How do atheists ratiionally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (3)
To put it simply, if god was on trial and his crime was existing, atheists are saying that there isn't enough evidence to convict him.
My opponent proposes an objective standard of reasoning that doesn't require their senses and if it does use your senses then it must be false because we cannot know if our senses are telling us the truth. This is a flawed argument because theists use their senses to try to prove god's existence, but if any proof did arise (which there never has and probably never will) it must be invalid because it required your senses, but if they didn't use their senses to perceive this evidence then they wouldn't actually perceive it and it wouldn't exist to them.
I can say something is true if it is observable, testable, and repeatable. That which is true works independently of our ability to perceive it. Whether or not we study it, light will always move at the same rate. It is because of our senses that we can relay that information to our fellow humans.
My opponent has presented a self-refuting argument and then calls me irrational to end their argument. I believe we can all clearly see the irony there.
Thank you, Vote me
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con asked a question, pro answered it: observable, testable, repeatable. There really is not much beyond that to the argument.
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.