is most likely true according to occam's razor

Now going off your comment about my answer to your last question
Diconary.com defines delusional as "having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions" or "maintaining fixed false beliefs even when
confronted with facts,usually as a result of mentalillness"
you have not given me facts to confront my arguments, only asked questions. So that does not seam to be relevant. Nothing you have said yet has given me a reason to believe my logic is unrealistic. Further more it is not a disillusion to believe other people exist who could confirm my ideas, because if it was that would make you a disillusion because you could tell me what your scenes tell you about the world. its not a big statement to say most people know other people exist.


Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Still no answer. If he fails to answer again, he loses the debate.

How do you know you are thinking?

And you did not tell me how you validate your senses. By what means do you know if your senses are providing you true information or false information other than your senses to know that the "later explains more"?
magic_magpie

Pro

Still no answer. If vice fails to answer again, he loses the debate.

It is clear I need to use simpler concepts and words so you can understand what I am saying.
The fact that I am writing this shows that I am thinking. The act lets me know I am thinking.. It is self evident. Even if you are deterministic, the thoughts are still there that is how I know because I can demonstrate it even without my senses. If you would like to read more follow this link http://selfpace.uconn.edu...


The way you phase the later question make me think you do not understand occam's razor here is its wikapeda page https://en.wikipedia.org...
Here is the simple answer using the logical tool (the razor) the most likely truth is that our senses are close enough to the truth that they can be used as a starting point for understanding the world in witch he exist. That does not mean however that it is the only possible truth but it is a truth. In terms of the story in the bible weather you believe it or not god is a truth, but he just may or may not be in terms of this reality.
I will also bring to mind reason does not have to be devoid of fate. I do this because I think this might be where you are misunderstanding.
If you where to say fate is not allowed to be in a logical argument, there have been a very small of mount in the logical arguments in all of history. Most people assume they are real, or that the world is real.
Now I have answered your questions If you do not understand that is on you not my arguments
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

Unfortunatley, you have done nothing but repeat yourself with more and more truth claims when you could not support the first ones. You lose the debate.
magic_magpie

Pro

But do I? the people will decide.
I find it funny considering you have done nothing to support your claim.
You repeatedly asked me to explain things I explained.
You added a rule in round 4 stating if broken i lose, so i followed it but you did not follow the rule I added, so bye that logic does that not mean you lose.
and cherry on top that you seamed to have learned nothing since the first time you posted this as a debate topic.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 7 months ago
missmedic
Bat SHAT crazy
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
This "fate" [sic] is so strong you do not even know if you are delusional or not. ROFL
Posted by magic_magpie 7 months ago
magic_magpie
Can you validate your claims?
I have fate my senses are accurate
You, I assume, have fate in a god but you need trust in your senses to now about what you believe.
You seem like a person that will believe what they believe no matter what is presented to them.

what do you gain from this?

If you can not answer that, you are wasting your life man .
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
Yes, if an atheist cannot validate his senses, his truth claims are a waste of time.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
Yes, if an atheist cannot validate his senses, his truth claims are a waste of time.
Posted by magic_magpie 7 months ago
magic_magpie
That was a waste of time.
I have a strong feeling that vice was more looking to declare himself a winner, and stroke his ego, than take part in a debate.
Posted by Hakkayo 7 months ago
Hakkayo
Ha this fool can't even prove he knows truth from fiction. It's simple finish the sentence "I validate truth by ____."
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
Is it true I have no way of validating that? How do you know?
Posted by Hakkayo 7 months ago
Hakkayo
Yeah but you have no way of validating that, what tells you that's true? And don't say your senses or try and use science
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
Just because a blind man cannot see does not mean others cannot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 7 months ago
SkyLeach
ViceRegentmagic_magpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: r1: grammar and spelling Con (really Pro, that was bad) r1: argument Pro, but I make note that it was very hard to understand you r2: argument Pro. Con asks questions and denies Pro's argument but in denial claims failure of presentation of counter-argument. This isn't so, he just didn't address (or else understand) the argument. r2: Pro's argument continues, but he still uses pure philosophy and 'numbers'. This is a bit weak, but stronger than Pro's r3: Bad Con, argumentum ad infinitum + begging the question r3: Pro repeats (and extends) previous arguments. Staying ahead. However he also just essentially rewords and expounds without moving forward much if at all. r4: Bad form Con. You do not judge the debate, You lose the argument because yours was a misplaced judgement, not an argument. r4: Pro we already know it's up to us to decide. I suggest next time that you address Con's technique if he provides invalid logic.