The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JSMG
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
JSMG
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 389 times Debate No: 98902
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

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.
JSMG

Pro

I will be accepting this debate, so let's begin.

So, you half answered you question when you said that we use senses and reason, or as I call it, common sense. But then you asked how do we know that common sense IS valid. The truth is we don't, and neither does any religion. Who says that Jesus wasn't a street performer, the predecessor of Harry Houdini, and was only doing magic tricks like turning water into wine. The only evidence Christians have is that it says so in the Bible. Atheists, on the other hand, never believe something because a book says so. We look for more evidence until we figure out with our COMMON SENSE that it's a fact.

Now, I'm not saying that our common sense is always right. It makes mistakes, and that makes us human. But learning from that mistake and adding it to our common sense makes our civilization, and not only listening to a book written back when "witches" still existed.

Also, most religions kind of ignore the fact that there are a lot of religious scientists. And they make mistakes to. Don't think that just because you believe in God you are the greatest being out there. Our common sense was built to quickly make conclusions, and it can be wrong
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

And here we have another atheist who admits he has no rational way of knowing truth from error. I win another argument. Next?
JSMG

Pro

Ok, that is just stupid logic, and hypocritical in fact. So let's assume you are Christian, okay? So you worship an omniscient God. How do you know that is not fiction? That the Bible was written by the Jesus "Houdini" Christ just to trick people? To assume atheists are wrong and Christians are right is stupid, because no amount of common sense and logic can prove that. It goes the same the other way around. Who is to say that atheists are right? That there really is no God? We can't prove or disprove it, so the only thing left is to wonder about it for centuries to come
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Is any of that true? How do you know? Oh, wait, you don't. LOL
JSMG

Pro

Ahh, so you are a troll. Well played sir, you reserved yourself a special room in hell
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

And the ignorant fool tucks tail and runs. ROFL. Thank you for once again confirm the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism.
JSMG

Pro

Listen here now, because clearly you lack any brain. I was playing nice, giving facts, and even admitting that there is no way we know atheism is correct. You on the other hand, put up no arguments, and only criticized one of my sentences without considering the whole argument. In my honest opinion, all people like you should delete their debate profile because they make no contributions to this site or the opinion of any single human on this platform. Thank you for your time writing 3 sentences in this entire argument while I worked myself out trying to debate something here
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
FaustianJustice
Atheists rationally know truth from fiction by the impossibility to the contrary.

/debate
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
I wish atheists would spend more time thinking about how foolish their worldview is than whining.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
ViceRegentJSMGTied
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: Conduct to pro as con used personal attacks on multiple occassions when pro was making an argument