Are Atheists Able to Know Reality from Delusion?
Debate Round Forfeited
ViceRegent has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||1 month ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||101 times||Debate No:||97424|
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
I will answer your question "But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction?" However, I have to ask, how can an atheist not articulate a rational way of thinking, especially one to know truth from fiction?
I would also like to ask why circular reasoning is not rational.
And would like to point out the skepticism in your ideas, as well as the fact that you are trying to ask a question that is nearly unanswerable.
I accept your debate, and wish for you to explain in greater detail of your claim to further progress the great ideas in this debate, especially because I am not necessarily certain which question you want answering.
I'm not certain I understand. This is a debate website, not a questionnaire. I notice that your petty one-question interview has been posted on your account one too many times to just be here to debate and understand something, and if you can't understand this, you should probably leave this website. I have not done anything wrong in the ruling either.
In fact, I am pretty sure you lose the debate as well.
The fact is that you, for one whole round, said two sentences, which both had nothing to do with the original question yourself.
Your rules backfired on yourself, considering you are breaking them yourself. Whatever calling me a tool has to do with atheists being able to know reality from delusion, I will never know. However, because your rule "If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate" is a rule you have to follow as well, you lose this debate just as much as I do.
I would consider not posting this argument for the umpteenth time and make new debate topics, or you will seem like a judgmental, hypocritical idiot.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.