How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (4)
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 promise to reply to your question in round two.
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.
Impartial forfeited this round.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hakkayo 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.