The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cartie101
Pro (for)
Winning
3 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...
Cartie101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 470 times Debate No: 87236
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

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 atheists know truth from fiction?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. 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
Cartie101

Pro

Think about it. There are many different kind of inspecies changes, but there has never been a complete species changes. Many fish "evolve", but they are still fish. Cats may have changed, but they are still cats. Monkeys cannot turn into humans, they are completely two different species. Monkeys can only evolve into monkeys. Dogs can only evolve into different kinds of dogs. If you ask and atheist proffesor, they will give you a list of inspecies changes, but there are no complete species changes. Its not possible, there isn't any proof so essentially atheism is a religion as well.
Debate Round No. 1
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 atheists know truth from fiction?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. 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
Cartie101

Pro

Cartie101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
Cartie101

Pro

Cartie101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
Cartie101

Pro

Cartie101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
Cartie101

Pro

Cartie101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
VR is under the delusion that all knowledge presupposes gods existence. The Transcendental Argument is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately (though unwittingly) presuppose the Christian worldview and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals.
http://www.johnstonfamilyministry.com...
https://carm.org...
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
VR, how is religion necessary to think?
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Of course, if atheism is true, atheists DO NOT think. They, as deterministic machines, merely react to environmental stimuli in keeping with their biological makeup and the laws of science. In saying they think, atheists are admitting atheism is false. Win again.
Posted by phantomdy 9 months ago
phantomdy
lolol pathetic really. you know nothing about this universe. define truth in your own words. then define fiction. well in "truth" rationality has nothing to do with this debate your just trying to piss people (atheists)
off until you can prove that what atheists are saying is fictional. finally how can you be sure any one in this mental plane is rational or is telling the truth you cant because no matter how hard you try you will come to the same answer: you cant be right without being wrong and reversed.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 9 months ago
Illegalcombatant
I think it's time to apply the same standards and line of reasoning to Vice that Vice applies to everyone else..........
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
@Longline this so far is the weirdest kind of explanation for something I have heard yet. I'm very intrigued?!?
Posted by Longline 9 months ago
Longline
tell me, if i build a spaceship. and send 20 people in space. after about a couple of years they come back saying that they saw a dog flying around space. they create a story of the dog and take pictures of the dog. while on earth they design a picture of a dog that is flying in space. would people on earth believe that the 20 people i send in space really saw a dog? would they believe the dog was real, after all they have pictures of the dog in space, and it was alive and seem to be moving right?

just answer then i will move on to the next part.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
I think you have that wrong there vice. It is the theist that claim to have some magical man in the sky. atheist just want you guys to prove it. Since you seem so confident then prove it.
Posted by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
The great thing about science is that no matter what, it's always right and true.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
The great thing about being a deluded and narcissistic atheist is that you can made up crap without any connection to reality and with no guilt.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
ViceRegentCartie101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con provided no arguments, while Pro at least challenged them. Con just copy and pasted his acceptance round.