The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
starhammer
Pro (for)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
starhammer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,030 times Debate No: 99149
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

ViceRegent

Con

THIS DEBATE IS ONLY FOR AN ATHEIST.

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.
starhammer

Pro

Athiests know if something is reasonable and valid by testing it. Again and again and again. You see, determining whether or not something I valid requires proven evidence, and the only way to get that is through science. Now, you worded the rules so I can't answer science, that means that there isn't an answer anyone can give you.

Evidence is valid by being ovservanle, testable, and provable. Reason and logic is merely asking whether something complies with known laws of the universe.

If something is irrational or disproven, it must be considered fiction. If it is both rational and proven, it must be considered true.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Apparently, though I write in standard English, these fools cannot understand that to say "science" is merely to say one is using their senses and reason to determine truth from fiction. But doing so begs the question, a logically fallacy for the ignorant among us, of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Because this fool did not even understand my objection, he had no hope of answering it. I will give him one more chance: How do you know your senses and reason are valid?

And please do not say you test them over and over, for that too begs the question, for how do you know that you are testing them and that the results are the same but by your senses and reason? And validating your senses and reason with your senses and reason is vicious circular reasoning, making you irrational. Good luck.
starhammer

Pro

There is no other answer. You're asking someone to prove something without using science, when you can't prove anything without science. You can't simply know if something is valid, it must be proven or disproven. Could our science be wrong? Of course. But it must be proven to be invalid. You've asked a reasonable wuestion, then you wrote rules that makes it impossible to answer.

So, no one will ever answer your question because you've made impossible for anyone but you to be right.

Are we certain science is right? No.
Are we certian religion is right? No.
Can we be certain of either of those without proof? No.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Notice the irrationality spewing all over the screen from this dude. He assures me that there is no other answer because you cannot prove anything with science, but in making this claim he is contradicting himself, for this claim about the answer and inability to prove anything apart from science are not scientific claims. By making these claims, he has irrationally refuted his own epistemology. But, of course, he is right, that his worldview provides him no other answer than the irrationality he has given us. This is why no rational person is an atheist.
starhammer

Pro

Well, my claim does in fact stem from the scientific method.

I love how you say atheism is irrational when theism is the belief some entity created the universe without any evidence, when there is tons of evidence against it.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Dude, the fact that you are unable to comprehend the evidence does not mean it does not exist. But the scientific method relies on your senses and reason. How do you know your are valid? Please do not beg the question by saying your senses and reason told you your senses and reason are valid. That is irrational and I am seeking a rational answer.
starhammer

Pro

I'm trying to give a rational answer to an question with irrational rules.

Your question is impossible to answer because it is impossible to know if senses are valid or not. The world could be a giant simulation controlled by AI, we have no way of knowing.

The senses are how we obtain and verify/disprove evidence. Then it is repeated multiple times by varying groups in various circumstances to ensure that the theory is constant.

We cannot prove anything without senses, so proving whether or not senses are valid is impossible because it would require using senses.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LearnerLogic 1 year ago
LearnerLogic
ViceRegent, the ad hominem is strong with this one. Too bad you made immense logical fallacies.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe..It feels good... Truth or fiction..
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
TheGodson, do you believe that their are people who are deluded, being mentally ill and unable to tell reality from delusion? How do you know you are not one of them?
Posted by TheGodson 1 year ago
TheGodson
You cannot prove that your senses are reality if you don't give grounding for it. You could be a schizophrenic and be imagining things. However, it can go the other way too. I am God ViceRegent. Can you prove that I am not? No you can't, because you have to use your senses to read the words on my screen which may not be reality.

When we assume realities we accept truths. For instance, I trust what I see. This pencil is red because my eyes see it that way. Perhaps my eyes are deceiving me. I trust that they aren't though. I guess you could say that I have faith in my eyes. You can accept God as truth, but how do you know your senses of him are reality.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe..It feels good... Truth or fiction..
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
And we have reduced these atheist fools to whining morons who cannot answer the simplest Qs about their claims. I win..
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Left foot in left shoe..It feels good... Truth or fiction..
Posted by devcoch 1 year ago
devcoch
You assume I'm atheist and are a pompous condescending fool. You comment lacks intelligence and knowledge of the scientific process of reviewing data (collected information - not sure how you don't know what data is) and where information is reviewed and shown to be true. Haha. You're obnoxious, Have a great one.
Posted by starhammer 1 year ago
starhammer
I could not because it can't be done, and you wrote rhe rules that made it so. You would not be happy even if someone gave you an answer because it wouldn't comply with your worldview.

You parade around "athiesm is irrational" without offering a shred of evidence other than asking an irrational question that I couldn't answer.

Beliving something with no evidence to support it is irrational.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
No, I asked you to prove your senses and reason are valid. You could not and admitted that you have no idea if anything you think is true is actually true. This is what atheism does to the mind: makes it irrational.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
ViceRegentstarhammerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The stream of insults from con distracted too much from the debate. He accused pro of being a group of people who cannot read English, etc. Arguments were easy, pro showed a rational way a person (any person really) can know truth from fiction, which in this case was repeated experiments relying on our senses. The question was answered, this pro wins.