How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (5)
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
So how do we know truth from fiction?
We have facts and data to back up our views. Can we prove there is no god? No, we can't because it's not currently possible. I don't like that you are saying I can't use reason and science to respond to this. That's like me saying, prove your god exists without using emotion, personal experiences, text, speeches or stories.
It is your responsibility to prove your god is true, atheists simply reject religion because this IS no proof. Unless, do you have proof? By proof, I mean data that is testable.
OpenSesame forfeited this round.
You have not responded to my question. How do you know facts from fiction? Do you have your 2000-year-old book and dreams? It's rather pathetic how theists disagrees with you in the comments. Stop rigging your debates, it's not about winning it's about learning other people's ideas. I have never talked to an atheist who thinks of themselves as "defenders of rationality". If an atheist has ever said that to you they don't represent the majority. You limit your debate so much it's directed at the individual, not the group. No one thinks the EXACT same.
If you don't have proof, I can reject what you believe. I have data and studies to back up why I reject that belief.
You are mixing up knowing and reasoning. I don't know if there is a god and I don't if my reasoning is correct. We reject it because there is no proof. We have to accept reality. However, as someone said in the comments, some people don't accept other versions of reality. In some cases, reality is not set in stone. All your doing is resulting to insults in order to intimidate, you are a "great" Christian. Your calling me ignorant and saying I am irrational for questioning a 2000 book that says there is a guy who made everything and sent down his son to die for our "sins". You clearly don't know what ignorant means, what science is, or how to present an argument. You rigged your debate. I don't think you get it so I will put it simply for the selective mind of yourself and your peers.
My reasoning = no god. I don't find it rational to believe in one because there is no proof. I base that viewpoint off of scientific studies.
Your belief = yes god. That's OK as well. You can go ahead and believe in a god, no one is oppressing you. Atheists and Agnostics simply reject it because there is no proof. However, if you don't require proof for what you believe in, that's your choice.
Please, at least, provide me with what makes you say "yes, this religion is real"
Where on earth do these fools get the idea that I must answer their Qs when they have no idea how to evaluate the answers. Only a fool would try to explain calculus to a child who cannot tell me they know number line exists.
OpenSesame forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by klaralein 7 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct points due to the forfeiture of pro. I gave spelling and grammar to Pro because Con used informal speech such as "ROFL" that do not belong in a professional debate. Arguments go to Pro because Con provided none. None had a source so that stays tied.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.