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

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  
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: 12/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 234 times Debate No: 98544
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
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.
zupermushy

Pro

firstly i would like to state that you have to first establish a real definition of truth and fiction. it can be different for different people in controversial topics thus that is the first mistake i would like to point out.Next i want to also show you that atheists are also people and are not complete idiots.In fact some atheists are more rational than religious people.everything that an atheist believes in is based on science and math. yes,i wrote science.if you dont believe in science you are extremely delusional and also wont have your device for this debate. for example the velocity of an object is the distance it travels over a period of time. how can a religious person and an atheist have a different opinion. atheists are not primates and only based on their five senses. Just because they have a different and logical opinion, it should not be criticised as an atheist should not criticize anyone from believing in God. i think you are trying for the ape method trying to solve problems of the past unfolding it and thinking you are a genius confusing the world. But in contrary you are simply wasting your time and i will prove so.if that is your question , explain to me how you see this quesion. if it is fake how do you respond.why is 1+1=2 . why distance is in meters.i hope i can save you from wasting your time from unfolding a genius's work and finding it has no value.over to you.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Notice how this fool responds. He avoids the question by pretending he does not know what truth and fiction are and then makes a bunch of claims he thinks are true. This is both the red herring and question begging fallacy by an intellectual dishonest man. But since he never answers the Q, he loses the debate.
zupermushy

Pro

hello?your question is extemely biased and undefined.because what one believe is true is different from the rest.Also, i cant answer a question that is unclear in the first place.next,i would like to point out how you are so desperate .p.s. i know your win rate and you are extremeply desperate creating borders for the oposition not giving them the right to give a logical argument beaucse it is "off topic".your ignorance of not disproving anything and just responding "makes a bunch of claim he claims is true".please try at least.prove one that is wrong.if you dont believe in "science" or "math" what is the purpose of you in this world with a laptop i think. If you think that atheists and ordinary people have different intelligence capabilites.can you at least debate properly and not blindly say whatever you want.you broke the rules,blablabla.
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by zupermushy 1 year ago
zupermushy
thx @ tommylibertarian17
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
he just needs to eat some more rotten apples and i am sure he will get it
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
tommylibertarian1
Zupermushy, This is a question about epistemology how do you know things to be true to a reasonable degree of certainty. Con seems think that god presupposes all knowledge but usually fails to directly argue that point.
Posted by zupermushy 1 year ago
zupermushy
im sorry i dont quite understand the question..
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.