The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 826 times Debate No: 87294
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (45)
Votes (1)




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


Atheism is not a worldview that expresses an opinion on the nature of reality. It is merely a trivial conclusion of other worldviews. Thus your question is somewhat poorly stated. I hold to objectivism and naturalism with respect to my metaphysical and epistemic leanings.

Under objectivism we can make axiomatic presuppositions about the nature of reality. It starts with the axiom of existence, exists. This is the view that there is something, that existence must be be antecedent to consciousness. Secondly the axiom of consciousness. That existence (and existents for that matter) is identified by consciousness and perception through our senses and by using our senses and reasoning through Aristotelian logic we can conceptualise our world objectively. Thirdly the axiom of identity. Things are what they are, our world operates under causal law (identity applied to action), this gives us the notion that reality is real. Truth and knowledge of the world can be gained objectively by assuming these axioms, which need no justification because denial of them leads you to absurdity.

Under this approach to metaphysics and epistemology I do not claim to justify reason or the senses through reason or the senses. I make no attempt to validate them via deductive logic, so there is no circular reasoning for my position. Infact they require no justification at all because denial of their validity would leave you to a contradiction, such they are in fact self justifying without need of a god. In other words unreason or nonsense are invalid positions to hold to. Thus no God is required to anchor reason or the senses. I would challenge you to deny their validity if you think that without a god we could not rely on them or know things.

Taking all this together I deny the bases of either a skeptical worldview (the proposition that we cannot know anything for certain) or a mystical worldview (they view that a non sensory, revalation based, magical way of knowing is possible
Debate Round No. 1


Man, now these losers are assuming new identities to show me how foolish they are.

How do you know reality is not absurd or that cobtradictions are bad

And you still did not tell me how you know truth from fiction.


Well man! Resulting to a petulant ad hominem does not constitute an argument. Merely the sign of someone who stands on very weak foundations. It is the trouble with presuppositionalist xtians. They want to expose athiests for being 'fools' as per Romans I, but after 2000 years of xtianity the best they can do to prove their God is to attack global skepticism. Is that the best proof and evidence for something allegedly so powerful? If you want to attack skepticism go ahead, but you are arguing with an atheist who rejects global skeptical, so it might knock you off your script. My position is that we can know things for certain, without God and that both skepticism and mysticism (your position) are to be rejected. I have already answered your questions but I will again.

How do I know there is a reality? My metaphysical presupposition is that existence, exists. This is because the denial of that axiom leads to an immediate contradiction.

Why are contradictions bad? I am not sure you are even asking a coherent question. But if you need me to explain briefly: if contradictions were possible, the law of non-contradiction would be both true and false at the same time, which is impossible. Thererfore contradictions are not possible. None of this requires the assumption of a god.

How do I know truth from fiction? I use my sense and reasoning, which as I have explained needs no justification, because any attempt to deny them leads to contradictions. They are therefore self justified. Of course you are welcome to try and deny your own senses and reasoning if you like and i will point out why you can't. You have surrendered your reasoning to presupp apologetics. Claiming a god needs to exist for reason, senses, logic etc to be valid is irrational, unwarranted, lazy, unsupported, unparsimonious, mystical appeal to magic.

I know for certain:
- I exist,
- I am not your God,
- Your God is false,
- Facts are true
- etc

We can know a lot for certain!
Debate Round No. 2


How do you know your senses and reason are valid, that you are not delusional?


So this is desperate. You only seem to have a presupp script to follow and cannot modify your approach to account for my worldview, effectively begging the question on my worldview.

You now want to switch the argument from reason of as a category of human experience to my personal ability to reason. I have explained why reason (as a category) is valid without God and you appear to have accepted it, by moving the discussion on to me personally. Good.

So why are my reasoning and my own senses are valid. Under my worldview of objectivism an individual's ability to reason is driven off a process of concept formation which starts with percepts of the senses and uses Aristotelean logic to integrate and differentiate to correctly form objective concepts of reality. So for example I am personally not delusional because I cannot conceive of logical contradictions. You are delusional because you can conceive of logical contradictions, for eg that the divine suffered like a man on a cross some 2000 years ago.

You are arguing with someone else if you continue to ask me how I am know I am not delusional, because I reject the global skeptic "brain in vats" type arguments because they are impossible. If you want to pursue this question you should be brave and honest! You need to state (not ask me to justify) that my reasoning and senses are invalid and tell me on what basis they are invalid. Under my worldview "my senses are invalid" is a contradiction. Under your worldview that statement has meaning because the xtian God can make it so.

So lets test your position, how do you know you know Paul was not delusional when he wrote Romans I?
Debate Round No. 3


So, you use your reason and senses to determine your reason and senses are valid. That is called circular reasoning and it is irrational. You failed the test and lose the debate. Who is next?


Yes it is clear someone has lost the debate. You have nothing but a script like a repetitive parrot. "You use your senses and reasoning to justify your senses and reasoning, that is circular, sqwak, I win ,sqwak, next, sqwak".

3 times I have explained that I do not use my reasoning and senses to justify my reasoning and senses. 3 times i have explained i am not a global skeptic. Senses and reasoning cannot and do not need to be justified. In my worldview they are self justifying because of the impossibility of the contrary. You have offered no refutation of this, because you cannot, because if you offer an argument it exposes the absurdity of your own position.

Just to educate you circular reasoning applies to deductive arguments not to axiomatic presuppositions. As I make no deductive argument there is no circularity in my worldview. I am afraid you offer nothing but a rehash of the xtian failure to grasp reality and sqwak endlessly like a Eric Hovind parrot.

You have failed to address my world view on its merits, you beg the question and offer no alternative and then attempt to declare victory. You have failed to address my question to you. You have failed to counter examples of things we can know without God. Just a total failure of your argument. I'm afraid you lose, next presupp parrot please.
Debate Round No. 4


This fools gives me reasons why she does not rely on her reason to valid her reason. ROFL. I win.


I think you should probably go on worshipping something that doesn't exist. Everything else seems to go beyond your comprehension. As for calling others "fools" I am reminded of Shakespeares play Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks".
Debate Round No. 5
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by klaralein 7 months ago
Of course VR ignores my comment. He has no logical response.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
Nice irrational dodge. I infer from it that your claims comes from your imagination and treat it as such. What a fool.
Posted by TheShaun 7 months ago
@ViceRegent "God is not provable? Is this true? How do you know?" Have you or any human proved it yet? Are any of you even close to proving it? No? Then that's why I say that, dummy. Don't ask stupid questions. Asking me a stupid question only earns you insults. Stop saying stupid things and learn to put forth more thought. You should spend 99% of your time thinking and only 1% speaking.
Posted by missmedic 7 months ago
VR how many times have you lost this debate 28?
Posted by CaptainScarlet 7 months ago
Yes or no? No I do not use senses or reasoning to validate senses or reasoning. Why is that hard for you to understand?

Under my worldview I cannot deny the validity of my senses nor reasoning AXIOMATICALLY. Any attempt to do so, leaves me in an immediate contradiction. As contradictions are impossible senses and reasoning must be valid by definition. They are self evident, irreducible foundations of knowledge.

However, unfortunately for you, you cannot rely on your senses or reasoning under your worldview. Because you believe magic and absurdity can pertain in any part of space-time rendering your senses and reasoning invalid. What was water one minute is wine the next, dead men can live again, animals can talk. So for you to ask this others about the validity of their knowledge, you must borrow from my worldview.
Posted by klaralein 7 months ago
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey VR. I don't know if you forgot this or just ignore it because you don't know how to debate, but the Burden of Proof is on you, VR. If you can't prove that atheists don't know fact from fiction, than pro automatically wins.

So since you have yet, in any of your hundred debates of this nature, mention any proof to refute the resolution, you lose by default.

Because those are the rules of debate.
Listed on the website.
That are universally accepted.
And you refuse to follow them.

Which is why you keep losing.

Which is why you have a win ratio below 5%.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
Yes or no, you use your senses and reason to validate your senses and reason?

Is your existence part of your fundamental nature?
Posted by Voidsworn 7 months ago
Relying on senses seems to be a default and axiomatic, so it seems that I cannot invalidate the using of my senses as it seems I never had/have the option to not use them. It seems that my reasoning could be invalid about a number of things, but until demonstrated in some way that it is, then it seems I must continue to rely upon it as it seems that I have no choice.

"Is reality's existence and your part of it not part of the fundamental nature of reality?" It does not seem to be the case. It seems to be the case that the qualites of a thing, in this case the set {reality}, is what defines whether or not something exists, not existence itself being a quality. The qualities I seem to observe are not necessarily fundamental, they are just what seems to be "there". Seeing a red apple tells me nothing of what is actually there, underneath it all.
Posted by missmedic 7 months ago
VR when asking someone if they are delusional, you are assuming they are not, other wise you would not ask the question.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
So you use your senses and reason to determine if your senses and reason are valid?

Is reality's existence and your part of it not part of the fundamental nature of reality?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by klaralein 7 months ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not make a single argument. Con did nothing but insult the other person. And, despite have the BOP because he initiated the debate, did not provide any evidence or proof.