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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
GoOrDin 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: 1/2/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 450 times Debate No: 98625
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
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.
GoOrDin

Pro

Hello Vice, It has been a while.
I come to answer your question, as the question requires of me.

An Atheist must come to 'Rationally Know truth from Fiction' the only way knowledge can be acquired:

As information is analyzed - even subconsciously or unintentionally - it becomes a portion of your general awareness of reality.

When your mind is incapable of producing 100% certain results because there is not enough data, the ideas are not registered as Knowledge of truth nor fiction.

When the brain comes to a certain conclusion, it is capable of registering then, that No new contributing data can under any circumstance alter the result which the Brain has determined is fact. This is knowledge of truth from fiction.

When the brain is incapable of determining that there is a fact because data is missing, it cannot register the idea as knowledge.

If the brain is certain that data is missing, and the idea that there s no data missing is contributed fro external sources, the brain is aware that such a Claim is Fiction, because the data is inconclusive.

Understanding all the components to a Concept, is knowledge of the components of the Idea. The brain understands this by default.

To determine facts can be produced with lack of supporting data is false, and the brain knows this is truth.

To suggest that there is no available data because the individual making the assertion is oblivious to it, is impossible for the person making such a claim to not know is a statement of Fiction (ie. lack of faith is God, is justified because of lack of competent exploration of the idea.) because the brain cannot conclude that statement with facts.

The knowledge of truth from fiction, is determined by making conclusion. a conclusion relies entirely on having substance that irradiates the quality of theory.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

This, folks, is another example of atheist question begging. I will ask simple Qs to solve this problem?

How do you know your "conclusions" are true?

How certain can you be? And do you know that certainly 100%?

There are delusional people in the world, right? How do you know you are not one of them?

Why are the conclusions of the delusion not true, but yours (assuming you are not delusional) true?
GoOrDin

Pro

ah ha. You're examples of atheist question begging , shall as a problem be resolved, because I hold no enmity against answering your questions!:

1. I know that my conclusions are true because the evidences have substance.
If I touch a ball and the ball moves, where it had previously sat still, I can conclude that if no other forces in the word acted upon it that I caused it to move.
When the ball stops, I know that I cannot determine all the forces acting upon it to cause it to stop, but I can determine that if "stop" does not imply 100% guaranteed lack of all motion, that the ball ahs stopped, another fact.
Not knowing how far it moved, does not mean that I cannot determine that the ball did not roll further than the surface on which it is set, nor that it was stationary while moving.
I can know these things are truth, because I have **substance** to Support my knowledge as a foundation for my thoughts. Therefor I can conclude each of these assertions are true.

Likewise, if I am aware that there is no grounds to make assertions: ie. that the ball was skidding on a miniscule scale, and was not rolling with traction along the surface: then my claim is a statement of Fiction, even if the ball did skid. - BECAUSE my **Statement**, is being scrutinized based on the substance I manifested it from, ("a lack of knowledge being presented as fact.") It is Fallible claim, and therefor is not TRUTH.

#2 Yes, there are delusional people in the world. Factually, I am not certain that I am not a member of the Delusional demographic. However, I can be certain that I am not delusional in all regards, Because I do not assert that unsubstantiated claims are Facts (Truth) nor that Substantiated claims are fiction.
( 'Delusional', inaccurately is used to also accommodates the demographic which believes that Things which are not proven are Real. Because their Perspectives are not proven, does not make them Fiction, if they are not presented as Truths instead of un-disproved ideas.)
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

More question begging.

How do you know when the substantive evidence is true? How do you know that the ball moves? You are back to claiming you know truth from fiction by your senses and reason. So how do you know your senses and reason are valid?

By admitting that he has no way of knowing if he is delusional or not, he is confirming once again that atheists have no rational method to know truth from fiction.

Debate over. I win.
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
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
THIS website never gives me notices concerning when I am due and Argument.
I didn't mean to forfeit that argument. I was routinely checking in Debate.org to see if I was prompted.

However. ViceRegents Round 3 was simple and I can answer it in 3 sentences:

Use of the Senses is not in question.
I suggested that use of the senses IS the substance by which we determine facts, by asserting "Substantiated" conclusions and Rational.
Therefore, given I have addressed the topic of my potential Delusion regarding certain qualities of my psychological manifesto, I feel I am meeting the criteria of my role in this debate.

thank you. Please acknowledge this Comment.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
yeah! :) and eat some for me too.

AHAHAHHA. apple, = penis. Tree of life = mankind. center of garden = solipsism (individuality). Rotten = spilled in bottle.

YUCK. ahahahah.

TESTERSTERPNE CERSES MERNERPERS
Grade 6 sex Ed. Class
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
vice go eat more rotten apples.. thanks
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
RANT Typo: missing ( 'to.' )
"-and they would be delusion TO assert that my Conclusion, that -"
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Q 3
ViceRegent "Why are the conclusions of the delusion not true, but yours (assuming you are not delusional) true?"

Delusional people have not reach conclusions.** regarding the contend which they are delusional for. (When accurately applying the term "delusional".)
The definition of 'Conclusion' does not accommodate their 'assertion.'

My conclusions, specifically designating conclusions are factually conclusions based on having met the criteria. BUT, I am certain that these are conclusions, simply by not associating 'assertions' with 'conclusion'.

RANT
A Psychiatrist, might insinuate that, "I should try their experimental methods to reprove an issue which they have no insight into." and they would be delusional assert that my Conclusion, that there is no justification for that is Wrong. Because they have not substantiated their position. - Their opinions have no place in a professional field. Their professional "contribution (not opinion) <"as an advisor">" unsubstantiated, because they lack insight - and they have no authority to impose.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Round #2 continued..

please accommodate my required time to post. before initiating the next round.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
argument #1 continued

Because We can easily Know Truth from Fiction simply by not being arrogant, naturally I assume atheists have the capacity to technically withhold bias long enough to be honest with themselves concerning what they factually know to be Fiction and Truth.

ie. That not knowing, is not evidence something is false. (they KNOW that it is fiction to suggest, that lack of evidence indicates that a Idea is wrong.)
& also
That not knowing, is not evidence something is true. (they Know that it is truth to suggest, that theory is not fact.)
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
Ozzz169
I would advice against any interaction with this guy, he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
They take the right shoe on the rigth fod...I wonder how they do it ?
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.