The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
random_noob
Pro (for)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 452 times Debate No: 88577
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

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.
random_noob

Pro

I am an atheist. I use my senses to rationally know truth from fiction.
I know my senses are valid, because I do regular checks with theists.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

How do you know the content of these "checks" apart from your senses and reason? If you do not, then you are still guilty of circular reasoning, proving yourself irrational and that you know nothing.

I love how these atheist fools are so unable to defend their worldview, they must resort to foolishness which backfires.
random_noob

Pro

That's not that difficult. We use a communication channel which does not require senses and reason, similar to what theists use to communicate with god.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

So you use a non-material communications channel, rejecting the tenants of atheism. Got it. You have just admitted theism is false. Good job. Thanks.

See, this tool is admitting that only by spiritual revelation can he know anything, which is the Christian worldview, which is the opposite of the atheist worldview. Thus, this fool has unwittingly admitting that to know anything he must reject atheism. We agree. I welcome him to the true side.
random_noob

Pro

I actually didn't. I did not say I communicate with any god. I said I communicate with other people to validate my senses and use my senses and reason to perceive the world.

I will have to add that I only use theists' senses to validate my own, because I don't trust their reasoning.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

You also said the means to communicate was spiritual/immaterial. My response followed from that admission. Sorry, you lose.
random_noob

Pro

I am not sure how you concluded that. I am an atheist and I demonstrated how I rationally know truth from fiction.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

That is the hilarious thing. You do not get it. But yes, the only way an atheist can rationally know anything is to abandon atheism and embrace the Christian worldview. Thank you.
random_noob

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate.

I showed how, as an atheist, without the need of a god, I can rationally know truth from fiction using my senses and reason.

My opponent failed to show that my senses and reason are invalid.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
I've been about as clear as I can be with regards to the reasons for removal. If it's still unclear, which it appears to be, then contact me or Blade-of-Truth and we can explain it further until it is clear. As for reports, anyone can report any vote. It's really less about who reports what and more about whether a given vote should be removed.
Posted by raskuseal 8 months ago
raskuseal
I still fail to see how my votes are insufficient. I had everything necessary, and explained everything to the best of my ability, along with being specific. Considering how many times this happened, I believe that someone is purposely trolling me. Or if they aren't', it's someone abusing the reporting/voting system. It's actually pretty easy, as all you would have to do is report the votes against the person you want to win so that the person loses points, lessening the amount of points the person you want to win needs. I'm hoping they fix that, because it's getting uber-annoying.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: raskuseal// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: I strongly vote pro for a lot of reasons, which I will list. I agreed with PRO before and after the debate for the following reasons: PRO had better conduct, as he did not ignore CON, and he stayed true to the debate and answered the questions, where as CON had very poor sportsmanship and repeatedly insulted and ignored PRO: PRO had better spelling and grammar, as his side is completely original, whilst CON had simply copy/pasted his side of the debate well over 40 times now. Nowhere near original: PRO had better, more convincing arguments, as he addressed the debate and answered the questions accordingly, while CON simply ignored everything PRO said: and finally, PRO had better sources, as he gave examples for his arguments, while CON did not provide anything to help support his flawed idea of philosophy.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than be upset at the fact that Pro has re-used his argument in order to sufficiently explain this point allocaiton. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both sides and not mrely dismiss one side on the basis of a lack of rebuttal on their part.
************************************************************************
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
And here we have more evidence atheists are deluded.
Posted by random_noob 8 months ago
random_noob
I am pretty sure my opponent is a bot.
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
religion is endless gates of smoke
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
At least these atheists cannot murder me like their more consistent intellectual ancestors did those they could not refute.
Posted by raskuseal 8 months ago
raskuseal
I have put in a request to ban ViceRegents' account. I would appreciate it if anyone else did the same. It is getting extremely annoying to see the same debate over 40 times now. He spams DDO, Trolls people, Ignores them when they can negate his debate, and he has very, very poor sportsmanship.
Posted by jglass841 8 months ago
jglass841
How many times will you post this argument that has no logic?
Posted by fire_wings 8 months ago
fire_wings
stop it!
No votes have been placed for this debate.