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

How do atheists rationally 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
marquettelddebate has forfeited round #2.
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: 1/5/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 963 times Debate No: 98712
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




The Argument, IS ME, asserting that Atheists are NOT Rational, and DO NOT acknowledge Truth, Nor Fiction.

I present the claim that, 'Atheists are entirely Irrational,' as apposed to, 'Ration'.

How an atheist knows fact from fiction is obvious: 'What is factually a fact verses what is factually not.' determines the means by which Conclusions can be Rendered.

My assertion is that atheists do not draw Conclusions regarding 'Rational' facts ~ They muse, stipulate, insinuate and discriminate (These claims: after the "~" are not my argument, and aren't to be acknowledged as such, at all.)

Now. I beg the Question:

How DOES an Atheist Rationally Know Truth from Fiction.

round one: Begin your case - the next round you will not be defending it. SO be clear the first time.


Whenever I see this argument, I cringe inwardly. All people can rationally know truth from fiction, no matter their religion. Please stop putting up this irrelevant debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Oh, well it's funny how You said that you'll do it, when you already failed.
You've proven that Your Logic is Irrational before we've even begun.
Leaving me to remember first, that You and Me are going to debate Homosexuality. Which, I am glad to see that you're evidently not at school. We should schedule a time, because of the 15 minute debate rounds.

So allow me, to initiate My round two response. That Atheists are Irrational.

FIRST: being raised in a Christian home, does not make someone a Christian. NOR does it provide an understanding of Christianity. It does not in any way affiliate the person's perspectives, attitudes, beliefs nor other personal attributes (including associates) with the Religion.
YET, atheists so often say, and believe themselves when they suggest, That they are so confidently aware of Christianity.
They go on to assert that atheists represent the congregation of God.
More over, they suggest that atheists Comprehend Theism enough to actually form an opinion on the subject or matter: when in reality, an opinion cannot be Formed concerning a topic of which one cannot comprehend: As demonstrated with questions such as: "Why doesn't God do anything about the sinners?" / "How isn't God guilty for our sins?/ How can we be guilty for our sins if God is watching?" / "How can God be omnipotent?"; or by saying, "Blasphemy is forgivable" Proving a lack of competent comprehension. IF you cannot Identify the Subject, you Cannot have an opinion of it, Much less be Skeptical.

So. Why would an atheist associate atheists with the church in order to form their negative opinions about it? Because they are irrational, and they being as such, Lack the exertion, application and determination to Be Rational.

Now. Because, ha ha ha, we're debating "how Illogical Atheists really are" ~ allow me to continue.
An atheist dodges the exertion of logic, by asserting that is ignorance. (That Is: ARROGANCE.)
They go on, to assert that the belief in God IS the absence of exertion of Logic: BUT they've never done it ~
Proven through their pathetic questions (some of which I have listed above.[clearly SHOWING that they haven't.])

Swiftly an Atheist arrives at the conclusion that, 'if they Believe that a theist is irrational,' Then Logic is no longer a relevant portion of their debate structure NEITHER, and they arrogantly Opt for and preference Bigotry as the immediate tactic of debate and response. Feigning the application of logic, they will assert none, and begin to question their opponent endlessly and take it upon themselves to apply zero correlation between the responses and his own reality, but instead ONLY apply them to the remarks made in the recent concession of the discussion { IF THAT ] as apposed to his cherry-picking and delusional pre-disposed Idea established from the Disregard of logic. A disregard for logic which 'he' places on a shelf as his "Shield of Innocence" from prosecution | which he will use as a testimony of his lack of effort to determine (RATIONALIZE*) his position:~ meaning (to themselves) that they were not wrong if not decided: they decided, to not be Right.

So. Allow us to not associate Agnosism with Atheism for a moment { (as they are both a lack of belief in God, a Lack of Love of God, WHICH therefor by default, reinforces the perspectives of womanizers, criminals, perverts, bigots, politically-corrupt behaviours, negligence etc etc etc, YET reinforces no positive behaviours (save the "PoSiTive" aspect of Promoting those negative behaviours smugly as being Tolerated, in the illusion of Peace (Peace = is the absence of those abominations).).) } So that we can address Atheism as a Religion.
Atheism as a religion, meaning the devout belief that there is no God because of a belief in contrary IDEOLOGY or Conditions of supposed evidence to contradict the existence of God as depicted by millennia of Scriptures, Testimonies and Acts.
BUT, for all their references to SCIENCE, they actually provide no examples of scientific evidence which Proves a single one of their allusions to science proving evolution, actually exists. They are Not confident in it's existence in a humble state, Yet they Irrationally present those allusions as Hard evidence. low Behold, none of their allusions lead to any sciences. They squawk, and they are heard squawking. And in the act of squawking, Like Turkies, they hear someone attacking a Theist and they begin to squawk ATHEISM ATHEISM to promote and advocate their adulterous disregard for the consequences of their sexual fantasies, and they say, "this is Rational logic concerning (not their sexuality, but-) the evaluation of the physical reality we exist in, which excuses our Adulterous Ideology which we Idolzie. the Ideology of Evolution, not theism. We Idolize Bigoted arguments to justify our Bigoted demeanor,a dn we Bigotedly disregard logic because of it".

Because Bigoted, Means: Incoherent or Inconsistent. Proven through their dumb questions and lack of competent (Here Comes the Boom!) UNDERSTANDING of Theism. Which if they demonstrated coherent understanding, and lack of faith, at least we could acknowledge LOGIC.

Yet. Nothing internally was logically presented. Nor was anything externally logically evaluated or assessed or applied.

thus is a polite summary of what you must excuse on account of those **** ***** ***** ***** ***** shitt-eating **** ***** ***** atheists who like to recognize themselves as rational members of a congregation that advocates at least the acknowledgment of truth, and the recognition of fiction.
This round has not been posted yet.
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mjcs_1 2 years ago
I think that atheist don't know if there isn't a god just as much as theist know there is one since there is no empirical data to prove either but i do think that atheist say they are more rational due to the fact that the arguments they have seen for both sides the one for atheism is stronger and by following the stronger argument they are in turn more rational than theist who follow the weaker argument.
Posted by DJMay 2 years ago
My sister is an atheist. And she is alsoa very intelligent woman who claims to be rational.

I told her a number of times during our debates : "But there's no evidence that there's no God either." She would start being "rational" by inciting philosophy essays she had read, new scientific researches and stuff... and I think she wasn't aware that the way she incite it was the same as how religious people incite exceprts from "bible".

I think atheists and theists are the same, they are all clueless. So atheists can't really rationally knpw truth from fiction, but since they have their 'statistics' which could have been a scintific fiction too, they believe they are rational.... or do they just enjoy the illussion that they are different from the rest? Hmm..
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
fawk. lol. presuppose***
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
damn I don't type hard enough.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
btw, a theism=theism
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
like blind men dont use their eyes
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
yes, atheists use their senses
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Yes. Atheist claim they know when they eat or not...Strange.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
God resupposes knowledge and Truth, because they are based on facts. no matter what facts you find, they are pre-established to your reckoning.

You don't friggen' discover truth out of thin air.

God as being the foundation, is the very essence of presentation.

Maybe you should Educate yourself on theism before you decide to Spam forums with your lack of awareness and understanding, Squonk. AS we can message each other if you want to privately investigate what Tommylibertarian1 is suggesting: Which is an indisputable fact, whether or not Theism is an accurate evaluation of our World, incoincidently.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago

How do you figure?
This debate has 6 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.