The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 98478
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
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.


Truth means that which comports with reality. Fiction would then be that which does not comport with reality. We use the scientific method because that is the best way to find out information about the world that we live in. That is how we know anything to be true to a sufficient level of confidence. One relies on their senses because the senses provide consistent reliable results based on the reality that we experience. We also know based on this that the logical absolutes are true(A is A, non contradiction, excluded middle).

If you wish to presuppose that all knowledge and only exists if a god exists then you will need to:
1) Define god.
2) Provide evidence of such a god's existence.
3) Prove with evidence that this god imparted knowledge and the logical absolutes on mankind.

If you are looking for an answer to hard solipsism, and are providing god as a solution then you are really gonna have a hard time. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, but our ability to measure the reality we experience does. I look forward to your answers.
Debate Round No. 1


How do you know the scientific method is A way to know information about the world, let alone the "best" way?

And how do know your senses provide "consistent, reliable results" without using your senses, avoiding the fallacy of circular reasoning?

How do you know logical absolutes exist, let alone are true?

At least this irrational dude answered the Q, though not rationally. Props to him.


We know that the scientific method and our senses provide consistent results that are reliable because we can repeat actions, surveys, or experiments and get repeats of the same results. Because we are unable to know any other reality other than the one we experience we must necessarily have some presuppositions that our senses are valid and the the logical absolutes are valid.

We must follow Occam's Razor and make the most reasonable and least amount of assumptions possible. The least amount of assumptions would be that our senses are valid and sound because we can measure the results of relying upon them in the world we live in. If you are going to say that we cannot know anything without a god and that god presupposes truth and knowledge, then you are going to have to demonstrate the truth about your claims about god. Because a god would require more assumptions than the reliability of our senses it would violate Occam's Razor, therefore you can't assume you must your assertions that god presupposes truth(if that is your claim).

I would ask con how what method they use for epistemology? How do you know what is truth?
Debate Round No. 2


As I said in my OP, the atheist has no rational way to know truth from fiction. This dude proves atheists are irrational by validating his senses and reason with his senses and reason, which is the circular reasoning fallacy. As he failed to answer the rest of my questions, he loses the debate.


Descartes famously said: "I think, therefore I am" We understand that we cannot solve the problem of solipsism, we are left to understand the world around us using what we have to work with which would be the senses and uses of logic that we perceive to be valid.

Plato argued that reality may exist outside of what we as people experience. While that may be true, the nature of ultimate reality(if it exists) is not something that is currently knowable in the set of knowledge humans have. We as humans exist in the reality that we agree upon exists. While it is true that we could be in the matrix or a brain in a vat we have no way of knowing this. Using the only basis for epistemology that we have is not circular reasoning but rather is a necessary presupposition based upon what we experience and the reliability we are aware of.

Using the only way we have to know about the world is not a fallacy. I have explained the necessity of small presuppositions how that relates to Occam's Razor. It seems as con is poisoning the well in a sense by discrediting my arguments without proposing any arguments of their own only saying "he loses the debate". One could accuse me of McNamara fallacy, but again we must have some presuppositions because the nature of any potential ultimate reality is unknowable.

If con, has an alternative to how acquire and trust knowledge that we receive then it should be presented. I keep waiting for god to be presented but it has not been. Con's original question is "How do atheists know truth from fiction?" So unassumingly con presents a god as an alternative but hasn't presented anything.
Debate Round No. 3


Again, Pro admits that his atheism has left him unable to know truth from fiction. While I thank him for this, it is why no rational person is an atheist. QED


Con has failed to define what they mean by fiction. I have laid out the clear case for the methodology for how we find out about the world and find what is true based on the reality that we experience. Con has provided no alternative way of understanding only on the surface leaving one to assume that a god presupposes truth and knowledge but has not even fully made that claim or addressed it. Con assumes I am an atheist when I have not provided such information and my personal theology or lack thereof is not necessary to establish a framework of epistemology without a god belief.

Con concludes by laying down a "no true Scotsman" claim that no rational person is an atheist without any evidence. The claim is seemingly meaningless.

At no point in this had I admitted anything only have I made a solid case. I ask the voters to award me the bulk of the points based on my opponent's lack of formal argument and lack of coherent responses to my argument. Thank you in advance to the voters, and to my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
They say yes or no and never wonder who said it.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
There is a request of an answer to a question which must explain how a group that doesn"t believing in a supreme power suppose a limit of fiction on truth.
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
I would also note that how we know or come to a reasonable justified true belief something is true has nothing to do with atheism necessarily. This is a question about epistemology. There is nothing in your proposed topic that is tied to belief in a god or lack thereof.
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
I may accept this but need clarification...
How do you define the terms truth and fiction?

Also, 2000 characters doesn't seem adequate enough to discuss the topic appropriately.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
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: Con failed to read pro's arguments (or otherwise lacked enough graph of the English language to understand them), as evidenced by his single short paragraph rounds 3 and 4 which failed to address the arguments let alone refute them; outright claiming to have won the debate on the basis that pro believes the observed world logically exists... Pro on the other hand backed up rationality in clear ways, then broke into the classic philosopher Plato; plus explaining why his reasoning was not a logical fallacy.