The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 89799
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)




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.


It's a good question but there is a better answer. I assume from your writing, that you are a theist. So do you know that your God exists? I'm an atheist by the way.

I promise to reply to your question in round two.
Debate Round No. 1


I look forward to your answer.


You didn't answer my question but that's fine.

Using logic, I can tell you that it is a fact that I know that I do not know what happened before the big bang. I'll go one step further. I know something that a theist, who thinks they know their God exists, does not. I know that they do not know that they do not know that their God exists.
Debate Round No. 2


Putting aside that logic get us from point A to B to C, etc, but cannot tell us if A is true, how do you know your use of logic is valid?


Impartial forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Another arrogant atheist bites the dust. I win.


I don't know what happened there. I already answered your question but I'd be happy to answer your second question too.

How do I know that my use of logic is valid? Because we use it to create theories that can be tested and if we're very lucky, more and more experimentation may continue to produce effective results. The more something can be tested repeatedly with the same results, the more enthused the scientific community is at disproving it. This is the basis of physics. It's why we are able to drive cars hundreds of miles and hour, or fly people to the Moon, because the more our theories are scrutinised, the more likely we are to find out what is true.

Using this bottom up approach is the most effective and successful way to reach truth. Theology, as much as theists like to preach truth, uses a literally and metaphorically backward approach to seeking truth and that is why it has failed at every opportunity. I may be arrogant in your eyes but in mine, you are naive.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 6 months ago
Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. Since our senses and reason are the means of our consciousness, their validity is also axiomatic. VR you should look that word up so you can understand what axiomatic means.
Posted by Impartial 6 months ago
I didn't forfeit the round. How do I reverse that?
Posted by Hakkayo 6 months ago
This argument got posted again? Man I thought viceregent would be too embarrassed to
Posted by ViceRegent 6 months ago
Such as? And how do you know what the results of these other methods are without your senses and reason? ROFL
Posted by kwbc 6 months ago
@vice. I'll take up your next debate on this topic. Senses and "logic" are all relative to the individual person. That is why we rely on methods that try to exclude human error from the whole equation.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 6 months ago
@vice. this has been done so many times that the website doesn't even bother showing the number of times this has been posted...
Posted by ViceRegent 6 months ago
I did not ask you if it appears to be true, but how you know you senses are valid. Indeed, appearance is a function of your senses. Thus, you are irrationally saying your senses validate your senses, which is circular reasoning. I am looking for something rational.
Posted by tsukiyomi 6 months ago
LOL, didn't know this was a debate. Seems just like the title, ask an initial regressive questions to a VOLUNTEER targeted Atheist and the rebuttal either follows by another question or to a regressive statement leading back towards a loop. Apparently, it's going for the 3rd time XD.
Posted by Boatlet 6 months ago
It appears to be true considering that we both sense similar things. What reasoning do I see to make me think this is not valid? If every person I meet displays the evidence that they are seeing what I'm seeing then my most logical conclusion seems to be that this is the common thing to believe. What do you attribute seeing the same object to? I have been given evidence and the most logical conclusion that appears to be valid is that we see this thing based off of these properties. How else do we analyze things? I use my senses and my brain to make conclusions. I also used to be religious and I'll tell you that what I see as truths generally haven't changed and I just examine and apply what appears to the most valid. None of us can can definitely say we have the valid idea of truth until it is proven truth. If my senses are indeed invalid then how am I to know that I don't know truth and how would I come to the conclusion and reason that someone else was correct in the first place. And what is to say that a lack of belief of God is what has negatively impacted my senses and ability to reason? And how am I to know how to correctly assess situations. Through God? Religion was never a major part of my reasoning. Please provide a different way for me to attempt to know truth from fiction and I will do it and pair my honest results.
Posted by SkyLeach 6 months ago
you guys should google axiomatic statements, derived axioms, epistemology and formal logic

the neurons in your brain work on the same principles as axiomatic provability with synaptic weighting through chemical markers and positive hormonal reinforcement influencing patters of neural development based on outcomes
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hakkayo 6 months ago
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: Again I see Viceregent being disrespectful to his opponent by refusing to engage in debate, this disrespect is making me vote against him when it comes to conduct. Similarly we see the same pattern as we have before of a clear debate in his first round but in the subsequent rounds we see Viceregent fail to put forth any argument, instead he simply denies the opposing argument without supplying an alternative.