The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
youaresodumm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 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...
ViceRegent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 88252
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
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.
youaresodumm

Pro

It falls upon the person saying something IS real to prove it. For example I believe in global warming and it falls upon me (and others on my side) to prove it is real, we cannot just say that THEY have to prove that they are right first, otherwise they are wrong.
That is what you are doing. Since I am posting the first argument, I dont really knoweexactly what you will do. Maybe you will post an actual argument. Also, you said no using science. That is stupid but fine. For you, no using the bible. There is NO evidence proving that 'god' wrote it, rather than anyone else.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but this is how I know truth from fiction; I have not seen any CONCLUSIVE evidence. As I said earlier, It doesnt fall on me to prove that god isnt real, so dont try that. So you are probably wondering now, if Im not going to argue, why am I here? Right. So it falls on you to prove that god is real, and I will try to prove your arguments wrong.

good luck in the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Dude, can you tell me how you know truth from fiction? You know, the purpose of the debate? ROFL.

These fools are so obtuse.
youaresodumm

Pro

...I explained this already. It falls to the person saying something is real to prove it, not the person saying it isnt. Give proof, and I will prove it wrong, you have FAILED to give any proof whatsoever without a reason.
Also, how do you know that what you read in my argument was actually what I typed? After all, "how you know your senses and reason are valid."
If you dont give me a legit argument next time I am dropping out.
by the way, obtuse? No one says that.

Your stupidity rofls my waffles
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Yes, you are being obtuse.

One last chance to answer the Q before you auto-lose the debate, though I will rephrase for your tiny mind:

How do you know that anything you claim to be truth is actually true and no fiction?
youaresodumm

Pro

I ALREADY TOLD YOU. Ok I'll tell you again. As an atheist, my only belief is that god doesn't exist. At least not as any religion portrays him/her.
HERE IS HOW I KNOW: There is no proof otherwise. That is it. Like most atheists (I think, I don't entirely know what they believe) I am open to new beliefs, but only if there is proof, and I have seen no proof proving that god is real in any religion.

PS I don't think this debate is real, how can you trust your senses and reasoning?
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Yep, obtuse. I did not ask this fool anything about his belief/non-beliefe in God. But is he serious that that is the only thing he claims to know? If so, he is ignorant. And his logic is horrible, for the absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Can I please have an intelligent atheist answer this very simple Q?
youaresodumm

Pro

"I did not ask this fool anything about his belief/non-beliefe in God." the title of this debate is: how do atheists rationally know truth from fiction. That pretty much implies that we are talking about god. If that isn't what this debate about, then what IS it about? I can't really put an argument here because you haven't said shb29;t in ANY of your arguments. And yes, lack of proof IS a valid reason. if I say that invisible unicorns exist YOU DON'T NEED PROOF to say I am wrong, because I have no proof you can reasonably assume that I am wrong. It is the same here.
also, either you are being dumm or I am not understanding the question. Having the word atheist in the title implies that this is about god.
please restate the question, and stop being more obtuse than my elbows.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

Well, I gave this tool three chances to answer my Q and he faked three times. He loses.
youaresodumm

Pro

youaresodumm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: milesk12// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: As usual.

[*Reason for removal*] It appears that this voter is specifically voting against Con on several debates and is justifying that with no reason beyond the fact that Con is who he is. Not only is that insufficient, it's also malicious.
************************************************************************
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
If it is so easy then you andwer how you rationally know vice. You have always been a coward and run away when somone else ask a question. Explain this from your high and mighty throne
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
How funny that an atheist denies the existence of truth while making a truth claim. Atheists are mentally ill.
Posted by Hoppi 8 months ago
Hoppi
It's a difficult question to answer because "truth" is more a religious term. It's still used in the atheist community from time to time, but more as a relic from our shared religious history.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
In light of the fact that no atheist can tell me how they rationally know truth from fiction, it is not really a debate. It is just atheists blather on.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
In light of the fact that no atheist can tell me how they rationally know truth from fiction, it is not really a debate. It is just atheists blathe
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
In light of the fact that no atheist can tell me how they rationally know truth from fiction, it is not really a debate. It is just atheists blathering on irrationally.
Posted by Hoppi 8 months ago
Hoppi
LMAO I had no idea this was one in a long series of debates! :D

So maybe there's a history that made you think that this was about belief in god, but you're not supposed to use information outside the debate for voting. Con's round 1 seemed to be pretty clearly about truth and fiction in general, and not about belief in god specifically.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
the premise you set the debate make it logically impossible to answer. here is a tip if you want to be take seriously, make sure you can answer your own topic before you ask it. so how do you know truth from fiction vice? since your so confident.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
Hoppi, their worldview has left them unable to address my Q, which is why I keep asking it. I want to expose them as irrational, ignorant fools. Amazingly, they are all so willing to help.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 8 months ago
Hoppi
ViceRegentyouaresodummTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It was clear in round 1, that Pro was required to answer the question, "how do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?" Con even said it was the sole purpose of the debate. Pro did not answer the question, and therefore loses on arguments. If anything about this RFD is unclear, feel free to ask me. I'm happy to expand on it.