Can any atheist answer the following most basis Q is all of philosophy? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Can any atheist answer the following most basis Q is all of philosophy?
in Philosophy

By TheocratTheocrat 67 Pts
By what rational method does an atheist know truth from error, fact from fiction, reality from delusion?




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • This is ViceRegent's famous question, and the same could be asked of theists. (This question is one where the Burden of Proof is shared.)

    A possible answer you could give is, "God allows me to know truth from falsity." This demonstrates that you hold this to be an assumed premise, or that you derived this as a conclusion from the premise of God's existence.
    Atheists may not share this specific premise with you, but they will still assume a premise to be true that allows them to determine truth from falsity. They decide to reject your premise because it comes with the extraneous assumption that there is a god, an assumption atheists obviously reject.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @Dr.Cereal, thank you for your thoughts.  Now, can you answer the Q and tell me how one who denies God (practically, if not philosophically) knows truth from error?  Thanks.  
  • @Theocrat For what reason did you create the topic again and get my posts deleted?
  • To expose atheists as philosophical frauds and ignorants and this is a repeat Q from the religion section where you irrational responses remain.
  • DrCerealDrCereal 168 Pts
    edited August 2018
    Theocrat said:
    @Dr.Cereal, thank you for your thoughts.  Now, can you answer the Q and tell me how one who denies God (practically, if not philosophically) knows truth from error?  Thanks.  
    They assume that truth is a measurable quality of statements, and that this quality is measurable through experience or reason.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @Dr.Cereal, how do they know truth exists in the first place and that their experiences and/or reasons are valid ways of knowing it?
  • @Theocrat

    You believe atheists are ignorant and theists are not? I am curious: what religion do you follow? Do you also consider followers of all other religions ignorant? On what basis is your religion supreme over any other possible world view?

    It seems to me that you do not really have a rational basis behind your beliefs, and attacking others' views is the only way for you to feel like you stand on a higher ground than them.
    DrCereal
  • @MayCaesar, please do not speak for me or try to derail my thread.  Just answer my very simple Q to you, which I repeat for your convenience:

    How do you know your senses and reason are valid?
    DrCereal
  • While I'm a firm believer in God, and Athiests are delusional, I'd assume they all agree it's true that I'm on debateisland, or my icon is a circle. As much as I enjoy God's presence over us, it's not present, God left us. But what we can learn from God is in the Bible. Though what Athiests agree, and can be demonstrated, is that the Bible's inconsistent within itself and contradicts today's morals, such as approving rape.

    But God allowed humanity to reach their own truths, whether or not they read his work. They observe evidence, whether it's the Bible, refraction, poisons, fossils... then we determine why the evidence is like so. The conclusion we reach will be our truth. I'd go on about Observed Truths and Deduced Truths, but you don't want that.
  • In short, as imperfect humans, we seek and make our own truths. How we know the truth is correct? Evidence usually points to it, but it all comes around to faith. Atheists have faith their results are true, Theists have faith God is true.
  • In short, as imperfect humans, we seek and make our own truths. How we know the truth is correct? Evidence usually points to it, but it all comes around to faith. Atheists have faith their results are true, Theists have faith God is true.

    How do you know what evidence is, that it exists and that it is related to your claim?  And atheists can only viciously reason circularly, which is why no rational person is an atheist.

  • Again, it all ultimately boils down to faith. Maybe the fossils exist? Maybe the fossils don't exist? But fossils are observable, and that's an undeniable truth. Evidence can be observed, and that's what we do. We then use logic to determine, say, the dog has dirty feet so it's probably what made the carpet dirty with dirty paw prints.

    How do we know our logic is true? Faith. Without God being observable, Athiests have discovered evidence not suggesting God. Theists have found holes in that evidence, suggesting God is real. We have faith our position is true. But faith usually comes from what can be observed. What we observe becomes our truth.
  • Where did you get the idea your "observations" are undeniable truth?  And the fact that you think there are multiple truths proves you are delusional.
    4Truth0Savior4
  • I completely agree. Perhaps this site isn't debateisland.com. Maybe nothing is true at all. Maybe I'mm delusional, maybe you're delusional. Maybe the Earth is actually a pyramid. We don't know for sure, and we can't know for sure.
  • Well, at least this dude admits to knowing nothing, but given that I hope he understand why I reject his knowledge-claim that I know nothing.
  • edited August 2018
    Could you spell it out for me? God has come down to me with the proper ideals, though he didn't say anything about truth. Why do you reject your possible delusions?
  • Perhaps you follow an imaginary god.
  • How do you know that I'm imagining?
  • Because what you say is contradicted by the definer of reality, the God.
  • No, God's saying you're delusional. I saw His light shine through my window, and a voice. "He follows a fake god. Show him his delusions, but do not falter."
  • As I said.....   Thanks for playing.  You are now dismissed.  Respond again and I will block you.  Thanks.
  • Theocrat said:
    @Dr.Cereal, how do they know truth exists in the first place and that their experiences and/or reasons are valid ways of knowing it?
    As I said, it's an assumption similar to yours that God exists.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Tell us about this assumption?
  • Theocrat said:
    Tell us about this assumption?
    There's nothing more to tell; it is a premise that is assumed to be true.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Let me rephrase: state the assumption.  And tell us how it leads to knowledge?
  • DrCereal said:
    Theocrat said:
    @Dr.Cereal, thank you for your thoughts.  Now, can you answer the Q and tell me how one who denies God (practically, if not philosophically) knows truth from error?  Thanks.  
    They assume that truth is a measurable quality of statements, and that this quality is measurable through experience or reason.
    What quality of statements are measurable exactly? Light years? Billions of years? I like when globetards tell me that "The earth is soooo big, that you can't see the curve". Is the measurement falsifiable?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • MayCaesar said:
    @Theocrat

    You believe atheists are ignorant and theists are not? I am curious: what religion do you follow? Do you also consider followers of all other religions ignorant? On what basis is your religion supreme over any other possible world view?

    It seems to me that you do not really have a rational basis behind your beliefs, and attacking others' views is the only way for you to feel like you stand on a higher ground than them.
    This has been going on a lot as of late. See posts like "Theists are dumber" or dry joke posts invloving God in a woodshed with His mother...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @DrCereal, traditionally, one identifies the fallacy marked. Since I have done nothing but ask questions to clarify your position, I can only assume you meant to hit the disagree button.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    @DrCereal, traditionally, one identifies the fallacy marked. Since I have done nothing but ask questions to clarify your position, I can only assume you meant to hit the disagree button.
    I honestly think we must be thinking about different websites because I remember plenty of people marking "fallacy" on posts without explaining why. Quite sad, tbh.
    Yeah, after your reply, I'm not quite sure why I had marked your post fallacy. My apologies.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Erfisflat said:
    What quality of statements are measurable exactly? Light years? Billions of years? I like when globetards tell me that "The earth is soooo big, that you can't see the curve". Is the measurement falsifiable?
    The quality I was talking about in my post was "truth value". The statement, "bachelors are unmarried", would have the "quality" of being true.
    I do think that the measurement of such a quality would be falsifiable, yes.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Why did DrCereal run from my two Qs?

    And why can no atheist answer my OP?  Must not know anything.
  • DrCereal said:
    Erfisflat said:
    What quality of statements are measurable exactly? Light years? Billions of years? I like when globetards tell me that "The earth is soooo big, that you can't see the curve". Is the measurement falsifiable?
    The quality I was talking about in my post was "truth value". The statement, "bachelors are unmarried", would have the "quality" of being true.
    I do think that the measurement of such a quality would be falsifiable, yes.
    Surely bachelors are not married, but what does that have to do with atheism? 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • And how does he know it is true that bachelors are unmarried.  He is running from that Q, which is strange as answering that Q is the whole point of this thread.
  • Theocrat said:
    And how does he know it is true that bachelors are unmarried.  He is running from that Q, which is strange as answering that Q is the whole point of this thread.
    I'm really just wondering which assumption specifically atheists make that causes them to risk eternal damnation? @DrCereal
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • That they are god.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch