The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Winning
6 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 2 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 92965
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
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.
Benshapiro

Pro

Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by comparing a truth statement with reality. If the statement corresponds with reality, it's true. If it doesn't, it's not true.

The laws of logic govern reality independent of the reliability of the human senses. Even assuming (for the sake of argument) that our senses weren't reliable, the earth couldn't simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time.

Over to pro.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

No question begging. How do you know a truth claim corresponds to reality?
Benshapiro

Pro

The statement "the world cannot simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time" is a statement that corresponds with reality and doesn't depend on the reliability of my senses in order to be true. I know this truth claim corresponds with reality because the laws of logic are such that it couldn't not be true.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Assuming the world is logical. How do you know this assumption is true? As I said, no question begging.

I ask again, how do you know your truth statements correspond to reality?
Benshapiro

Pro

The same way anyone would know anything. A statement is true if it corresponds with reality. We can affirm that the statement corresponds with reality rationally or empirically. The statement "the world cannot simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time" is affirmed both rationally and empirically.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

As I said, you are assuming the truth of logic when the issue is how you know it is true. And how do you know your senses as used in empiricism provide you accurate info about reality and that your analysis of that info is true?
Benshapiro

Pro

Knowledge is defined as "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." We know a statement is true if it corresponds with reality either empirically or rationally. The laws of logic govern empiricism and rationalism. I don't need to know that my senses are reliable in order to prove that atheists know truth from fiction because they can do so rationally. I bring back my example of "the earth cannot simultaneously exist and not exist at the same " is true regardless of whether or not our senses is reliable.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

You are making truth claims to defend your truth claims which is circular reasoning and irrational. I asked how you rationally know truth from fiction. Answering that Q irrationally is a non-answer. I do not accept the claims of an irrational man as to rationality.

To know something empirically presupposes the validly of your reason. I reject your supposition sand ask one last time how you rationally know your senses are valid?
Benshapiro

Pro

Again, we rationally know truth from fiction by taking a statement and comparing it with reality. if it corresponds with reality, it's true. if it doesn't, it isn't.

My opponent gave no reasons to believe that our senses are unreliable and gave no reason to believe that atheism somehow affects the reliability of our senses.

My opponent had no positive case. Just all questions. They were all answered.

Vote for me!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 5 months ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
Con opened up strongly how science is based on previous knowledge and how sense reason can not be based on themself. Pro rebuttaled by saying you can compared a situation to the truth to determine whether or not it is logical. Pro then mentioned the laws of logic could contradict itself by saying the earth exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Con pointed out that pro was just a summing the truth. Pro then pulled out of the definition which helped him with the fact the knowledge is a fact. Con did not defend the statement that atheists don't know truth from fiction. I agreed with them both, except conduct. Con just asked interesting questions, whereas Pro provided information about rational information including a definition.
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
void of answers within a question unable to question the question
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
void of answers
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
for science relies on your sense and reason.. yeah thats not gonna work in any way at all ...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ForGrowthOfMind 5 months ago
ForGrowthOfMind
ViceRegentBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con made no arguments on why using senses, and logic was not a practical means of determining truth. Pro made arguments on why these methods were applicable to determine a truth claim.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 5 months ago
Codedlogic
ViceRegentBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro argued that truth is known by comparing claims to reality. Con claimed this was "question begging". Question begging is when you assume the conclusion. Comparing claims to reality does not assume that those claims MATCH reality. This is not question begging on Pros part.