The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 234 times Debate No: 88805
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




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.


I accept this debate, speaking as an atheist in regards to this particular topic.

I agree to the provisions for this debate wherein you have specified that science is not a "valid" thing to refer to when determining fact v. fiction.

(1) Evidence that is incriminating to a particular topic is fact, this must be physical in most cases.

(1a) Evidence of such concepts as higher powers, supernatural beings, and etc. must be supported by physical evidence for stubborn atheists, such as myself, to submit to the idea that they exist, this physical evidence can come in varying forms according to theist individuals:

-A solid humanoid being
-An apparition whose 'body mass' exists as lightly as air itself
-A simple shadow, strange figure, or noise that can be discerned as unworldly or unusual in a given atmosphere. Though this is much harder to be considered as "evidence" for many times this is photoshopped or audio is created by people trying to gain publicity.

(1b) No theists are capable of bringing solid evidence [as entitled above] before non-theists, and therefore are deemed peddling and worshiping fictional characters which are entirely made up by humankind.

(2) It is invalid of Con to say that science is an invalid point of reference when differentiating fact v. fiction.

(2a) It somewhat breaks the rules to make the above claim, but this debate can continue as a subdebate within the general question. Con has very clearly painted a disregard for science which has advanced modern medicine, the perception of the universe, and our understanding as humans of what is inside us.

(2b) Science is not necessarily reliant on one individual's rational thinking or one's intuition on a giving topic - many times within the scientific community things are rationalized by multiple scientists who coexist to peer-review research before deeming a theory logical, true, or conceding to its possibilities. For this very reason, science is therefore not reliant on self, but rather on community.

(2c) Con is treating science as though it is simply a concept that has been pulled from thin air, when numerous sources of statistics, pictured evidence, as well as the general advancement of human civilization may disagree.

(3) Religion can be a way for people to escape reality, whereas atheism cannot.

(3a) During the 14-1600's, many Europeans felt that illness was caused by demons who sought to bring ailment to the sinners. For this reason, many blamed symptoms that were the consequence of bacteria on made-up beings whose existence could not be proven.

(3b) Religion has been used to deny the science linked to homosexuality [particularly within people] in order to serve as a tool of justification for discrimination against minorities.

(3c) Many religious individuals, particularly prominent in politics, have used the guise of religion to take their denial of evolution and global warming in stride to spread the denial of such concepts.

Once more, thank you, Con.
Debate Round No. 1


It is amazing that you write in standard English and these fools do not understand. Let us go over this one more time.

Fool: When I burned gasoline, much energy in the form of heat was released.
Me: How do you know this?
Fool: I felt and observed it and came to this conclusion with my reason?
Me: How do you know your senses and reason are valid?
Fool: I burned the gasoline multiple times and got the same results.
Me: How do you know you got the same results?
Fool: I felt and observed it and came to this conclusion with my reason.
Me: So you validates your senses and your reason using your senses and reason?
Fool: Yes.
Me: Not rational, for this is circular reasoning.
Fool: Well, then I had other people repeat what I did?
Me: How do you know you had other people repeat this?
Fool: I used my senses and reason to determine this.
Me: So you are still using your senses and reason to validate your senses and reason?
Fool: Yes.
Me: So everything you claim to be true is based on irrationality?
Fool: Yes.
Me: Exactly.

8 it gets really hot. But how do you know it really got hot when you burned gasoline? Well, these fools say I burn gasoline over and over and get the same results. But how do you know you got the same results? Well,


Con's argument is almost embarrassingly moronic and over-the-top.

Those who rely on science depend on direct study the world around them, which is carried out by many others. If one were to use the logic you are using now, this could nullify theism as well:

"I see God."
"How do you know you saw him?"
"Because my reasoning and senses and all that other stuff."
"Well how do you know that is valid?"
"Because I do."

Rinse and repeat.

Con's entire premise is that one cannot entirely be sure if the truth is really the truth. This is a strong philosophical question, but also enables us to recognize that the same logical can be applied to both religion and science, but does not also nullify them. Facts are facts and such is based on evidence and research. It is also humorous how Con has accused me of "not understanding", when they seem to have omitted all of my reasoning in this debate.

I would like for all potential voters to take that into consideration.
Debate Round No. 2


Is it true you could say the same thing about theism? Until you can give me a RATIONAL way you can know truth from error, your truth claims are irrelavant.

Now, put up or shut up.


I ask Con what could possibly be more fictitious than the idea of a random higher power making the universe in 'seven days', which is conceded by theists to be a different span of time than 'days' but rather refers to years? I also ask Con how theists' approach to life, which is essentially "just believe because..." is any more valid than looking at physical evidence (which I defined in round one) as anything more than what it is.

Now, to be quaint, there is nothing more circular than the argument Con is making - it is a constant loop that rejects the opposing side's reason which is based on perceptions of others. Con is saying that the scientific community does not peer-review.
Debate Round No. 3


Notice the red herring, a desperate attempt y change the subject so that she will not have to deal with her own irrationality. She lies and says I am speaking of science and baking an argument. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am asking her for a RATIONAL explanation as to how she knows anything. She has yet to come up with anything. I win.


I ask potential voters to take note of the following:

1. Con, in their conclusion, denies that I have rationally stated how I may tell fact from fiction - when in fact, I have. I have stated that science, through deliberation of many, MANY people, can confirm with physical, valid evidence, what is fact or fiction.

2. Con, in their conclusion, rejected their mention of science which they asserted is not valid in the first round and argued against in the subsequent rounds.

3. Con, in their conclusion, accuses me of lying when in fact I have consistently been truthful and upfront in this exchange so as to give the best quality arguments on the topic I might.

4. Con, in the conduct of their arguments, dodged a majority of talking points I had made including the stagnation of progress in civilization that social dependence on faith can bring, using the example of diseases being blamed on demons rather than germs.

I believe that I have fulfilled the role I was assigned to uphold, which is to prove that atheists might rationally tell fact from fiction, this is because:

1. I justified how one might see science as a valid means of determining what is fact or fiction.

2. I explained that religion can often stagnate the development of society whereas atheism/dependence on science has not (i.e medicine as opposed to faith healing, progressive social laws as opposed to traditionalist ones), and can also develop a better and more accepting world.

3. I had explained that while science can be seen by humans religion and its imperative components cannot (i.e we can see germs through a microscope but religion relies on "just because", hearsay, and speculation.

I believe, for the above entitled reasons, that voters should consider voting Pro; Con's arguments are fallacious and repetitive.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by zookdook1 7 months ago
Only 2 more until Viceregent has made it to 50 posts of the same debate!
Posted by Dreamcatcher55 7 months ago
I Just signed up and just have a quick question. Does the birthdate verification at the start mean that they keep children off these debates? Just curious. I really liked the beginning with all the demands and tantrummy nonsense. Such an obvious attempt to stymie conversation to protect one personal convictions of ignorance are amusing. Shine on you crazy dumbass.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 7 months ago
@Libertarian_Jacquelyn i suggest you see some of his ither activities and attitude before you start complimenting him.
No votes have been placed for this debate.