The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jocularly_Solemn
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Jocularly_Solemn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 98667
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

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.

AS I CAN GET BUT FEW ATHEISTS TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THIS Q, I AM LIMITING THE DEBATE ROUNDS TO 2. IF AN ATHEIST ACTUALLY ANSWERS, I WILL CHALLENGE HIM TO MORE COMPLETE DEBATE.

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.
Jocularly_Solemn

Pro

Hello ViceRegent! :)
First of all, I would like to clear that I am not atheist, I do believe that there exists a supreme being who exists since before the universe came into existence.

I would like to debate anyways.

Atheist : one who believes that there is no deity (Merriam-Webster)
Rational : having reason or understanding (Merriam-Webster)

And I suppose you are using the word 'truth' for the 'existence of God'

Now the reason most of my few atheist friends say they don't believe in God is because sometimes it causes people to depend upon an invisible force, and they start to stop working for something themselves, and instead wish that the force will do it for them.
This was not the answer you were looking for though, were you?

How do Atheists rationally know truth from fiction? How do they, RATIONALLY know that there is no God?

HERE I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT I AM NOT ATTACKING ANYONE'S BELIEFS. I AM A THEIST MYSELF AND I HAD TO DO SOME RESEARCH ABOUT WHY ATHEISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE (OR DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE :P). THE POINTS LISTED ARE WHY MAJORITY OF ATHEISTS DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IN A GOD

1) Rational explanation of events earlier considered Godly.
Many of the phenomena considered supernatural, like lightning, have been replaced with scientific reasoning over time as science advanced.

2) Existence of Paradoxes
God is omnipotent. God can't create a rock so heavy that He Himself can't lift it. If He can't lift it, He is not all-powerful. If He lifts it, He can't create such a thing that He can't lift. PARAODOX. God can't create a square shaped circle, because it doesn't exist. But He SHOULD be able to do everything! PARADOX.(Their are many paradoxes in science too, so I don't back this point much)

3) Contradictions in holy scriptures
For example, God is stated as forgiving, but He is also stated to have wiped out entire villages.

Sources-

https://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.alternet.org...'t_believe_in_god
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Hey, moron, this debate is ONLY for atheists. You lose the debate.
Jocularly_Solemn

Pro

Oh! Many atheists HAVE accepted your debate and guess what? You repost it again and again. It just annoys us NORMAL people that you can't tolerate other's beliefs.

I have read your debates, you don't even argue....you just insult by saying 'this moron', 'this atheist fool', etc.

I am guessing you didn't even read my debate (and won't read this round too).
DO YOU EVEN WANT AN ANSWER FOR YOUR Q? NAH, YOU ARE JUST HERE TO ANNOY PEOPLE , right? ARE YOU TOO COWARD TO ACCEPT THAT THERE ARE OTHER BELIEFS OUT THERE?

Asking for 'rational' way of knowing the truth when he himself is as dense as a neutron star.

You amaze me, sir, respect for you....

And who loses is for the voters to decide, not the instigator. If this was how things worked, I would have started debates saying - 'If no one accepts, I win. Also, if someone older than 6 months old accepts, I win as well!' or 'If you lose, I win, if you win, I win as well' (PARADOX xD) hah!

I don't think you are gonna get the answer to your Q (which you probably don't even want) if you stay THIS narrow-minded.

Anyways, a very good day to you sir, may Almighty present you with some wisdom this year.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Jocularly_Solemn 1 year ago
Jocularly_Solemn
Heh! No problem, dude. :)
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
Lol alright.

I don't know why I commented that with such agitation.
My apologies. :P
Posted by Jocularly_Solemn 1 year ago
Jocularly_Solemn
I just put in what I found on the Merriam Webster. :) I know what atheist means.
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
"one who believes that there is no deity"

You may want to learn the meanings of words. This is not an accurate definition of 'atheist'.
Posted by Jocularly_Solemn 1 year ago
Jocularly_Solemn
If many people are against you, you are most probably wrong. Winning 16 out of 181 debates is not a sign of being 100% correct dear Mr. Vice.
Posted by Perussi 1 year ago
Perussi
XD

This has been tweaked so much!
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
So by what method does any Atheist claim to rationally know truth from fiction ?

"Constitution." This Principle is used to form a separation of "Fiction" and "State of fiction" the method is better known by the name Separation of Church and State. But, is describing the same basic method of separation "Church" by the "State of church."

This answer is true due to the fact that there is always the possibility of their being more than one rule of truth in two sides of a debate. It also points out a difference between manufactured true and natural truth. The answer of a algebraic fix equation is an example of a manufactured truth. The answer is created only by the limitation of how a solution is allowed to be found. This is by explicit use of mathematical law as a weapon brought to bear, to create a restriction.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
ViceRegentJocularly_SolemnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuted Con's argument, plain and simple. Con is confrontational and offensive to Pro, when all Pro has done is provide an adequate proof that atheists are rational. Period. Not really a debate.
Vote Placed by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
tommylibertarian1
ViceRegentJocularly_SolemnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 made an case of some sort. Con called pro a moron and thus loses in terms of conduct. I don't think pro actually answered the epistemological question of the debate but did give a argument.