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

How do atheists ratonally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 12/30/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 98556
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

ViceRegent

Con

IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.

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, BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY ATHEIST CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. I have even put it in capital letters for those to dense to get it. 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.
Capitalistslave

Pro

I believe the user completely misunderstands how science works. It is through repeated testing from multiple people time and time again that we know truth from fiction. Yes, our senses are fallible, however the chances that everyone's senses are going to turn up completely wrong is irrational to believe. For example, we know gravity exists because 100% of people feel gravity pushing them against the earth. That is why when you jump, you fall down. This is not simply relying on "my" senses specifically since everyone experiences this, and thus is not in violation to con's rules. He did specifically say ",,.for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid." We know our senses are valid through repeated testing with multiple people's senses. There is no reason to believe that dozens of people's senses are failing in a specific instance, and if you believe they are, you can perform the exact same test that they performed and get the same or similar results. Science doesn't only rely on one person's senses, if it did, then that would be problematic and I can see why we would dismiss science. It relies on EVERYONE'S senses and reasoning. If someone gets a different result than everybody else, it is only rational to question the person who got a different result, because the chances are higher that one person is wrong instead of everyone else.

So, it is not circular reasoning to validate a person's senses through another person's senses. It would be circular reasoning only to validate a person's senses through their own senses, but to do so with several other people's senses, it's not circular reasoning.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

So this atheist fool validates his senses and reason with the senses and reason of other people? But how does he know what the senses and reason of other people are apart from his own senses and reason? Perhaps in the experiment which he thinks produced blue results, everyone else said it produces red results, but because his sense and reason are invalid, he perceives them as saying blue when they say red. Because he has no way to know what others sense and reason apart from his own senses and reason, he is trying to validate his senses and reason with his senses and reason, which begs the question, which is irrational, which he has no rational way to know truth from fiction. This is really simply stuff and yet no atheist can get it. I wonder why? Oh yea, they are irrational.
Capitalistslave

Pro

That's what we all have to use. Tell me something that you use to know truth from fiction that doesn't rely on your senses and reason. It doesn't seem rational to specify "atheists" in your question when no one else has anything other than their senses and reason to determine fact from fiction. If you claim you have a holy book, it requires your senses to determine what the holy book says, so by your own logic, all you have is senses and reason as well.

There's no reason to question one's own senses and reason unless there is evidence to suggest it is off. It's irrational to question one's own senses and reasoning if there is no evidence suggesting it is wrong.

Now, as for the voters, I would ask them to vote for me in the conduct category for I have maintained good conduct, while con has clearly used personal insults, which is seen here:
" So this atheist fool validates his senses and reason with the senses and reason of other people?" This is poor conduct.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Right, the atheist has no rational means to know fact from fiction. In denying God, the definer of reality, they have abandoned knowledge of truth. This is why Hod calls them fools and why no reasonable person would be an atheist. Thanks for making my point. Now, please do come back with a lot of meaningless truth claims, for you cannot assure me they are true and the musiings of the admitted irrational mean nothing to me. Instead repent of your sin and submit to King Jesus, assuming God graces you with a new life and ability that you lack now due to sin to do so.
Capitalistslave

Pro

Right, the atheist has no rational means to know fact from fiction. -ViceRegent
I never said the atheist has no rational way to tell fact from fiction.

In denying God, the definer of reality, they have abandoned knowledge of truth. -ViceRegent
According to you, use of senses and reason is irrational to conclude anything. How do you know a god exists without your senses and reason? It's only according to your senses and reason that you believe in a god, so how is that any more valid?

Now, please do come back with a lot of meaningless truth claims, for you cannot assure me they are true and the musiings of the admitted irrational mean nothing to me.
You still haven't established how it is irrational to rely on senses and reason.

By the way, I'd like to point out that irrational means "Not logical or reasonable" [1]
By definition, using reason is reasonable, which means it's not irrational.

Atheists use reason to know truth from fiction. Since reason is in opposition to irrationalility, by definition when we use reason, it is rational.

Source:
[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Ahhh, yes, you did, when you conceded that you only means was question begging empiricism.

And no, I did not say the use of senses and reason was irrational. I said your inability to rationally account for them is irrational. Just because you are irrational does not mean that I am. And I would ask you to prove I only know God via my senses and reason, but we have established that you have no rational means to know anything.

I have proven it by showing that you have nothing but irrational means to validate them.

And no, one can use reason illogically. You do reason, but reason illogically, making you irrational.

Nice try, but you failed the test.
Capitalistslave

Pro

"Ahhh, yes, you did, when you conceded that you only means was question begging empiricism."
I never said I only relied on one thing. This is a strawman fallacy. I only listed one thing, but that doesn't mean that is the only thing I rely on.

"And no, I did not say the use of senses and reason was irrational. I said your inability to rationally account for them is irrational."
Well, since you concede that the use of senses and reason is not irrational, then I can use them to determine truth from fiction. It doesn't matter that I can't defend them rationally, as you say. As long as you concede that reason and senses is rational to determine fact from fiction, then I win this debate.

"And I would ask you to prove I only know God via my senses and reason,"
You're the one who would have to prove that you have another means to know God. You didn't, so we can assume that since the only thing we have to know truth from fiction is through our senses and reason, it is therefore the case you only know god through such means as well.

"but we have established that you have no rational means to know anything."
Nope, we haven't. You conceded that senses and reason is not irrational when you said "And no, I did not say the use of senses and reason was irrational." So since I said I have senses and reason to determine what I know, it's rational.

"You do reason, but reason illogically, making you irrational."
You've not even proved how my reason is illogical, all this is, is an empty claim.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zupermushy 1 year ago
zupermushy
guys this person is retard makes tupi rules like were debating about currency but rules are u cant use the wor oney its definietley not related
Posted by Thaxorin 1 year ago
Thaxorin
I actually sort of want to argue this topic with him... maybe he will put another one up :)
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I would like to note that the debate.org terms of us says the following:

"You agree to use the Debate.org's service in accordance with the following content posted and code of conduct guidelines:
....
Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account.
No use of profanities or swear words.
No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
No threats or implications thereof.
http://www.debate.org...

Calling someone a fool is a personal attack against another member, so con has violated the terms of use they agreed to prior to joining this site. I could report them if I so desired.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
They say yes or no and never wonder who said it.
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 1 year ago
dr.jimmythefish
I've accepted this debate twice already and I've gotten no responses that make sense. He'll rage that you broke his rules by giving an answer.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Holy crap, this user is obsessed with this topic. Look at this, this is the 57th time they've done this debate: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by SirBadgerLock 1 year ago
SirBadgerLock
Also in your debate format you are just being picky, handicapping yourself and negating others abilities, if you want to have an open minded debate, your rules must be removed.
Posted by SirBadgerLock 1 year ago
SirBadgerLock
I don't think it's worth arguing with someone unreasonable, improper debate format and also formatting the ability to spell "rational" improperly.
Posted by moaad2 1 year ago
moaad2
You are in denial. If you want to appear to at least to a level of intellectual ability to present a counter argument or even argue with me.

Please return to the previous debate.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
by not believing.
No votes have been placed for this debate.