The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kyle_the_Heretic
Pro (for)
Winning
19 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 4 votes the winner is...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 470 times Debate No: 87721
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

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.
Kyle_the_Heretic

Pro

To be clear, I am not an atheist. Nor am I required to be one in the opening arguments. However, I doubted the existence of God in my teens, so I will argue from that point of "disbelief".

The answer is simple: Atheists know truth from fiction in a similar manner that theists know it. That atheists disagree with theists does not preclude an inability to know truth from fiction; they simply take a different approach to discern the two according to their interpretation of the evidence, or lack of evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

If you are not an atheist, you should not have responded to the debate.

And you begged the question, not answer it.

Dude, learn to read. I win.
Kyle_the_Heretic

Pro

As I have already stated, no requirement is given that one must be an atheist to accept the argument. Also, my opponent has failed to show how I have "begged the question", therefore he has not won the debate, but instead conceded the argument by failing to provide one.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

ROFL. I am sorry, but what was your answer to how atheists know truth from fiction? The same way theists do? In your tiny mind, that is an answer? Or does it beg the question as to which way is that? My gosh, these fools are dense. Dude, you lose.
Kyle_the_Heretic

Pro

My opponent has read the answer clearly, and has failed to challenge that answer. He has also failed to explain how I have begged the question ... again. My opponent has done little more than demonstrate a shallow arrogance in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

This fool must think if he repeats a lie long enough...

Anyway, he loses.
Kyle_the_Heretic

Pro

My opponent has now degraded the debate to unsupported insults. I am still waiting for him to actually provide a debate.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

Still no answer to my Q. I win.
Kyle_the_Heretic

Pro

My opponent has denied a viable answer to his question, and instead of providing any form of debate has exhibited an arrogant and offensive childishness, delusion-ally declaring himself the winner.

It is likely that whatever god my opponent believes in has only shame for my opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Finalfan// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: This was fun to watch as Con shamelessly folded under the weight of Pros calm and steadfast nature! Please stop it with these debates vice!

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct and S&G are unexplained. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than address the debate in generalizations, as he's required to explain the decision by analyzing specific arguments made by each side.
************************************************************************
Posted by Finalfan 9 months ago
Finalfan
ViceRegent: Are you Sye Ten Bruggencate?
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
Provide an argument for once vice. The reason bo one takes you seriously is because you only have insults and no answers.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
But I agree, if you cannot tell me how you know truth from fiction, you best run away.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Thinkshallower, I think you can tell me your epistemology is less than 2k words, obviously.
Posted by ThinkDeeper 9 months ago
ThinkDeeper
ViceRegent,do you really consider that all thoughts can be held in that few words?
How is it that your rules for this debate run on so much longer? That does seem inconsistent.
Is it about having to deal with a longer, more detailed argument requires a similarly scaled reply?
Then again, according to your profile, you have had 72 debates and lost 49 of them. Perhaps that should indicate that it is not worth it to me to pursue this debate.
As you wish: I withdraw my interest in debating you.
Good luck.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Nope. If you have an answer, you could give it in 100 words.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Nope. If you have an answer, you could give it in 100 words.
Posted by ThinkDeeper 9 months ago
ThinkDeeper
ViceRegent,
I am new here. I would accept you debate if you will raise the character limit. 2000 is kind of limiting. Perhaps 5000?
Posted by Godgirl 9 months ago
Godgirl
Seriously, make a new debate already.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 9 months ago
Finalfan
ViceRegentKyle_the_HereticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was condescending and rude! Cons arguments failed to support his position. ROFL lost grammar! Pro did good? What do you want from me here! Read the debate! Its a comedy script!
Vote Placed by logicinlife 9 months ago
logicinlife
ViceRegentKyle_the_HereticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's "I win" guarantees a resounding "you lose". How does Con rationally think he can show truth when he cannot properly debate anyone who takes him up on it. Some Christians debate from the other side for practice, so carry on with the debate or make your debate qualifications clearer.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 9 months ago
Balacafa
ViceRegentKyle_the_HereticTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con resulted to ad hominen attacks on Pro's arguments instead of actually responding to them. Due to the fact that no responses were made to Pro's arguments, Pro fulfills his burden of proof and wins argument points. Due to the ad hominem attacks conduct goes to Pro as well. Con called Pro a fool and states that he lies on multiple occasions.
Vote Placed by klaralein 9 months ago
klaralein
ViceRegentKyle_the_HereticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was disrespectful throughout the entire debate, so conduct goes to Pro for maintaining a professional tone. Spelling and grammar goes to Pro because Con used unprofessional abbreviations such as "ROFL", as well as various grammatical errors. Arguments goes to Pro because Con failed to provide any while Pro provided some, and they flowed through the entire debate since Con did not successfully refute them.