How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (3)
Talking snakes are fiction. An invisible non-existent man is fiction. Spiderman is fiction. Anything which isn't backed up with adequate irrefutable evidence, can be tested, experimented, repeated with the exact same results, and it applies to anyone, anything, anywhere, a universal fact that isn't biased or faked in any way to suggest it is true is either a hypothesis or fiction.
Anything which isn't backed up with adequate irrefutable evidence, can be tested, experimented, repeated with the exact same results, and it applies to anyone, anything, anywhere, a universal fact that isn't biased or faked in any way to suggest it is true is fiction.
I just find your ignorance hilarious!
Cow, answer this question: I rationally know truth from fiction because ____________________?
Now what he is trying to say but is too uneducated to say is that his senses tell him what is truth and that senses are confirmed with further testing, which is confirmed by my senses. In other words, ghis know truth by his senses and that his senses are true based on his senses, which is circular reasoning, which is not reasonable.
God is right, they are fools.
How are you going to understand what I say if you don't even have a brain? Are you really 46 years old? An old obese man gorging on pizza everyday seems so smart. Get a life, you lonely bastard.
Just because your mental faculty can't solve subjective questions doesn't mean I have to do it for you. What are you, a retard? Everything done for you all your life? What job do you have rather than here insulting everyone you see and losing every debate you have? After 42 debates, your grand percentile of winning is...7%!
Now what are you trying to say? My senses are true based on my senses? Just because your brainpower is comparable to a Neantherdal's, doesn't mean you should rant like this! Let me define every word for you.
Test: a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.
Experiment: a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
Repeat: do (something) again, either once or a number of times.
Understand? Or do you need some Peter and Jane reading exercises?Oh, you've wet your diapers, time for a nappy change!
What's circular reasoning is that your Bible is right because God says so, and God is right because the Bible says so. Well, isn't it so cute to see those lowly species believing in talking snakes and donkeys!
It beholds me to see there is still a species of ViceRegents out there! Natural selection, do your thing!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by squonk 1 year 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had very poor conduct, spewing irrelevant insults since Round 2: unreasoning animal, tool, obtuse, fool, cow. Not very polite! But Pro stooped to Con's level in Round 3. Therefore, conduct is TIED. Pro gave a coherent definition of "truth" and "fiction" and explained how an atheist can tell the difference between the two. Con kept repeating the original question, insisting that Pro hadn't understood it properly. But, Con never bothered to clarify the question or elaborate on any part of it. Points to PRO for more convincing arguments. Spelling and grammar is TIED. No sources were used.
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.