The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheDebater9000
Pro (for)
Winning
11 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 3 votes the winner is...
TheDebater9000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 356 times Debate No: 91783
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

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.
TheDebater9000

Pro

I accept the debate, but I will be contesting some of your rules. Before I get to that though I will be defining some terms that are important to the debate, firstly atheism for this debate will be agnostic atheism, meaning that I do not know if god exists or not, and i don't believe in god. Secondly, Truth will be an established fact. Finally, fiction will be a false statement or belief. Next I would like to address the fact that my opponent has committed the ad hominem fallacy multiple times during the debate so far an example of this is ,"Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality," if you don't know, though i assume you do as this is a debate website, the ad hominem fallacy is a logical fallacy where you attack a person instead of there arguments. My opponent is attack me, and atheists as a whole calling us delusional. In the comments, which I know are not part of the debate, but it goes to show their poor decorum so far, they have called me out along with observers of the debate.

Now I would like to address the terms of the debate that I would like to contest, first and foremost, the way the got rid of science as a way of knowing fact from fiction without reasoning, and saying the terms for me to have science to be re-included was explain your sense of reason without it, but if it relies on science this is a impossible task.

Now I will respond to the question, and since the topic is a question me and my opponent share the burden of proof. I know truth from fiction by evaluating if the assertion has evidence and does the evidence satisfy the burden of proof placed on it. If the answer is yes then it's true, if no then its fiction. Examples of what I mean by evidence is observable proof, validated scientific study, etc. Why for example, I don't include god in this is, there is no scientific evidence, there is no observable proof, and many of the sources used to prove god are self contradictory.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

And this fool know his senses are valid how? It is like these fools did not even read the OP.
TheDebater9000

Pro

That was just an ad hominem. I did read your opening and I contested it in round one. I also answered your question witch is all you said the debate is about. So next round I would appreciate at least some cross examination, instead of spewing insults. I am willing to stay nice if you are, so I urge you to show respect me, the audience, and debate.

Since my opponent has made no assertion or refuted my answer. To the question I will wait to continue my argument as a courtesy.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

As this fool continues to run while whining about it, he loses the debate. Next?
TheDebater9000

Pro

If my opponent refuses to do any, but throw out insults I would like to expand on my answer to the question with the addition Occam's Razor. Witch is how I know my senses are valid. For those who don't know Occam's Razor is a reasoning method that states, when dealing with to claims that have a simmer amount of evidence, but contradictory conclusions, the conclusion that requires the least amount of assumptions is most likely correct.

Now I believe that I have answered the question to a satisfactory extent. If my opponent disagrees I ask them to point to specific parts of the question I have not answered. I hope in the last to rounds my opponent will find there manors, and we can have a productive discussion.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Amazingly, the moron merely begs the question and poses a non-sequitur, for how does he know these claims are true? God is right, atheists are unreasoning animals.
TheDebater9000

Pro

You provided no evidence for god being real.
Begging the question and a non sequitur are contradictory statements. Since I have only had 1point which I added to last round, I can't be committing both.
It's not a non sequitur to say the way I know what I know is true is true because of Occam's Razor. The alterative has had no evidence brought up by my opponent.
I also didn't beg the question as my conclusion while being related to thesis statement.
I honestly don't know if my opponent has even read my arguments, as they haven't responded to any of my points.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

Well, since this fool is unable to tell me how he knows his senses are valid or that Ocums razor is right, he loses the debate. Moving on.
TheDebater9000

Pro

I know my senses are right because of Occam's Razor. Occam's razor is a method of reasoning. It isn't a factual thing, it a method for arriving at factual things.

This debate boiled down to fuerstein over there calling a fool and not backing up his claim.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by I_Wanna_Rawk 6 months ago
I_Wanna_Rawk
Con could have made a great debate out of this.... Instead he acted like a second grade playground bully.
Posted by RedAnarchist 6 months ago
RedAnarchist
@Kalleth Well said, friend, well said. I think I need to give you money now.
Posted by Kalleth 6 months ago
Kalleth
Viceregent is like that weird rash you get on your crotch, except that the rash now has the gall to never go away and call you out for not knowing HOW you know you had sex with the wrong person.
Posted by TheDebater9000 6 months ago
TheDebater9000
I would request that my opponent stop attack commenters, as it is not in the spirt of debate.
Posted by ViceRegent 6 months ago
ViceRegent
Moron*
Posted by ViceRegent 6 months ago
ViceRegent
This more cannot even read. Wow!
Posted by CleaverBeaver 6 months ago
CleaverBeaver
This will be my final comment on this subject. You have first taken a stance which is arrogant and provocative in order to insight an uninformed reaction by an unsuspecting proponent of atheism. This is by itself no real issue except for the fact that you have created a specific debate which begs to ask how one can prove they know anything without using science or any other valuable information. This is an abuse of the debate format and is incredibly idiotic, as if I were to shift the challenge and say how does a theist know anything of truth without using any real substantial evidence you would fail to do so as well. Your terms are unacceptable and you will likely find no contender for your stupid trap.
Posted by ViceRegent 6 months ago
ViceRegent
Zzzzzzzzzzz!
Posted by ViceRegent 6 months ago
ViceRegent
Another fool can tell me what he thinks is true, but is unable to tell me how he knows it is true.
Posted by CleaverBeaver 6 months ago
CleaverBeaver
This debate makes a presumption that the all Atheists assume they are infallibly correct about the nature of truth. The most critical position of Atheism, I would argue, is not that one is an infallible defender of truth but that you should seek to use the best information available to you (e.g. science and philosophy) to examine truth without unfounded anecdotal presumption, specifically the one that a god exists. I would then argue that your debate here constitutes nothing less than a pointless strawman whom you intend to beat up to make yourself feel better.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by HomelySherlock 6 months ago
HomelySherlock
ViceRegentTheDebater9000Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Should be very self-evident.
Vote Placed by Reigon 6 months ago
Reigon
ViceRegentTheDebater9000Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is rude. "And this fool know his senses are valid how? It is like these fools did not even read the OP." "Amazingly, the moron merely begs the question and poses a non-sequitur, for how does he know these claims are true? God is right, atheists are unreasoning animals." "Well, since this fool is unable to tell me how he knows his senses are valid or that Ocums razor is right, he loses the debate. Moving on."
Vote Placed by RedAnarchist 6 months ago
RedAnarchist
ViceRegentTheDebater9000Tied
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: Pro by far was much more calm and collected, and used proper reasoning and rationale to answer the question provided. Con, on the other hand, did nothing but throw childish insults in an attempt to feel falsely superior, but failed in doing even that. Neither used proper grammar or spelling, however I believe Pro's native language is not English based on the errors made, so it's forgivable. Neither used sources, however based on my own research on the arguments Pro used, his arguments were correct and reliable. Con did not create any arguments. Still, since neither cited sources, the point goes to tied. Overall, Pro receives 4 points from me, and 2 points go into the "tied" section. Con has lost this debate in my opinion.