The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PiRide13
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...
PiRide13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 86680
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (1)

 

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 atheist know truth from fiction?

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL TRUTH FROM FICTION, DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS DEBATE.

And please do not respond if you have responded before or if you admit you have no way of rationally know truth from fiction, or if you believe you make up your own reality, or if all you have is "science", 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 circular reasoning is not rational.
PiRide13

Pro

Atheists have the only rational way to know the truth, we rely on what has been proven and on some book that was written by a king. The information we take to believe has been proven by many scientists and not by stories. The religious community is brain washed into believing things that aren't true, evolution is real and there is prof for it and many other things that we, atheists, have researched because the religious community doesn't want to because they believe writing in a book that has been revised from the original copy. You also have no hard evidence of what you believe therefore you have a tighter circle of reasoning that you cannot prove.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

So, this unreasoning animal's way of distinguishing truth from fiction is to put his faith in scientists. That is a new one. But how does he know his chosen faith is valid? And how does he pick among the scientists? More question begging, nothing rational. Anyone else?
PiRide13

Pro

I put my trust in scientists because they have a higher degree than most of the human race. Actually its an old reasoning for the truth because they have been researching for thousands of years. They "faith" as you put it, is just a desperate grasp for making yourself feel better about yourself, that you are being forgiven for the dumb thing that you did and that you are accepted into a large group.
Debate Round No. 2
PiRide13

Pro

The reality of truth from fiction is that we know what is fiction because we have proven it wrong or very unrealistic long ago, like killing a giant with a stone thrown by a little boy. The truth that we take in is proven true by science and multiple people that have hard evidence of there. The truth is real, fiction is not real or imagined. Your "god" is imagined, it is fiction. My science is real, it is the truth.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Ok, for the second time in a row this fool runs from my Qs and then irrationally begs the question. I will play; how do you know when you have "prove something wrong"?
PiRide13

Pro

First off, "this fool", is smarter than you. Your Qs, you can't even write questions? Second, it's PROVEN something wrong. I know when something is wrong because there have been multiple tests done on it and all of them have come back false, the scientific theory. You did this in elementary school for peat sake. Something is wrong because it can not happen, if you do things correctly you will get the right answer.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

One thing about atheists is that you can always count on them demonstrating they are both delusional and narcissistic, as this fool just did.

And he still has no answer my Qs. For the smartest guy in this debate is sure struggles with reading comprehension.

So, this unreasoning animal's way of distinguishing truth from fiction is to put his faith in scientists. That is a new one. But how does he know his chosen faith is valid? And how does he pick among the scientists? More question begging, nothing rational. Anyone else?

Now, in fairness, he must see the folly of his own claim, for he changes it from faith in scientists to faith in the scientific method, but the scientific method relies on his senses and reason. How does he know they are valid? Hint: he has no idea.
PiRide13

Pro

Again, just type out questions!!!
I have answered our questions before, I have no faith because I do not believe in some thing that I have to believe to be true to me, I have facts.

The scientists I chose to take their information to be true is a large group that have done multiple tests, experiments on the subject matter. The rational thing here is that you have dumb excuses for not answering your own question by dissing other people. Read the comments!

I do not change it from faith to scientists, I mention your apparent faith to be fiction. A higher being isn't possible in science.

If you think I have such dumb "animal's ways" of distinguishing truth, how do you distinguish truth from fiction. You haven't supported yourself at all, I imagine you are some dumb religious freak that thinks vaccines cause autism.

The true fact of existence is that I do not know if its valid, you don't know either. Heck look at the Church of Last Thursday, you can not disprove it but it is a ridiculous idea to everyone but we don't know if that is the truth, it could be.
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PiRide13 9 months ago
PiRide13
Hey commenters, please vote so we can decide this.
Posted by PiRide13 9 months ago
PiRide13
So Vice, I win. You didn't say how you know the truth, cowardly fool.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
Here is another bullshat Christian theory......... knowledge presupposes the existence of God.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Unfortunately, all of the mentally ill believe themselves rational, but reality says otherwise. I do love how cowardly these fools are.
Posted by PiRide13 9 months ago
PiRide13
No, I'm very rational. How do you know the truth from fiction. If you don't answer I win because you don't have a way.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Notice how this fool immediately turns to irrationality. I win.
Posted by PiRide13 9 months ago
PiRide13
Well here, I rationally know fact from fiction by this method; Idiots like you have taken fiction to belief that many other people have proven wrong so I know that is fiction.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Let me help: I rationally know fact from fiction by this method: ___________________________.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
I am still waiting for you to tell me how you do. You claim to have "facts" and yet cannot tell me how you know what is fact and what is fiction. Try harder.
Posted by PiRide13 9 months ago
PiRide13
Hey Vice, I'm only supporting my side of the argument right now because I'm being nice. So how do you know the truth from fiction? All your doing is changing your questions and not reading my answer. When you call someone a fool you should have support of your side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
ViceRegentPiRide13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: pro actually provided arguments and was trying to cooperate with his opponent. con did none of this.