How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
I am excited to take on this challenge. The rules of this debate were not very well established, so I will give the benefit of the doubt to my opponent and assume the first round is only acceptance and definitions. I wholeheartedly accept this debate, and look forward to A fun, interesting discussion.
To begin, I'd like to put forward some definitions.
That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality(1)
the quality or state of being agreeable to reason (2)
something that exists independently of ideas concerning it. (3)
the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences. (Encyclop"dia Britannica)
I would ask my opponent to put forward his argument as to why one without A deistic (or theistic, if he so chooses) worldview cannot obtain A rational understanding of the world as it is. Again I would like to thank my opponent for this oppertunity, and look forward to A civil and enlightening discussion.
To begin in the quest, all worldviews must make A few assumptions, these are as follows:
1. the world exist
this, I believe, does not necessarily require explanation.
2. Our senses provide us with a not entirely wrong, arbitrary yet mostly consistent, representation of reality.
this is, once again, required by all worldviews. The theist must accept this as the theist gains his understanding of any being he believes exist through his senses and his reason, which leads to the next point.
3. We are rational beings with an ability to reason.
This is, finally, required. The theist must assume this to say his belief has any rational grounding, as it is only his beliefs (and those of the ones who taught him) that lead him to believe in a deity.
With these assumptions, as they are the basis of any worldview, and to say that they are untrue voids the beliefs of A theist/deist, the process of understanding reality can begin. This process is best exemplified by the exploits of Ren" Descartes.
Short(possibly too short) summary: Descartes voided all beliefs he held, then building back only what he could logically prove.
In short, The assumptions open to us the realm of reason, which can be used, along with the senses(see assumption two if you disagree senses are accurate) to build an understanding of the reality that exist by opening to us, through countless lines of thought that simply do not fit into 2000 characters, the realms of philosophy, epistemology, and the sciences.
This, I would suggest, is how one without A theistic worldview can obtain an understanding of reality. I excitedly await my opponents review of my arguments and rebuttal. Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this!
Reality can be observed through our senses, which, as stated earlier, must be assumed to be accurate to a point. The information gathered can then be interpreted by our rational minds using logical thought, philosophical reasoning, and the scientific method for matters of science, to interpret what is reality.
I apologize if this was not articulated in my previous reply, and I would also ask that my opponent actually engage in the discussion, instead of simply stating that I have violated his "strike" system.
Good sir, If you would, please actually engage in the discussion. I have shortened A 2,000 character reply to one paragraph to attempt to satiate your demand for an answer. If you plan to attack this reply, please consult my previous reply first, as I do not enjoy repeating myself.
WaywardSon forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.