The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
The Contender
woohooman
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ViceRegent has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 93846
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
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.
woohooman

Pro

The issue seems to be a debate with epistemology.

Since Plato's time, the synthesis between observation and logic has been the grounds on how knowledge is acquired.

I'd wager most people operate under the assumption that reality exists outside of our perception. Our individual senses may be faulty but observation can be denied through logic. "I thought I say a flying tiger but that's not logical as tigers don't fly, therefore my vision is wrong."

I think while you are right in the atheists tendency to rely on observable evidence but you've ignored their capacity to reason.

Atheists are also capable of having their claims or assumptions confirmed/deny by outside agents such as other people.
Person A: Does this shirt look black to you?
Person B: No, it's green.
Person C: It's green.
Person A: I guess my vision is wrong. This shirt is probably green.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

So, like the OP said, you base you claim to know something on your senses and reason, begging the question as to how you know your senses and reason are valid. I will give you one chance to answer how you know your senses and reason are valid. If you cannot tell me without begging the question, you lose the debate.
woohooman

Pro

1) The entire field of epistemology is dedicated to determine how we can claim our sense or logic can be valid.

2) If an observation and reasoning can be confirmed or denied by others. Hence why academic journals need to be peer reviewed.
In the example I gave, it is more likely that Person A's vision was wrong than for Persons B and C's vision to be wrong in the exact same way to see the shirt as the same color.

3) There is also the causal argument: to make an observation, there must be something to observe. This something must have a cause outside of the individual. Even a hallucination, while not real, must be brought about by something in the outside world effecting the individual's perception.

4) It seems intellectually lazy to dismiss our senses on the grounds that they could be wrong. There is no intellectual value to that position. It's basically solipsism. If that fallacy is accepted as fact, there is no use in education or learning as everything that we can possibly know can only be acquired through our senses and our logic. Perhaps you can't be certain that your sense and logic are trustworthy but you really have no other option.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CaptainScarlet 4 months ago
CaptainScarlet
Priceless VR, absolutely priceless: "Again, why is it that the LONC cannot be violated?".

Anymore philosophical gems for us?
Posted by woohooman 4 months ago
woohooman
Hey, now, Surgeon, don't blame Christianity for ruining ViceRegent's reasoning skills. He did that himself.
Posted by Surgeon 4 months ago
Surgeon
Well I think we can now safely ignore ViceRegent. He is defeated (again).

By his own hand he has documented his own irrationality. A point which the reader might note goes unrefuted by him (just ignored because of his obvious embarrassment). I guess there is no point waiting for any coherent answer either, to any of the 3 questions already posed because:
1) he cannot give an answer, he has none to give. He is frightetned that an attempt he makes will expose his arguments further (self preservation now appears to be his strategy)
2) it is also likely to be irrational.

Dear me, I never knew it was possible for an individual to be as completely owned as this (and he did it all to himself). I am sorry for him that Christianity has so destroyed his conscious reasoning he cannot accept something as fundamental as the LONC.

Any future corresponance from ViceRegent will be met with. "How do we know your comments are rational?" until he provides his epistemic basis for the absolute truth of logic.
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
Yep and so are theist. So I have made a living out of charging theist... .How does a theist know the right shoe size ? they dont. So I charge them 5 $....( could have charged them 100 $..How would they know the difference?)
Posted by ViceRegent 4 months ago
ViceRegent
Atheists are so cute in their delusion inspired arrogance, but still no deduction. Did I not say this loser is a waste of time?
Posted by Surgeon 4 months ago
Surgeon
And let us Notice 3 things about ViceRegent:

1) He has not respoded to my questions, still waiting...
2) He does not deny his irrationality by asking "Again, why is it that the LONC cannot be violated?
3) He continuallyerects his own strawman and misrepresents my position, because he does not have the tools to cope with it.

There is no inconsistency here on my part. But let me be clear for you (again). The LONC "IS" absolutely true, because of the axioms. And one can help illustrate this with a simple thought experiment in that violating it would lead to the the impossibility of the LONC itself being a contradiction. Is that finally clear? It was my hope that by enriching his epistemology with this simple train of thought, it might help him as he cannot grasp the axioms. Alas I fear this is a vain endeavour...

Still waiting for his answers to my simple questions. Why is it that he cannot give an answer?
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
I have made a living out of charging theist... .How does a theist know the right shoe size ? they dont. So I charge them 5 $....
Posted by ViceRegent 4 months ago
ViceRegent
Notice how this fool changes his story when he is confronted with his own irrationality. Here is what he said at first:

The LONC cannot be violated. Violating it would mean that contradictions are possible, including the LONC itself. It is not possible for the LONC to be both true and untrue at the same time in the same way.

Notice that he says quietly clearly here than the LONC cannot be violated because of the LONC.

But seeing as such a statement is patently irrational, he changes his story to:

As I have repeatedly said, the LONC "IS" absolutely true as a corollary of the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity.

He said this same nonsense about multiple things and yet he cannot demonstrate this with a simply deductive argument and so he dodges the Q.

He is an intellectual waste of time.

Move on to more rational game.
Posted by Surgeon 4 months ago
Surgeon
Wow, just wow! It would be amusing, if it wasn't so sad. ViceRegent has put in writing a sentence: "Again, why is it that the LONC cannot be violated?" A sentence in and of itself, which assumes the LONC cannot be violated. This is a whole new level of theistic incoherency.

As for his ridiculous strawman of my argument. No, I do not "assume" the LONC is absolutely true. As I have repeatedly said, the LONC "IS" absolutely true as a corollary of the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity. What is so hard for him to understand? He may not like the axioms, but he hasn't presented a single reason why he feels they are unsafe. And, unfortunately for him it is beyond his grasp to present such an argument.

However, we should stay focussed here and not get distracted, he still haven't answered my questions:

1. Can ViceRegent invalidate the senses (when acording to his epistemology the only means of doing so is to use your senses)?
2. How does ViceRegent know his senses are valid (as a believer in magic)?...

...and now for a new question given his stellar incoherency

3. Can ViceRegent invalidate the LONC (when any such argument would rely on the validity of the LONC)?

Still waiting...
Posted by woohooman 4 months ago
woohooman
Generally, saying "please stop talking" is the best way to go about a debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.