The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Usertitle
Pro (for)
Winning
5 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...
Usertitle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 264 times Debate No: 93125
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
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.
Usertitle

Pro

Truth is the natural state of life, the golden egg in the minefield, the toy in the Happy Meal. Therefore, truth can be distinguished from fiction due to the fact that it reflects light and has a pH of 8.7. Fiction, on the other hand, deceives like a mirage in the desert. It twists, corrupts, and therefore is less reflective of our true nature. It is thus different in that it furthers different ends and therefore is acidic to society.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Thank you for that non-sequitur. Can you now give me a rational way you know truth from fiction? Start with how you know your first sentence is true?
Usertitle

Pro

"Truth is the natural state of life, the golden egg in the minefield, the toy in the Happy Meal."

Simply put, things are true in their natural state.
A dog in its natural state has four legs - Truth
A cat in its natural state has claws - true
In my natural state, I will win this debate - true

Therefore truth=natural state = basic

And basic thus corresponds with the pH I gave it

Fiction, on the other hand, is a hole in the wing of the butterfly - acidic to the system as a mosquito is to a llama.

Truth = Light = Transparency

Fiction = Falsehood = Suspicion

The future is a cloudy window - its contents can only be guessed at by naive men. The wise will not try to gleam contents from molehills in the desert.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Unfortunately, I ask for how this dude knows what he claims is true and he gives me question begging examples. I will give him one more chance to tell me how he knows truth from fiction rationally before I conclude he has lost the debate.
Usertitle

Pro

Very simply, I know that truth is basic, natural facts while fiction is acidicity.

The past = contrast from today.

Contrast = difference = alienation = destruction

Without the uniformity of truth, fiction destroys us.

Vote Pro, as Con has yet to provide any sources for his argument.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Wow! I have this dude three times to answer my Qs and three times he failed. He could not even find a way to be coherent. He loses and I am moving on.
Usertitle

Pro

Usertitle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Usertitle

Pro

My mistake, I was caught up is family obligations.

Your argument boils down to "he's incoherent".

Incoherency = clouded = destruction

The issue is that your position argues destruction, we cannot rely on it.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by canis 5 months ago
canis
They do know. Who does not know when to pee...?..
Posted by domfincrag 5 months ago
domfincrag
They don't know. They are making an assumption. If you think about it they are not that different than religious people being that they have a belief but can't give any proof.
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
ViceRegent
Fortunately for me, what you want and what you experience does not impact reality in the slightest.
Posted by KeyserSoze115 5 months ago
KeyserSoze115
I would like to hear the reverse of that question. How would a theist rationally know truth from fiction? In my experience theists don't have the best track record with rationality. What are you going to say? Because reveals the truth to you? That's delusional. If you really believe that you need to see a doctor. Next God is going to be telling you to kill the blasphemers.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ForGrowthOfMind 5 months ago
ForGrowthOfMind
ViceRegentUsertitleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who made an actual argument. Con did not justify why Pros answers were not adequate they simply said they weren't which isn't a very good rebuttal.