The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The-Holy-Macrel
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
The-Holy-Macrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 88201
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
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.
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

I have science.
Science is a way of thinking.
We determine the truth through experimentation.
All humans are rational actually.
Like if you were playing baseball and the ball went flying into the field when you were at bat.
Did you hit it?
Yes indeed.
An atheist can determine this in this situation.
Note not all of this argument is based on science.
Mainly logic.
I actually have a confession.
I am christian, for good reasons though.
Yet i can still argue this point.
Hope you can suprise me later in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

As the debate rules make clear, this is for atheists only. And you way is patently unbiblical. You lose.
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

The-Holy-Macrel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Look closely voters it never says that a christian cannot join this debate.
Read thoroughly.

And my way has nothing to do with the debate.
That was off topic.

Con has failed to break my argument.

I was explaining how any human, including an atheist could determine the truth.

Read the argument.

I have analyzed the rules very carefully and have not broken them at all.

Vote pro.

-note to con- I was raised in a christian home. I always thought it was more logical for a god to exist. as I have progressed through life I believe the christian god has the most sound morals. This is why I am still christian. I have destroyed my bias and have constructed my own support for my belief. I am not a regular christian. I am a logical geeky christian that can back up his way. No bias. Real reasons. -end of note-
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Con has not provided an opposing argument to attack me for two turns.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Con has forfeited 3 in a row.
He's out.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 8 months ago
The-Holy-Macrel
Is anyone going to vote?

);
Posted by youaresodumm 8 months ago
youaresodumm
guys petition to the site admins to throw a party since vice has reached 50 reposts!
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
you never specify atheist anywhere in you post vice. but if your so sure then point it out.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 8 months ago
The-Holy-Macrel
:b
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 8 months ago
The-Holy-Macrel
Not over yet.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
Apparently not. And sorry, you already lost the debate.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 8 months ago
The-Holy-Macrel
I analized very carefully. It says nothing. You weren't specific enough. You are stuck with me now.
& actually respond to my argument.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
Your lack of reading comprehension does not make my post unclear.
Posted by raskuseal 8 months ago
raskuseal
ViceRegent says that this debate is for atheists, but then he says that TheHolyMackeral is unbiblical, and therefor loses the debate. How and in what world does this make sense? Being unbiblical is in the same context as being atheist. And even if TheHolyMackeral is a christian, he never once stated it or tried to do anything with it. ViceRegent knew he was gonna get his butt kicked again, so he he said that TheHolyMackeral lost by not even following the rules, even though he did. Now that is some truly sh!tty sportsmanship. Zero kudos to you, ViceRegent.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 8 months ago
The-Holy-Macrel
And you never associate "you" with "atheist".
Actually your rules are very unclear.
DETAILS, they will kill you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
ViceRegentThe-Holy-MacrelTied
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: Pro gave an answer to the question, while con didn't have an argument. Conduct to pro as con accused him of breaking the rules, though the rule he was accused if breaking doesn't exist. Also con had more forfeitures