The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
klaralein
Pro (for)
Winning
5 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 2 votes the winner is...
klaralein
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 86807
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)

 

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 OR IF YOU DENY REALITY IS OBJECTIVE, 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.

if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.
klaralein

Pro

Traditionally this round is acceptance, so I'll post no arguments in this round. As con, you must also prove your point that you, as a thiest, are able to rationally know truth from fiction, or else the debate falls in my favor as you would not have any counterarguments.

You may begin the debate with your argument as to how athiests do not know truth from fiction, AND YOU ALSO REQUIRE evidence that you know truth from fiction in relation to you being a thiest.

If you do not participate in both parts of the argument, you then fail to make a proper debate by providing a second side, and thus lose by default.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Still waiting for the answer to my Q how do atheists rationally know truth from fiction. Your inability to provide an answer is my proof you cannot. You are my chief witness and I am your Grand Inquisitor.
klaralein

Pro

My opponent has not provided a beginning argument when he was the instigator and had the beginning turn. I win by default.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Still running from the Q. Why do these fools even bother with their nonsense?

Is it true you won? How do you know what is true and what is not?
klaralein

Pro

I cannot yet answer the question because you have not provided an argument to debate. Thus I win, and I know I win, because that is the rules of a debate follows. You must provide an argument, genius.

My opponent doesn't understand that he must provide an argument to debate. Thus, I win by default.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Still running. And how absurd to say she cannot tell me about her epistemology without my input. She must be really stupid if her philosophy is utterly dependent on others.

Those are the rules of the debate? Is that true? How do you know?

I love how she is my argument but does not know it. The downside to be utterly dependent on others for your epistemology.
klaralein

Pro

My opponent does not realize that he must make an argument with evidence in his first round in order to start the debate. My opponent does not realize that a debate is dependent on arguments; he clearly doesn't know what a debate is.

He has not done this, so all of his other arguments are void, as he has not done his first argument properly.

Thus, with all his arguments as voided, I win by default.

My opponent claims that I am his main argument, however he has yet to explain how or why, and did not do this in his first argument. Thus, it is void.

Again, regardless of what my opponent says, he did not make an argument on his first turn. I win by default.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

It is hilarious watching someone post a truth claim when they have no idea how to know truth from fiction. But she continues to prove me right that atheists have no rational way of knowing truth from fiction.
klaralein

Pro

My opponent has not posted a single argument on this entire debate.

My opponent does not know the rules of debate.

My opponent asks how I know the rules of debate, when clearly they are listed on the website.

My opponent still thinks that people cannot know rules of debate. Despite them being listed on the website.

My opponent has only insulted me rather than list any argument, evidence, or debate.

My opponent has not posted an argument during ANY of his turns.

For those reasons and more, I win by default.
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Heirio 9 months ago
Heirio
Would debating VR be classed as getting free wins?
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
Please, VR is only saying that because of the voting comment. VR, explain epistemology to me.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
All these tools and not one can pass Epistemology 101.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
I was hoping that a Christian could confirm I got it right since there is no way for a non Christian to know if I actually copied the text correctly.

Did I get it right? I wish there was some way I could know for myself (sigh)
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
If? Enough said. BTW, guessing is not knowledge.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
In my version of reality, ViceRegent typed:

"Apparently Matt8800 does not know how to rationally tell truth from fiction. Go figure."

If this is correct, I'll take that as confirmation that I was able to correctly assess reality ;)
Posted by Heirio 9 months ago
Heirio
How do you tell fact from fiction, VR? Since you can do it so well, I'm sure you can tell us how you do it.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Apparently Matt8800 does not know how to rationally tell truth from fiction. Go figure.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
VR, I started a new debate with the same topic at http://www.debate.org...

I put your name in there as the challenger if you would like to show me how I am confused about reality.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
VR he means you need to challenge him, you fool.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 9 months ago
gordonjames
ViceRegentklaraleinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: WOW - Not much of a performance on either side. I was hoping to at least see the word Epistemology or a comment that showed someone was literate enough to at least spell it out. PRO gets conduct points.
Vote Placed by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
ViceRegentklaraleinTied
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: Con used insulting verbiage. Con could not provide a coherent argument as to why his premise was correct.