The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
klaralein
Pro (for)
Winning
6 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 3 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: 408 times Debate No: 86817
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

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 WILL NOT ANSWER THIS Q 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

I have debated this with him before and he never provided an argument. He merely insulted me the whole time.

So I will provide a layout for him.

I, a theist, can tell fact from fiction because _________________________.

Atheists cannot tell fact from fiction because ___________________________.

Fill in the blanks, VR. That simple.

If he does not provide an argument, I win by default.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

This fool must not be able to read. She lost the debate by breaking the rules.
klaralein

Pro

Explain to me how I broke the rules. The first argument is traditionally the acceptance, the debate begins in the second argument.

Again, he has yet to mention an argument. Just like the other 1000 times he posted this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
klaralein

Pro

My opponent has not response, rather than creating an actual argument he recreated this same debate with other people instead of debating me.

He has ran away from this debate.

My opponent has conceded! I win by default!
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
klaralein

Pro

My opponent still has not provided an argument or a case, and instead created more copies of this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
klaralein

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the debate without creating a single argument.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
There is a reason you are losing the debate, VR. You didn't provide a debate. You restated the question and forfeited after I asked you to make your first argument.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
VR, I did not run from the question. You had the first turn. All you did was restate the question. On your first turn, you argue your opinion and provide ciuntersrguments to your opponents case. You did none. You insulted me and restated the question. That is not a debate.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
A lying atheist. Who knew such a creature could exist.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
I deny atheists think. Ironically, this tool is not telling the whole story.$
This tool wanted to share with me the vastness of his"wisdom". I asked him to tell me how he rationally know truth from fiction. He ran away and charged the subject. Cowardly and irrational. What a bad combination.
Posted by gordonjames 9 months ago
gordonjames
I challenged ViceRegent to a debate

http://www.debate.org...

He declined.

I think he wants a megaphone more than a debate.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
It's okay. It appears he gave up.
Posted by nightwish672 9 months ago
nightwish672
CON is completely immature. Don't bother debating with someone who doesn't know how to, PRO.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
Troll = someone who can't actually make an argument. Or debate in general.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Troll = what an atheist calls someone they cannot beat in an argument. I love it.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Troll = what an atheist calls someone they cannot beat in an argument. I love it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 9 months ago
lannan13
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Embarrassing performance from CON Bahaviour and arguments to PRO because of CONs FF