The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
djlad
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 1 vote the winner is...
djlad
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 453 times Debate No: 98994
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

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.
djlad

Pro

Thank you for your provocative question!

definitions (These are somewhat narrow, but I think you would agree with them):
truth: An absolute fact about reality.
to know: To have an indisputable reason for believing in a truth.

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

claim 1: The only truths we can determine is how we feel.
explanation: Our senses might be faulty. Therefore, if I see a rock, I can't know that there is a rock in front of me. I can only say that I see a rock in front of me. Any other claim that is absolute and does not accept alternate possibilities is based on the senses can be called into question.

claim 2: We know how we feel by experiencing sensory input.
explanation: This is not provable to anyone else. It is only provable by yourself to yourself. This proof is done by experiencing your sensory input.

I'm expecting you to give an alternate way of distinguishing fact from fiction, and I'm looking forward to what you say.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

How do you know the senses you use to determine your feelings are true? And which of your feelings told you this?
djlad

Pro

"How do you know the senses you use to determine your feelings are true?"
I make no distinction between feelings and senses. Sorry for the ambiguity.

Senses and feelings can't be untrue. You know how you feel, because you feel it. Even if your senses are not reflecting reality, you would still know how you feel. For example, I might take drugs, hallucinate and see aliens. Regardless of what I see, I know that I see aliens. The aliens may not exist, but my experience of the aliens is real.

We should realize that none of these feelings necessarily reflect reality.

"which of your feelings told you this?"
All of my senses and feelings tell me what I feel and sense. My sight shows me the words on this page.

I know that I see the words. Any interpretation of this sensation is possibly fallible, but the fact that I do sense is a truth, because I sense them. I cannot prove to you that I sense them, but I can prove to myself without any chance of error that I do sense. The fact that I sense necessitates this fact. If I didn't sense, I would not be able to make this claim.

Of course, I do make interpretations of the senses. I assume that the words I type will have meaning to you and that you will understand/respond to them. This is most likely true, but it is not definitely true.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

I am sorry, I must be missing something. How do your feelings about 2+2=4 establish the truth that 2+2=4 is true? Do you know what a non-sequitur is?
djlad

Pro

Hmm. I didn't say that I was certain 2 + 2 = 4.

The laws of logic are just guesses of how reality works based on observation. If you could prove that the laws of logic without making assumptions, I would be intensely interested.

Of course we can be fairly confident that 2+2=4 by observation, but you don't seem to be interested in the scientific method. I'm still curious what your alternative would be.

If you feel God told you what is real, how would you know this feeling wasn't tampered with by outside forces?
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

In other words, this dude has no way of knowing anything. Moving on.
djlad

Pro

That isn't what I said.

I said I know what I feel because I feel it. Regardless of whether or not those senses reflect reality.

As you have no out offered an alternative to observation, i will have to assume that you cannot know anything either.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Desert 1 year ago
Desert
@FollowerofChrist1955

Only someone who would want to be trolled.
Posted by djlad 1 year ago
djlad
I'm still curious what method a non atheist would use to "know" the truth.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Better review this debate;
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Hell, Who will go there, and Why?
Posted by Desert 1 year ago
Desert
"In other words, this dude has no way of knowing anything. Moving on."

You wasted my time reading all that.

Another useless debate. Please, delete your account.
Posted by djlad 1 year ago
djlad
Lol
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Unbelievably, this dude denies knowledge has anything to do with reality. God is right. Atheists are unreasoning animals.
Posted by djlad 1 year ago
djlad
How would you distinguish feelings and senses? I do not distinguish these two.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe..It feels good... Truth or fiction..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
tommylibertarian1
ViceRegentdjladTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not make any arguments that were valid in form and sound. Pro at least made a formal argument that was seemingly valid but not particularly sound. Personally I don't agree with Con's position but might have been convinced a little in Con's direction had he put up a formal argument.