The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dr.jimmythefish
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
dr.jimmythefish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 98252
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

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.
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

Have you not heard of the philosophy of doubt? Through this and other more scientific methods (repeated experimentation) the atheist and the theist alike question there beliefs. To argue that theists are in some way better is a very Spanish Inquisition like view point, humans reason very much the same, and of the things that matter weather or not your a theists is not of import.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

Are you atheists putting me on? Surely you are not this obtuse?

Moron, I did not ask how you "question there [sic] beliefs." I asked BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY ATHEIST CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?

Can you answer?
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

And I answered the philosophy of doubt. Being enraged dose little to help your cause or your person.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Really? That was your answer? How do you know the "philosophy of doubt", whatever that is, correctly answers my Q?
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

Doubt; the questioning of beliefs. How is this not your anser?
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

As this tool could not answer my Q, he loses the debate.
dr.jimmythefish

Pro

You fail to understand 1. The point of oculating (sp) we argue to increase our understanding of our beliefs by questioning them. 2. Your own question, all humans (barring the deluded but to say all a/theists are deluded is just wrong) regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof question there beliefs in the same manners.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Cat47// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were far more convincing than Con's. Con didn't refute Pro's arguments either, and came off as a tad bit too aggressive in Round 2 and 4. Also, I feel like con may be a bot.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Merely stating that one side was more convincing and the other didn"t refute is not sufficient. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. Stating that one side was more aggressive is not enough " the voter has to explain how that side was insulting, disobeyed the rules, or forfeited in order to award this point.
************************************************************************
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
Atheist trust that they have put on theire pants when they walk out the door. Theist are the ones who ask you if they got theires on...And trust you...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
ViceRegentdr.jimmythefishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more convincing arguments because they made a good point about doubt, and con never rebutted rather con sputtered on with his ad hominem (calling pro a moron and a tool)