The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
The Contender
moaad2
Pro (for)

How do atheists ratiionally 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: 12/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 98549
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
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, 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.
moaad2

Pro

You are basically upholding simple rationalism by saying that our senses are deceiving us, so therefore science is not a valid source of fact.

Our rationality is based on these basal assumptions.

Reality is real.
We have a platform for predictive capability.
We can make observations.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

At least in avoiding this Q, this fool did not waste too many words. Nevertheless, because he failed to answer the Q, he loses the debate. Next?
moaad2

Pro

You are only in denial, I have answered your question.

Please present a counter argument.
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
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by moaad2 1 year ago
moaad2
Thank you.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
good luck
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
reality is therfore real, no assumption involved.. and assuming it is not real proves my case, eat a carolina reaper pepper and assume non existence
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
if reality is real based on an assumption, that makes it not real
Posted by moaad2 1 year ago
moaad2
That is different between your assumptions, mine are based on facts. I must use it to pass a consensus and therefore answer the question. I did not breach any of the rules. He is simply in denial that I have answered his question and therefore, I have decisively not lost the debate.
Posted by moaad2 1 year ago
moaad2
Well, we have to go with that basal assumption. Existence is fact. I am only "assuming" to pass the consensus that reality in fact, is real.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
why not assume god created everything?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
why dont we eat rotten apples?

you have the same non sense position he does
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you just assume non existence for 30 years if you go to jail for murder then

my point is, we know apples exist, there is no assumption involved.. obviusly
Posted by moaad2 1 year ago
moaad2
Logically, its invalid. Because you would seize to exist.
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.