The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pravdah
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 524 times Debate No: 93336
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

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.
Pravdah

Pro

How do I know truth from fiction? I cannot say this for others, nor can I speak for them, but I know truth from fiction through Binary Rationality. Binary rationality is a function of rationality whereby individual points of fact, called statements, are analysed and cross-referenced amongst each other. With this system, one can hold any number of individual statements to be true as long as they do not conflict with each other, whether or not only that person can observe it, or everyone can. Each individual statement does not need to be verified, unless there is another statement directly suggesting the original statement is wrong. Inferences based on prior evidence are also statements. When two statements collide, such as "there is an apple on that table," and "there is an orange on that table," One must consider the evidence that backs it up, such as the colour, density, shape, and position of the object on the table, or whether or not an object is there or not. Holding all of these facts into account, a result can be chosen from the above inferences.

The primary way that statements and inferences are gathered is through our senses, but by prior examination it seems that most others have yet to satisfy your problem; how does one confirm the results and reliability of the senses? There are multiple ways to go about this. The first is cross-examination. Most people detect with one sense and confirm with both all the other senses and the consensus of those around them. Additionally, since this method has worked and is backed up by millennia, if not eons of correct results based on the senses and others around it, it is, to most, the foremost way to observe the world, as it is both reliable, has multiple checks, and is backed by history and evidence to show for it. Additionally it is the ONLY way to observe. It is if one is given a hammer, that hammer and no other knowledge of any other hammer, and a nail to hammer in.

(not enough characters to post more)
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

How do you perform this "cross-examination" without your senses? If you do not, then you are using your senses to confirm your senses, which is circular reasoning. You have perpetuated the problem, not solved it.
Pravdah

Pro

Nothing in Binary Rationality HAS to be cross-examined, per se. That point is there mostly to attempt at to appease you and cover my bases. The truth behind a point is only that it holds up better than all other possible statements, by value of evidence. That evidence does not need to be verified, nor is any one piece of evidence more valid than another, except to the one making the observation. The basis of this type of reasoning is that there is a statement that is more valid than all others with the amount of information given, whatever that information is, and it is the truth. The information can come from any and all sources, of whatever credibility. It is up to the observer to sift through it and make sense of it at their own discretion. Going back to the "object on a table" example, one is given the shape, colour, size, smell, texture, etc. of the object. It is up to the observer to decide, with the information given, what the resulting statement is. The statement of "my senses are not to be trusted" is there as well, and if one takes that as more valid than all other evidence, then it is likely they will come to the conclusion of "there is nothing there." This system of logic does not require verification or cross-examination. It gathers all the proof and weighs them according to each other, not to a higher standard. There is no requirement for trusting in the senses, as it simply posits that statement A is more believable than statement B, and there is no other statement MORE believable than statement A. To be objective and rational in this is to seek out knowledge to change and refine our viewpoints, to let evidence shape dogma, not the other way around.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Pro continues to argue irrationally, for he cannot tell us how he knows these statement are true, "The truth behind a point is only that it holds up better than all other possible statements" or "there is a statement that is more valid than all others with the amount of information given"

Unfortunately, when you read between the lines, what he is actually arguing is that the line between truth and fiction does not really exist, that truth is relative to the observer. The delusional could not agree me. Of course, what he cannot explain is how h knows his relativism is absolutely true. His is not a system of logic, but irrationality.

Since pro has failed to produce a rational way to know truth from fiction because he denies it exists, he has failed the test and loses the debate.
Pravdah

Pro

I believe the question Con has set out is one that he can constantly loop back around to on a few basic points, forgetting everything else in the debate. Allow me to tackle this question bit by bit. To you, truth is objective, knowable, and must be rational. Objective truth is one based on evidence and facts. Binary Rationality requires that one look at every point of evidence to conclude, and requests that beliefs follow evidence. "Knowable" seems to be where you get your "Ah-ha!" moments from. To find a "one true truth above anything else, no questions asked" is laughable. To do this one must accomplish a philosophical (and literal) Laplace's Demon. To know every point of information at a given point in time, to know the speed, location, and direction of every particle in the world, nay, the universe, and the thoughts and actions over every being at a given time. I do not believe there is any human or computer that can process all of that information before the time changes and the calculations must be done again. But apparently, that is what Con is trying to say should exist to be called "rational". Rationality is a means to an end, a way of making decisions. The only measure of rationality should be its results, good or bad. If a desired or "good" results occur from a logical process, they are then rational. This debate is like engineers arguing with mathematicians over the value of pi. Engineers only need pi to be "close enough", while mathematicians need it to be as exact as possible. I only need a rational truth to get things done, to make proper decisions. I do not need it to encompass anything past that. Con is looking for a rational truth, not a fully encompassing one. There are many cases when an incomplete truth is needed, as our judicial system works under a "better truth" system, as does the media, and debates, and differing schools of thought. A truth based on evidence and gets things done is what I would call a rational truth.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

You continue to irrationally beg the question by making truth claims without being able to tell us how you know truth from fiction. If all you have is irrationalities, I suggest you have no way of knowing truth from fiction. You lose.
Pravdah

Pro

Truth are statements that are the most logical and backed up by the most evidence. A truth is a means to an end. All statements are. All statements are used to inform decisions. These decisions have multiple, if not countless possible results or outcomes, named actions. The most logical and coherent, and therefore truthful, statements will lead to the most logical and coherent results. I point to the fact that you ask for a logical and objective truth. You do not ask for THE truth, but A truth. You ask for a truth that is based on evidence and logical reasoning, which is intimately tied to the evidence given. I have given you a system whereby one does not have to question the validity of evidence towards a given statement, which varies depending on the situation, producing different outcomes. All truths are an equation with a limitless amount of variables and a limitless amount of possibilities for each variable. Within a set of limited, given information, some of the variables are accounted for, but not all of them. this means that the result(s) can vary, depending on the variables given and their values. If two people are given two different descriptions of the same person (such as "Austrian art school drop-out that became a talented public speaker" and "Hitler"), their "truths" about that person will be different. You question how I know that a truth is not fiction. A truth is a statement more accurate to reality than all other statements. It is an observation, not a universal standard. It changes with the information given. A truth is simply better than all others. That is how it is proven. The truth YOU seek, a universal standard, does exist. "The Truth is Out There." That is the end card to The X-Files. That truth is out there. It is an impossible standard to be striven for, not achieved. To ask of that is too much for anybody, as there are too many things to take into account at a given moment.

Also, bump the character limit up to 10000 for future debates.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jkl2953 4 months ago
jkl2953
If you only believe in God and think that God is everything, you'll never rise above God.
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
All knowledge comes from gods, so Atheist can't know anything because they don't know any gods.
I am only guessing, but did I get the question right??????????????????
Posted by Wylted 4 months ago
Wylted
Viceregent,, please message me
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
How would you know that is true....?
Posted by ViceRegent 4 months ago
ViceRegent
Still more "truth" claims from the irrationally ignorant. Oh well.
Posted by Pravdah 4 months ago
Pravdah
I could say the same to you, seeing as there has been no actual addressing any arguments throughout your debates. It seems that the assertion is equivalent to an argument in and of itself to you. I could assert that you are guilty of every crime, moral fault, and sin under the sun and it would be a damning verdict, as you cannot yourself prove that you have not committed these, under your own reasoning. Take that how you wish. I have given you an explanation as to the validity of my truth, you have yet to give any of yours. Therefore it can be assumed you do not hold such certainty, and therefore you are no better than anyone else. Unless of course, you would offer an explanation. I would be glad to put your own reasoning (whatever it may be) under the knife, so to speak. All I need is your word. Should you run however, you shall be branding yourself a coward, with no substance behind his facade of superiority. Let us see how a theist fares facing the barrel of the gun you so happily hold in your hands. After all, to shoot is to invite getting shot at. Also, I am Buddhist, not atheist. It may be exactly the same to you and whatever religion you practice, but to most others you are still wrong.
Posted by ViceRegent 4 months ago
ViceRegent
And here we have more "truth" claims from an irrational ignorant. I shall give it the response it deserves: ______________.
Posted by Pravdah 4 months ago
Pravdah
and so it is everywhere else. By the way, to act like you are is to admit that you are lower in the mud than your opponent. Just saying.
Posted by ViceRegent 4 months ago
ViceRegent
Well, at least this tool admits that in Atheistland, rationality can be dispensed with.
Posted by jkl2953 4 months ago
jkl2953
Well, why in the world do we,atheists, have to use rationality to know truth from fiction. Like I can use whatever I want to get the truth
No votes have been placed for this debate.