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

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
PowerPikachu21 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 736 times Debate No: 93525
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
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.


This is a topic that's been going on for a long time. I will do my best to say how athiests know what is true, and what is false.


Athiest: One lacking belief in God, ususally because of the lack of evidence.

Rationally: Making a conclusion with certainity.

Truth: Consisting with reality.

Fiction: Not consisting with reality.

Now that we got definitions, short character limit of 2,000.


So how does one who lacks faith in God know what's true? Evidence, of course. Evidence is the entire reason why athiests exist in the first place! Without evidence, how would one rationally claim something is true?

True: The Sun, My computer, Ocean

False: Mermaids, Demons, God

We can see the sun and the ocean. I'm typing my agument on my computer. However, there has never been any reliable proof of mermaids, demons, or God.

Also, let's turn this around for a moment. I believe athiests are being discriminated against, probably lack of faith. I want to propose a question.

How do thiests rationally know truth from fiction?

Let's think about this. The difference from an athiest and a thiest is a belief in the Bible. That's the only difference. So how does a belief in a god equate to accurate senses and stuff?


Let's sum it up.

1) Athiests rely on sound evidence to determine whether an owl is more real than mermaids.
2) Athiests lack a belief in god because of lack of evidence.
3) Thiests trust that God is there, without any sound evidence.
4) So now the question becomes: How do thiests rationally know truth from fiction?

I await my thiest opponent to answer for me. (Why's it always about athiests, though? We're still human, and think rationally.)
Debate Round No. 1


So this atheist decided that the best way to answer my Q was to ignore my Q and tell me that his senses tell him what is true. Had he bothered to read my OP, he would have seen why this fails as a rational epistemological basis. But since he has chosen to waste my time and since it is the weekend, I will ask him one simple Q:

How do you know your senses provide you true information and that your reason properly processes that information?

Please do not prove yourself irrational by saying, no matter how many words you use, that your senses validate your senses and that your reason validates your reason, for that is simply begging the question or circular reasoning.

David Hume exposed the irrational nature of this view many, many years ago. it appears these groupie atheists have learned nothing from one of their own who is, by far, their philosophical better.

Good luck.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BackCommander 1 month ago
"...first global expression of what many people BELIEVE to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled." The majority of mankind is religious, therefore many people would believe it was a right.

No one cares how YOU personally test atheists to "prove" to yourself that they're dishonest (and by extension that you're superior to them)

To reason is to "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic."
Logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."
And just to drive the point home, validity is "the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency."

An atheist who says you don't have rational grounds isn't a hypocrite, by that logic you're a hypocrite for not being able to see an atheist's rational grounds.

Most atheists do push forth conscience rights. We Antitheists however, do not view freedom of religion to be one of them. In a world where no one can openly claim a religion, or even openly speak about it, or make a show of it, in public, is a world in which the everyday citizen can feel safe from persecution due to their beliefs, or lack thereof.

Before you call me a hypocrite make sure to note that I don't seek to abolish your beliefs, just to remove your illusions that it's a right to openly use it as a weapon to force other's to live their lives in a way that fits an outdated book. I'd be a hypocrite if I also believed everyone should live there lives just as Dumbledore tells Harry to.
Posted by Agingseeker 3 months ago
Any atheist that says reason is his guide has to allow others to have reason as their guide. An atheist that says I don't have rational grounds just because he can't find them himself is a hypocrite. I leave them alone. But I want them to honor the reason they say they follow. Hint: you can tell a dishonest atheist by a simple test. Do they champion conscience rights.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many people believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
or was it a blind man wandering through a mineral cave passing the water lake unaware, and further on his road thought a barrel contained fresh water
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
how do you validate math without your senses?

you escape a long deadly hostile toxic environment, manage get through the harshest of wilderness, and thirsty you find a mineral filtered clear fresh water lake inside a white mineral mountain cave with abundance of fish, but you go outside to see the road further ahead, and more toxic waste environment showing in the sky, you choose to go further drink from a toxic waste barrel.. -viceregent
Posted by CaptainScarlet 3 months ago
Atheists are mentally ill are they VR? How do you know that for certain?
Posted by canis 3 months ago
Well. You are saying that what I just got in Germany is not what I can know..
Posted by ViceRegent 3 months ago
I love watching atheists pretend to know things when they cannot even tell us how they know one thing and run from all of our very simple Qs. They are mentally ill, for sure.
Posted by canis 3 months ago
Just got this one in Germany
And ask me how I know...
Posted by canis 3 months ago
There are no atheist or theist..That are just words...Then there is truth you can know, and there is truth you can construct..So we got Santas and gods...
Posted by CaptainScarlet 3 months ago
I do believe VR is actually trying to make an argument. From the words and tone of his last comment it appears he agrees with the proposition that "mental processes are more than just biochemistry". That's interesting. Is VR arguing for some form of substance dualism? Go ahead VR make your case and tell us how you solved the interaction problem. Or does be hold to another view in the philosophy of mind.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.