The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
The Contender
Taking-Wing
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Taking-Wing 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: 1/16/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 99009
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
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.
Taking-Wing

Pro

Hello everyone,

It is a pleasure to be debating here today. I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate, it opens up important discussions that are extremely relevant to society today.

Contentions I: Scientific study is the only way to truly know something

"Science" is used as a definition for every pursuit of knowledge that requires dedication and commitment. From dentistry and meterology to biology and astrophysics, "science" is defined in society today as the study of the universe.

The etymology of the word science proves this. The latin "scientia" means "body of knowledge".

Now my opponent tried to limit the debate by stating that "science" relies on your senses and reason. He has clearly never worked in any scientific academic field, as then he would know that that is not the case. Let's take a look.

Science is not the act of making things up based on what you see, but it is instead the discovery of the laws and processes of the universe based on deduction, induction, and "educated guesses" or hypotheses.

My opponent assumes I am "begging the question" when it comes to science. Let's see if this is true.

If you see an apple fall to the ground, you can hypothesize that something made it fall. If you research the effect of this "something" on other objects, with careful observation, you may discover a law of process that makes things fall. However, other scientists will repeat your experiment and will test its validity against other laws and processes.

Questions for my Opponent:.

1. My opponent claims that all science is irrational. This includes the sciences of logic and philosophy. How then, do you propose to legitimize your arguments? Thus, if my opponent uses any logical or philosophical principles in his debate, he is automatically admitting that his core arguments are invalid.

[1] http://www.dictionary.com...
[2] http://www.dictionary.com...;
[3] http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Did this moron just deny science is based on the senses and reason and then give an example of science that says "if you SEE an apple fall to the ground"? This fool does not even know what science is and yet he wants to defend it.

Fool, how do you know your saw an apple fall to the ground? Perhaps you are mentally ill and think an apple fell to the ground because you are delusional. And do not say because you sensed what others did, for that begs the question by using your senses to confirm your senses.

Atheists are morons.
Taking-Wing

Pro

In this response, I will be going over my opponent's arguments.

My opponent begins by stating that I contradicted myself by stating that science does not rely only on one's reason and senses, and then giving an example of using reason and senses.

My opponent has read my arguments wrong. I am referring to YOUR reason and senses, emphasis on the singular. A single person's reason and senses cannot adequately prove a conclusion. However, repeated testing and analyzation by MULTIPLE people can.

My opponent then goes one to say "how do you know you saw an apple fall to the ground". Once again, I, in the singular, may be mentally ill. However, when multiple people over multiple scientific opinions can successfully reproduce the same or a similar result, in this case, objects consistently falling to the ground, my proposed mental illness is out of the question.

Thus, I am not proving my senses by using my senses. The senses and reason of others along with previously proved scientific laws and processes act as the stable, objective ground off which I may base my scientific reason.

Thus, my opponent has done nothing to disprove my statements.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

My gosh, this dude is moronic.

How do you know what others are saying apart from your senses and reason? Perhaps you say you say an apple fall and they are saying that they say a rocket go up, but because you are mentally ill, you think they say they all saw an apple fall?

Sorry, dude, you ARE using your sense and reason to confirm your senses and reason, which is irrational circular reasoning. You know nothing.
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
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe..It feels good... Truth or fiction..
Posted by frostyclaw 1 year ago
frostyclaw
I have suddenly been enlightened.
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 ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
God is right, atheists are fools.
Posted by frostyclaw 1 year ago
frostyclaw
I still do, ROFL.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Is it true you did not expect much? ROFL.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe..It feels good... Truth or fiction..
Posted by frostyclaw 1 year ago
frostyclaw
Yeah. I don't expect much through.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Did this fool just ask me to tell him what truth is? Given his ignorance of it, how will he evaluate my answer? I am telling you, atheists are dumb as a box of rocks.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe..It feels good... Truth or fiction..
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.