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

Are Atheists Able to Know Reality from Delusion?

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  
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: 9/9/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,290 times Debate No: 103880
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
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, 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 or other logical fallacies, 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.

NOTE TO ALL YOU LOSERS POSTING COMMENTS. IF I DO NOT THINK YOU COMMENT ADD ANYTHING RATIONAL TO THE DISCUSSION OR I CANNNOT USE IT TO MOCK YOU, I DO NOT BOTHER RESPONDING
Youraverageunicorn

Pro

I want to start off by saying these things:
1. A violation of any of your "rules" is completely acceptable because your rules are stupid
2. Stop making debates that are offensive to people's beliefs
3. If you really meant what you said about science then it's sad you don't believe in things that are already proven.

I'm not saying I don't like people who believe in god. I go to a school where a lot of people are religious. Just the way you're perceiving atheists is unacceptable but I'm willing to continue this debate.

Okay. God has not been proven to exist. They're as believable as unicorns. I believe in unicorns. But we don't know for sure that these two exist.

God has been created for more so the tool to get people through life. If people are in the face of a crisis, they pray to god. Once again, I'm not saying I know for sure god isn't real, I'm saying it hasn't been proven of it's existence. God has been a companion to those who believe. It's more of a spirit that if you believe, it's real. God isn't there to tell you: oh. You're in the real world. If you aren't willing to believe science, YOU aren't in the real world. I know if I'm delusional or not because there are signs in everyday life. There are a lot of people who don't believe in god and they're fine. They aren't CRAZY. But science has evidence so it's reasonably believable and you don't need a voice telling you it is. I would be happy to continue my argument or rebut yours and I'm interested to see your arguments. But please don't go against mine quite yet because I won't have anything to respond to and that's not completely fair to me.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

And this moron loses the debate for running from the Q and being an irrational douche. Moving on.
Youraverageunicorn

Pro

And this moron is completely clueless of the fact that I DID answer the question, and does not know how to debate. We're still doing this debate. I'm not forfeiting. Because eventually someone is going to have to respond and if you don't I automatically win. So let's keep this going, coward.

How do YOU know you aren't in fantasy? Because you see a sign from the heavens saying you aren't? I doubt it. So that's what I mean that it's another one of those things that if you believe it's real, then it is. Nothing wrong with believing in god it's just that you're as aware of the fact that you're in reality as much as an atheist because there's no proof that there is actually a god. Anything to say? Or are you just going to avoid my arguments?
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 21 through 23 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
I am not going to accept your stupid little nothingness debate with only 2,000 characters allowed as you can't even prove your god exists as the BOP is always upon you. I'll just post here.
Matt Dillahunty "The question is ill formed. The question is "what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true"? Atheism is the position of NOT accepting the theological explanation. It is NOT accepting the god hypothesis. It is in fact the null hypothesis. It cannot be proven to be true. It is the default position. And christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam they have all failed to meet their burden of proof. Its not up to me to prove they are any gods anymore than it is up to me to prove that that there isn"t bigfoot or fairies or UFO"s. The default position, the null hypothesis is that these things aren"t true. And we wait and we reserve belief until they are demonstrated to be true. Does that make sense?
Caller "Does that mean atheism is not a worldview?"
Matt "That"s correct. Atheism isn"t a worldview. It doesn't have any pennants or dogma, no books, no authorities. It is a SINGLE position on a SINGLE question on the existence of gods. Now there is a world view that many atheists share. Most of us, at least with the ACA, are skeptics, that informs our worldview. Its my atheism as a direct product of skepticism. Many of us are secular humanists which tells us a little bit more about our moral outlook on life and other things. There"s many many many labels that would fit. There are a number of secular worldviews that are consistent with atheism. Just saying you are an atheist alone doesn"t say anything at all about somebody"s worldview. By the way most Buddhists are atheists. They don"t believe in a god. But they believe in any number of, in some cases, supernatural things that I don"t accept, some of them don"t accept that either, so yeah atheism is not a worldview. It can certainly be a part of a worldview. But its not a worldview in that broad sense."
Posted by ViceRegent 3 years ago
ViceRegent
Another inane comment by an ignorant, irrational loser. Get off my thread, fool.
Posted by JimShady 3 years ago
JimShady
Calm down, you are giving theists a bad name by acting like a bigot.
This debate has 0 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.