How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
Simply put, things are true in their natural state.
A dog in its natural state has four legs - Truth
A cat in its natural state has claws - true
In my natural state, I will win this debate - true
Therefore truth=natural state = basic
And basic thus corresponds with the pH I gave it
Fiction, on the other hand, is a hole in the wing of the butterfly - acidic to the system as a mosquito is to a llama.
Truth = Light = Transparency
Fiction = Falsehood = Suspicion
The future is a cloudy window - its contents can only be guessed at by naive men. The wise will not try to gleam contents from molehills in the desert.
The past = contrast from today.
Contrast = difference = alienation = destruction
Without the uniformity of truth, fiction destroys us.
Vote Pro, as Con has yet to provide any sources for his argument.
Usertitle forfeited this round.
Your argument boils down to "he's incoherent".
Incoherency = clouded = destruction
The issue is that your position argues destruction, we cannot rely on it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ForGrowthOfMind 3 months 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who made an actual argument. Con did not justify why Pros answers were not adequate they simply said they weren't which isn't a very good rebuttal.
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.