The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
akhilcr666
Pro (for)
Winning
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
akhilcr666
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 89555
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
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.
akhilcr666

Pro

Atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism." However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counterexample.
If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Why do these fools waste my time?
akhilcr666

Pro

There are many philosophical justifications for atheism. To find out why a particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.

Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that such a God could exist. Others are atheists through skepticism, because they see no evidence that God exists.

There are a number of books which lay out a philosophical justification for atheism, such as Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. A few such books are in the document listing Atheist Media.

Of course, some people are atheists without having any particular logical argument to back up their atheism. For some, it is simply the most comfortable, common sense position to take
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
akhilcr666

Pro

akhilcr666 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

ViceRegent forfeited this round.
akhilcr666

Pro

akhilcr666 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
And we have reduced Doctor Moron to a cliche babbling nothing. ROFL
Posted by DoctorFight 8 months ago
DoctorFight
Do Not Feed
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 8 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
I am just asking for context, is that too much to ask? I just want to know your basis for truth.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
Why is this Q so hard for atheists? They must be mentally ill.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
To his being ignorant, we can add arrogant and obtuse.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 8 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
I insist, please tell me, what is "truth"? How can i telll it appart from fiction? I am assuming you know what truth is. Well, i dont. teach me.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
If you do not know what truth is my answer will be meaningless to you. It is why calculus professors do not explain calculus proofs to children who deny the number line exists.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 8 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
Then, ViceRegent, please enlighten us. What is the definition of truth and how can we tell it apart from fiction?
I am claiming not to know what truth is, while you seem to do. Please tell us.
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
This from a dude who makes truth claims while having no idea how he knows truth from fiction. ROFL.
Posted by DoctorFight 8 months ago
DoctorFight
If this ViceRegent dude isn't a flat out troll, he's legitimately the most bafflingly arrogant person I've ever seen comment on the internet.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 7 months ago
Brendan21
ViceRegentakhilcr666Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro explained himself a decent amount and provided sources for his argument, though did not really make one himself. Con, however, baited Pro and then taunted him with one sentence for his only rebuttal.