The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

How do atheists rationally 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 2 votes the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 98959
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

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.
Stupidape

Pro

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

I rationally detect truth from fiction with a combination of my five sense, intuition, my feelings, and my reason. I often rely upon repetition to make sure I have come to the correct conclusion. For example, let's say first time I look at something, it reassembles a ghost. I come to the conclusion that is probably not a ghost, but I should come up with a better solution.

I then, ask the person next to me "hey, do you see that, looks weird?" The person responds "yes, what is that?" Then, I see as the form comes closer it has a white hooded sweat shirt. Next, I perceive that the unknown figure is avoiding rough terrain, then runs on smooth terrain.

I come to the conclusion that what reassembled a ghost, was in fact a neighbor hood teenager cutting through the backyards. I validate that by the fact that nobody can conjure up spirits under scientific conditions. Also, the fact that a ghost probably wouldn't be hindered by rough terrain.

I further guessed that the person was male, since teenage females are rarely seen cutting through underbrush.

I used my five senses to first identify the presence, my intuition to know that something was out of place, the person was trespassing, my feelings to become afraid, the person was acting erratic and to hold still so I wouldn't be seen and could observe further. Finally, I use my logic to rationalize that the being was a male teenager trespassing through underbrush.

I cross verified my information with the person next to me, and used my knowledge that nobody has claimed the million dollar prize to produce a supernatural being. Also, my knowledge of the area, that males tend to cut through the backyards, but I've never seen a female above age 12 or so.

Perhaps the most important part is repeatability. If you see a "ghost" one time in your life this was probably a hallucination. If you see a dog over and over, it is likely true.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

To this atheist's credit, he did answer the Q, though he clearly did not read the OP well enough. Ok, how do you know your senses, your intuition, your feelings (Really?!?!?!) and your reason are valid? There are many people who are mentally ill suffering delusions. While they are convinced that what the sense, intuit, feel and reason (especially because they sense it repeatedly) is truth, they are wrong. How do you know you are not one of them?
Stupidape

Pro

"There are many people who are mentally ill suffering delusions. While they are convinced that what the sense, intuit, feel and reason (especially because they sense it repeatedly) is truth, they are wrong. How do you know you are not one of them?" ViceRegent

You can read about mental illness in books, in classrooms, and on people's blogs on the Internet. Some are quite open about their illness. You can then see if these symptoms apply to you. Furthermore, you can see a psychiatrist who can give a professional opinion.

My barber played World of Warcraft for over 24 hours and started hallucinating slightly. His friends were too, the barber told me it was no big deal. If the instigator really wants to know, I recommend not sleeping until he/she starts to hallucinate, that way ViceRegent will know the difference between insanity and sanity.

As for feelings, this is input to your state of mind, which helps you recognize your mental state. That's why it is rational to take your feelings into account when determining truth from fiction. Recognizing your feelings also helps eliminate bias.

A common illness along soldiers is "Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)" [0]

"But at the age of 24, Cahalan suddenly and frighteningly began losing her mind. She became disoriented and paranoid and suffered hallucinations and seizures" [1]

Not everyone who suffers from mental illness is oblivious to the fact that they are insane. Many have enough self awareness to realize they are insane. Only a small subset of mentally ill people cannot recognize their own insanity and mistake fiction for reality.

Source
0. http://www.webmd.com...
1. http://www.theglobeandmail.com...


Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

It is amazing that you ask these fools a very simple Q and they see it as an excuse to vomit what they think they know about the topic no matter how irrelevant.

As this dude failed to answer my Qs, he loses the debate. Next?
Stupidape

Pro

"It is amazing that you ask these fools a very simple Q and they see it as an excuse to vomit what they think they know about the topic no matter how irrelevant.

As this dude failed to answer my Qs, he loses the debate. Next?"ViceRegent


You insult me and you fail to identify how I have failed to answer your questions. What question did I fail to answer exactly and how? How is my arguments irrelevant? You have not met your share of the burden of proof.

If everyone was so mentally ill or handicapped that they couldn't know truth from fiction, society couldn't function. Imagine if everyone was just dancing away to imaginary music. Talking to invisible people and bumping into walls. Society couldn't function, humans would starve to death.

Domesticated dogs would turn feral and pack up. Weeds and weather would erode our infrastructure. Large cats would begin to hunt down and eat the insane humans.

Darwinism would be in full swing, if humans were so mentally handicapped humans would be selected out. To the best of my knowledge I appear to be just as sane as the people around me.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

RiceFarmer, but I did not ask if he can differentiate. I ask how he knows his senses are valid. Big difference. Nice straw man.
Stupidape

Pro

My opponent has failed to met his/her burden of proof by showing flaw in my argument. I will continue to argue my points. Mental illness is a handicap. There may be some rare scenarios where having a particular type of illness is advantageous, yet on the whole people would rather be mentally healthy than ill.

If everyone was so mentally handicapped that they couldn't tell basic truth from basic fiction, the human populace could not function. Now nobody, atheist nor theist can known for 100% certain that our senses are correct. We could all be living in a computer simulation like the Matrix or Sims. In fact, I've seen several theists make these analogies. Comparing God to the player sitting at the keyboard in the Sims and humans as the characters in the Sims.

What we can do is take an educated guess based upon the available evidence. "Ultimately, there's no way for us to know right now if our universe is a simulation or not. But it sure makes you think, doesn't it?" [2]

The problem is there is no evidence for the universe being a giant simulation. Thus, just as we assume unicorns don't exists, we assume we don't live in a computer simulation. Furthermore, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Computer programmers would likely cut costs in some regard, bugs, exploits, reboots, memory leaks, hackers, etc. If we did live in a computer simulation we would likely notice some of this evidence. The fact that we have not found a bug where somebody is immortal and no matter how many times the person should die, they escape unscathed is evidence of absence.

Furthermore, we can use our feelings and intuition to guess that we don't. Surely, great leaders would have guessed a computer simulation before the computer was invented. Thanks for debating.

Source.
2. http://computer.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
You should attend this debate:
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Thanks for the vote Capitalistslave. I still can't vote having technical issues.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
RFD:
1) Conduct goes to pro because they never insulted con, whereas con insulted pro. You can see that in round 3 where they said: "It is amazing that you ask these fools a very simple Q and they see it as an excuse to vomit what they think they know about the topic no matter how irrelevant."
2) Spelling and Grammar goes to pro, as there was nothing that was difficult to understand due to spelling and grammar, however one of con's points was difficult to understand due to their poor grammar/spelling, that point was this one: "While they are convinced that what the sense, intuit, feel and reason (especially because they sense it repeatedly) is truth, they are wrong."
3) Arguments goes to pro because they answered the question, argued that atheists know truth from fiction from their five senses, intuition, feelings, and reason, which makes sense since this is what everyone gets their knowledge from. Con asked how you know these are valid, and brought up how some people suffer delusions, but pro countered this with how you can read about mental illnesses and see for yourself if you meet the conditions for them. Con then dismisses these without explaining why this can be dismissed, which is a weak argument.
4) Sources goes to pro as they used sources such as WebMD, which is generally a reliable source when it comes to medical conditions, for it relies on doctor's and scientists own knowledge on topics. The other source they used was a personal story of someone who suffered from hallucinations, and it seems reliable based on that there doesn't seem reason to question it. Con didn't offer any sources, so there is nothing to compare pro's sources with.
Posted by RicePharmer 1 year ago
RicePharmer
I'm not an atheist and I agree with your point, Con, that many atheists seem to rule out the supernatural through natural conclusions. But I just wanted to make a point: Your question was HOW an atheist differentiates between truth and fiction. He answered the question. Going further to ask how he knows his senses aren't fictitious is irrelevant as long as he can differentiate between sensation and a lack of sensation.

Example: You ask a guy how he knows whether a cup contains coffee instead of water. He says "Well, it's brown, so it's probably not water". You fire back saying "Well, it could be hot chocolate!". Just because he can't tell the difference between coffee and hot chocolate doesn't mean that he can't differentiate either from water.

This is not a good argument. It's extraordinarily weak, and you'll lose the debate if you keep deflecting.
Posted by Debatortron 1 year ago
Debatortron
Man some of people's responses are pretty hilarious. I don't even care about him anymore I'm just reading the responses and this one was pretty funny.
Posted by HAwoman 1 year ago
HAwoman
He reposts because he loses every time he posts the debate. It's a stupid question, so he'll get stupid answers.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Ok, why do you keep posting this? You get plenty of answers, in fact, you've done this debate probably over 150 times. If you believe none of those are sufficient answers, then you should stop because you should realize by now(in your own convoluted way of thinking) that no one has an answer to this.
Posted by HAwoman 1 year ago
HAwoman
How about you look at my response on the other debate?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
ViceRegentStupidapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro as con repeatedly used personal attacks and talked about pro "vomiting out words". Sources to pro as he used a reliable source web md and an anecdote while con used no sources or arguments.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
ViceRegentStupidapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments