The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
The Contender
Sonofcharl
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
ViceRegent has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 267 times Debate No: 98020
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

ViceRegent

Con

IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.

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.
Sonofcharl

Pro

I am an Atheist. Because I was not programmed to be a Theist. Rationality is a calm state of mind. Truth is a proved fact. Fiction is an entertainment that doesn't need proof. Anyone with a basic level of education is able to know the difference between truth and fiction. Whether they choose to do so, is a different issue.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Another ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic and deluded atheists steps up to the plate, but utterly fails to answer my Q. I did not ask for definitions. I did not ask for this fool's opinion as who knows the methodology to know truth from fiction. I asked for him to tell his methodology. He failed and loses the debate. Next.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Ha ha. I sense a frustrated fellow.
Such a simple debate, requires simple argument. I answered every point of your argument succinctly. And the only response you have is bad tempered. You surely loose the debate.
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
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sunfire315 1 year ago
Sunfire315
Is this satirical?
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Another ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic and deluded atheists steps up to the plate, but utterly fails to answer my Q. I did not ask for definitions. I did not ask for this fool's opinion as who knows the methodology to know truth from fiction. I asked for him to tell his methodology. He failed and loses the debate. Next.Another ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic and deluded atheists steps up to the plate, but utterly fails to answer my Q. I did not ask for definitions. I did not ask for this fool's opinion as who knows the methodology to know truth from fiction. I asked for him to tell his methodology. He failed and loses the debate. Next.Another ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic and deluded atheists steps up to the plate, but utterly fails to answer my Q. I did not ask for definitions. I did not ask for this fool's opinion as who knows the methodology to know truth from fiction. I asked for him to tell his methodology. He failed and loses the debate. Next.Another ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic and deluded atheists steps up to the plate, but utterly fails to answer my Q. I did not ask for definitions. I did not ask for this fool's opinion as who knows the methodology to know truth from fiction. I asked for him to tell his methodology. He failed and loses the debate. Next.Another ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic and deluded atheists steps up to the plate, but utterly fails to answer my Q. I did not ask for definitions. I did not ask for this fool's opinion as who knows the methodology to know truth from fiction. I asked for him to tell his methodology. He failed and loses the debate. Next.Another ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic and deluded atheists steps up to the plate, but utterly fails to answer my Q. I did not ask for definitions. I did not ask for this fool's opinion as who knows the methodology to know truth from fiction. I asked for him to tell his methodology. He failed and loses the debate. Next.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, gO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT THESE ATHEISTS KEEP VOMITING WORDS AND YET NOT ONE HAS ANSWERED MY Q.IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY.
Posted by kbailey 1 year ago
kbailey
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."
Another "poisoned well" fallacy. Also, "if you had nothing rational to say then, you will *have* nothing rational to say now" is logically and rationally wrong, for it implies people cannot learn from their mistakes.
6. "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 all you have is "Biblical scriptures", do not respond to this debate, for the Bible relies on your mind-numbing sense of what 'rationality' is." Also, "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"? How the hell do you rely on the Bible then? I understand your point here, but you cannot use the same logic your against as logic to propel your argument. That's called being a "hypocrite".
I am tired of seeing your mental gymnastics on Debate.org. If you want to argue, that's fine. But piss off if you think that your way is the best way and they can only use your logic that you pulled from your bowels.
Posted by kbailey 1 year ago
kbailey
Your entire "spiel" about how atheists are "ignorant" and how science proves "nothing" is nothing more than a steaming load of hot, wet mouth diarrhea.
1. "Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality."
Who says this? While I do agree that there are some atheists who put themselves upon a high pedestal (as does any sort of group you would find; you being an example of the kind of radical-ity I'm talking about), you can't pretend that there are some people who are extremely rational. Props for providing a sweeping generalization to fuel my claim.
2. "But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction."
Alright; then what is your definition of truth vs. fiction? Judging by your paragraph, you follow a branch of Christianity. How do we know that the Bible is anything more than a book some men wrote nay more than a couple thousand years ago? Why is that a "truth". Please, prove to me your existence of God using this "rationality" you so egotistically boast about. (Side note: that "question" of yours was supposed to end with a question mark, not a period.)
3. "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?"
You go on later to talk about red herrings and all of these fallacies you know "so much" about, when this is, to me, one of the biggest fallacious crimes you can commit. This, my friend, is called "poisoning the well." You've already set everybody else arguing with you up for failure because you're backfiring their claims, similar to a child who's plugging their fingers inside of their ears and screaming "la-la-la".
4. "So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?"
"So, what Christian can give me a rational way Christians know truth from fiction?" That counter-question should allow you to think. (continued)
This debate has 2 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.