The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
The Contender
oscarclem7
Pro (for)

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 #3.
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: 12/27/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 399 times Debate No: 98472
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

ViceRegent

Con

IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.

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, BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY ATHEIST CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. I have even put it in capital letters for those to dense to get it. 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.
oscarclem7

Pro

Howdy. I was drawn to this debate by your vast, bold claims (and an enthusiastic approach to capitalisation) which seem to be fairly baseless. You have made lots of assertions and obviously you are passionate about this topic so I hope this debate can remain respectful.
My first issue is that you criticise people for being 'to dense' to get your point. Before we start slamming other people I think it would be wise to consider the density of the person that doesn't know how to use the correct form of too/to.
All jokes aside.
You are asking me to explain why I trust the notion that god isn't real. It doesn't matter if that notion is fundamentally right or wrong, just why it is rational. Correct?
I don't believe god is real because it fits in with everything I understand. I'm not a genius, and I don't know everything. But here are some reasons I believe God doesn't exist.
1. Life is nothing special. It is simply an overcomplicated version of inorganic matter. Why should we be so special to God, when we are just bits of matter that accidentally came together and mutated and and changed little by little until the point where we became a bipedal mammal? Humans couldn't be the center and sole focus of the universe, that would be illogical. And yet they are God's number one priority? Rational.
2. The concept of monotheism, and gods in general, came at a time when science couldn't explain the universe. It was a time when rumours spread to become legends to become truths.
3. I trust the relevant scientific communities as a position of authority on our universe. They would have no motive to spread untruths, so why would they lie?
I'm not quite sure what resolution this debate will have. It would seem you simply want to slam people that don't agree with you without listening to what they say. Guess what? I go to a religious school, but in chapel I don't shout "But Sir! God doesn't exist!" So please, let's have a thoughtful and reasonable debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

This moron does not even understand the Q. He loses the debate.
oscarclem7

Pro

I've looked at the other debates you've started on this exact topic, all with people a lot smarter than me. They've all answered your question very well, and yet you've labelled them morons and fools.
Listen here m8. Obviously you believe everyone should believe in god and those who don't are stupid. Setting up these ridiculous debates at which you are obviously not good enough to win at just to pretend to beat people that don't agree with you doesn't achieve anything. No one is going to change their opinions on god because of your actions, you're just making yourself look pathetic and narcissistic. If that's what you think about debating, don't do debating.
I answered your question twice- when I said I trust the scientific community to tell the truth (and determine science as fact) and when I said I identified believing in a god was fiction because the idea came at a historical time of comparatively little knowledge (and identify that as fiction). By what method? Logic. If you want to debate, do it properly. FACTUALLY AND SPECIFICALLY rebut the rationality of my points (which I specifically highlighteds for you) and bring out some new ones. Please, I want to debate this with you. Be civil. Don't just tell yourself you've won, let voters decide.

I'm going to bring out some rules of my own (seeing the lack of formality in this debate I think that's fair). If you don't specifically address my points, you forfeit. That applies to both of us.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by VyridosVhasselion 1 year ago
VyridosVhasselion
We compare with past experiences. That's the only thing we can do. We can't truly know the truth, neither can we know truly what fiction is. But we can compare with past experiences and develop our own truth of us and of what is around us. Let me ask you a question: How to religious people know what is true and what is fiction? What do your beliefs rely on? If you can't explain that, then your question is invalid, because you cant probe the opposite.
Posted by oscarclem7 1 year ago
oscarclem7
ViceRegent you bloody legend back at it again with his own bubble of reality
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
tommylibertarian1
Con seems to be a prepositionalist that will presuppose god and say you can't know anything without god. They will attempt to say that without god you can't have any certainty about the world or what it in it. They will say truth presupposes knowledge and that knowledge can't exist without god and will do this without providing evidence for god.
Posted by Doom-Guy-666-1993 1 year ago
Doom-Guy-666-1993
holy crap, same thing, every day, your a damn legend vice. lol
Posted by oscarclem7 1 year ago
oscarclem7
This bloke is off his chops
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
m8 these claims you kling to make no sense
This debate has 2 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.