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

How do atheists ratiionally 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ViceRegent has forfeited round #4.
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: 12/8/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 97793
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
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.


I'm glad to join this debate. I hope we both can create insightful and civil discussions about these ideas. I will promise to respect you and try to abide by your rules.

I shall start this off by stating some key definitions on this debate:

Atheist- a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings
Agnostic- a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable
Science- a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general law; Knowledge gained by systematic study
Scientific Method- a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested


I believe that athiests and agnostics are unsure of a supreme being because there is no evidence on the existance of a God or Gods because of the lack of proof. In fact, there is some evidence that indicates that it was not a God(s) that made the universe, but the Big Bang. I shall be sure to provide more information on the Big Bang in my next argument with reliable sources and data. Additionally, the only doctrines that claim there is a God or Gods are from old texts such as the Bible. Most religious texts were made hundreds or even thousands of years ago, in a time where humans didn't even believe in science, and believed in the existence of magical and supernatural things such as spontaneous generation. There are hundreds of religions which proclaim that there is either one or many Gods, also bringing the question "Who is our true God?"

Good luck in the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Can none of you atheist moron's read? Or do you see every debate as merely a chance to share your worthless musings no matter the relevancy to the topic? My gosh, if you cannot answer my Q at least do not waste my time.


I shall first argue on why Athiests and Agnostics believe that there may not be a God by discussing the credibility of religious texts, specifically the Bible.

The Bible was written around 3,500 years ago, and written in a period of around 1500 years. The creation of the bible is mostly attributed to Moses, an Israelite who grew up under Egyptian royalty.
Egyptian society in 1500 B.C., and most societies during that time, relied on religious beliefs to explain the natural happenings around them. For example, Egyptians believed that the sun rose up and down because of the Sun God. They also believed that the soul of Pharaohs buried within the pyramids would ascend along the ramp of the sun to the Sun God himself.

No science was used to support religious beliefs. In fact, many religions such as Christianity formerly preached fallacies such as the world being flat. By submitting our faith and lifestyles to any other religion, we blindly undertake the beliefs of people over hundreds of years old.

The following lines are quotes directly from the Bible with claims that are false:

Revelation 7:1
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the Earth..."
This quote shows that the Bible preached that the Earth was flat.

NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5
"He set the Earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
This quote goes against the belief that the Earth has an orbit, and supports the claim that the Earth is actually in the center of the universe.

I intend to explain the Big Bang for my next argument.

Debate Round No. 2


And this loser loses the debate.


I feel mildly offended.
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 DeletedUser 2 years ago
truth is known
Posted by boozeandbabble 2 years ago
He's using parody to entertain himself.
I've never, NEVER heard any deist\theist claim truth is unknowable,
They unanimously assert that God created the universe in an orderly way whereby reality is discernable through sense, reason, and logic. This dude actually negates sense and reason saying, "you lose debate" if you use them. His profile says he's posted this same debate nearly 200 times. He obviously views this as some sort of satire.
Sucker'em in and give'em insults. To each there own.
Posted by fred70 2 years ago
He'll call you a moron each time. I'll still check your argument though :)
Posted by CosmoJarvis 2 years ago
I thank you for the warning, but I will at least use this debate for personal experience on how to make a supportive argument with persuasive and reliable evidence regardless.
Posted by fred70 2 years ago
Pro, he has no desire to debate. No matter what you say he'll resort to ad hominem.
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.