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

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ViceRegent has forfeited round #4.
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: 12/5/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 549 times Debate No: 97664
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

ViceRegent

Con

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, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. 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.
boozeandbabble

Pro

"You may use a thousand words for a single lie, but the truth has no twin."---Michael Bassey Johnson. What rationale could discern that the truth has no twin? I look forward to debating this with you.
You said, "give me a rational way to know truth from fiction". You also said, "if you use sense and reason, you lose the debate." The Concise Oxford American Dictionary defines "rational" in the following manner: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically.
I assume your quip was inadvertent.
Anyway, thanks for a thought provoking shindig. :)
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Dude, answer the Q from the OP. Man, these atheist fools are dense.
boozeandbabble

Pro

Reality is as hard as nails.----C.S. Lewis
It doesn't give two pence about our ideologies, sentiments, interpretations, and religious notions. Our propaganda means nothing to reality.
From the wittiest philosopher to the tiniest gnat, everything has been subjugated by it.
Every organism experiences reality from a different vantage point. Does truth prefer one vantage point over another? Is truth divided? No, truth is in subjection to reality.
The mechanics of reality functions as a whole, therefore truth is dependent on reality, but reality is dependent on itself.
What rationale can discern "truth from fiction"? Our perception wars have no place here.
We collectively have the mechanics of reality. A gnat can't be a philosopher. A philosopher can't be a gnat. The mechanics of reality won't allow this.
A being capable of reasoning can apply a claim to the mechanics of reality and discern truth from fiction. A being incapable or unwilling to apply a claim to the mechanics of reality may accept fiction as truth. But reality doesn't care. It's as hard as nails.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Another atheist loser cannot answer a simple Q. This fool loses the debate and immediately stops wasting my time.
boozeandbabble

Pro

It seems Ad hominem is your agenda. I clearly answered your question.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Philosophy101 2 years ago
Philosophy101
I know, normally I would keep my mouth shut--but this is the third time it's been debated with the same outcome.
Posted by boozeandbabble 2 years ago
boozeandbabble
Tisk tisk
Posted by Philosophy101 2 years ago
Philosophy101
Complete troll debate; I would debate you Fred, choose the topic and I will debate.
Posted by fred70 2 years ago
fred70
Imjustsomeopinion, I would beat the brakes off him with my superior intellect. My polemics would overwhelm him. He would know in his innermost being that my world view is true and his is rubbish.
Posted by imjustsomeopinion 2 years ago
imjustsomeopinion
@fred70 how would you do that?
Posted by imjustsomeopinion 2 years ago
imjustsomeopinion
@boozeandbabble i already asked him that in my debate with him. He won't answer questions because he's a childish hypocrite. It is best to just ignore him and his opinions because he can't back them up and won't respond to cross examination. If i'm able to vote when this debate ends i'll vote for you.
Posted by boozeandbabble 2 years ago
boozeandbabble
ViceRegent, what's your religious persuasion? I'm curious. Your ad hominem leads me to believe you're christian, but your "guardian of truth" bit sounds muslim.
Posted by fred70 2 years ago
fred70
Wow pro, you already squashed con. Pathetic. If you want a real debate challenge me. I will destroy your atheism!
This debate has 0 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.