The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 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: 12/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 358 times Debate No: 98055
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
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, BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY ATHEIST CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. I have even put it in capital letters for those to dense to get it. 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. But I do appreciate all of the losers who respond and confirm my view that atheists are anti-intellectual and mentally ill.


There are innumerable philosophical positions on what truth is, however, for simplification, I propose that truth shall mean “what is the case” and fiction shall mean “what is not the case”.

Along these lines, I can know a host of propositions that are either the case or not, by virtue of language in the propositions. These are referred to as analytic propositions. Note, language is constructed, thereby it is utterly nonsensical to ask the question “is language objective” in the sense of ultimate reality. My opponent has denounced epistemic relativism and metaphysical nihilism, however, I am not maintaining that reality doesn’t exist, or that there is not an objective reality, however, language, the way in which we describe states of affairs, is not objective in this sense. Given this, I can know what language is and the meaning of units and expressions of language, and use this to discern what must be the case, and what must not be the case. One must also note, I am not stating that language is subjective, and therefore anything can mean anything, I am maintaining that language is not objective in the externalist sense, as to separate from sentient minds. And to convey this, imagine a world in which there are no minds, I find it incoherent to imagine a language system in this world, and I challenge my opponent to argue otherwise. This being said, even completely disregarding all empirical investigation, and even if I were to concede all possibilities of a posteriori knowledge, there are many things i can discern about reality a priori.

My opponent has stipulated a rather low character count therefore I am using this round to outline and qualify my argument, which shall proceed as follows.

A: Language is how we describe reality
B: Language is constructed, but not subjective
C: I can describe reality in non-subjective terms
D: I can describe reality in objective terms
E: I can know things about reality

I show how this translates to knowledge in R2.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2


Is this really this difficult of for you mental midgets? I know you love to vomit words, but please answer my Q.

Here let me help: finish the following sentence:

The methodology I use to rationally know truth versus fiction is ________________________________________________.


If you had any training in epistemology or the philosophy of language, you would have realized that I answered your question. There are many tools I use to discern truth from fiction, and I’m using language and reason.

Language is constructed, and therefore not external, entailing that within the accepted framework of language, my reasoning cannot be invalid. Given that my reason cannot be invalid within the accepted framework of language, and language is how we describe reality, it follows that within the accepted framework of language, and given the impossibility of my reasoning being invalid in this regard, my claims about reality within the accepted framework of language cannot be invalid, and if this is true, I can discern truth from fiction.

For example, we have a meaning of what it is to be married, and the negation of this term is referred to as ‘bachelor’. Therefore, by definition, there is no x that has the properties of being married and being a bachelor. Given this, I can make the claim about reality that, there are no married-bachelors. And this claim is necessarily true because, the meaning of the terms can’t be wrong, given the constructed and accepted meaning of them, and since one is P and one is ~P, I can know that both are not the case. This is validated by the accepted meaning and logic. Therefore, in reality, if someone makes the claim that X is a married-bachelor, I can know, a priori, that this is fictitious. Thus, I have a method for discerning truth and fiction.

Debate Round No. 3


As this fool refuses to answer my Q, even when I put it in its most simple form, and chooses instead to beg the question, he loses the debate. Next.


My opponent has conceded the debate. I have offered a coherent methodology for discerning reality, and con did not attempt to refute it.

Con also misuses the term “begging the question”:

. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.”

If you look at the format of my argument, this doesn’t appear to be the case, and con has not presented any evidence as to why it is the case.

A: Language is how we describe reality

B: Language is constructed, but not subjective

C: I can describe reality in non-subjective terms

D: I can describe reality in objective terms

E: I can know things about reality

Nowhere have I assumed the conclusion in the premises. The conclusion follows from the premises, but is not one of the premises.

This being said, I have provided a way to discern truth from fiction, and con has not addressed this, and as such, has conceded this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Vox_Ex_Rationis 1 year ago
To a true atheist, there is no 'truth', only fact. True fact! Get your facts straight.

Lol at religious nut-job vi_spex forcing his beliefs on us by telling us to
"experience Donald Trump's interpretation of the bible."
Wow. I just can't even.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
experience trumps bible
Posted by Castaway 1 year ago
Your question is invalid, Christians don't know truth from fiction anymore than atheists, stop asking the clearly biased question.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's content is the angry rant of an arrogant ignoramus. Con created this debate to express contempt for atheists. Con insults atheists in general, has a condescending tone and insults Pro directly. Pro's conduct was exemplary in comparison.