The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 1/13/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 427 times Debate No: 98957
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
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.


I accept the challenge, hoping that the instigator will shut up and stop spamming his crap all over the website.
Debate Round No. 1


And another atheist loser fails to answer the Q and loses the debate.


I had not attempted to answer the question yet.

The instigator implies that atheists are unable to tell fact from fiction. However, as he has completely failed to offer an actual argument to support his claim, I am unsure as to what he wishes answered specifically. I will, however, entertain and attempt to argue against his statement.

The definition of fiction is widely regarded as the following:

"literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people."

or, rather more simply,

"something that is invented or untrue."

So, how do atheists seperate fact from fiction? Well, simply put... the same way as anyone does.

A fictional story is one which has been produced by an author, intended to entertain/educate an audience on a subject of their choice. The classic novel 'Of Mice and Men', for example, aims to entertain us whilst also making a statement about the harsh way of life during America's Great Depression.

We can very easily identify OMAM as a work of fiction. For one, the author himself acknowledges it as a work of fiction, and secondly there is no record to be found of the events which happen in the novel to have taken place in real life.

This is contrary to non-fiction pieces of work. For a relatively modern example, look at sociologist James Patrick's book 'A Glasgow Gang Observed'. In this book, Patrick dictates the events which transpired during his time spent with a teenage gang in Glasgow in the late 1960s. How do we realise that this is a factual, non-fiction piece of work? I'm glad you asked. Opposite to with OMAM, the author of the book is on record stating that the book is indeed non-fiction and that all the events took place. Furthermore, there is evidence outside of the text itself that the events Patrick described did indeed happen. For example, the gang he studied was a very real gang and many of the events talked about had been reported in local news.

Debate Round No. 2


And he still failed to answer the Q, as "we can easily" tell is not an answer. He then tells about what the author supposedly said, but that begs the question of how he knows who the author is, that the dude claiming to be the author is the right dude, that he said anything and that what he said is true. He then speaks of some ambiguous "records", but this too begs the question of what records, how he knows they are true, how he knows they are complete, etc. His "answer" is irrational.

Hopefully next time, he will provide a rational answer.



Being an atheist has no bearing on whether or not you can tell fact from fiction. This is because it is extremely easy to tell non-fiction work from fiction work. Something I have yet to mention is that works of fiction often have unbelievable or impossible events... Lord of The Rings has magic, for instance, which breaks the known laws of our world and can therefore be defined as fiction.

I would motion to declare that it is in fact theists who cannot tell fact from fiction. The Bible is one source of knowledge, which cannot be backed up by accounts of real life events outside of what is written inside it, and the author of the book has yet to clarify whether or not what lies inside is fiction or non-fiction. To add icing to the cake, a huge amount of the events which transpire in the Bible are unbelievable, impossible things which break all laws of the known universe (turning water into wine, walking on water, resurrection, etc). Therefore, by my analysis, the Bible is very likely to be fiction. Therefore - atheists CAN tell fact from fiction!

Now, I have a question for the instigator: How do YOU know fact from fiction? If you claim that my way of knowing is incorrect, then how is your way of knowing any different? Please, entertain me: how do you know when something is a piece of fiction? Or do you just 'know'?

"that begs the question of how he knows who the author is"

How do you know who the author of the Bible is? What if it's not actually the God you think it is writing the Bible? How do you know that the God claiming to be the God is the right dude?

Your attempts to counter my argument have done nothing but trap you within your own words. You cannot question someone on their beliefs when you cannot accurately answer why you believe something yourself.

"How can you tell the water you're swimming in isn't urine?" asked the instigator.

"Well, because it's not yellow and doesn't smell like asparagus. How do you know?" I replied.

"... I don't know."

Debate Round No. 3


I am still waiting for a rational answer to my Q about atheist epistemology. I am going to infer I am not going to get one from this guy. And did he just say that if he finds something unbelievable or impossible, it is fiction? I really do appreciate him proving my claim that atheists live under the delusion that they are they guardians of reality without any rational epistemology. Next?


I answered your question, you just don't like the answer.

If you want the answer you're looking for, then you need to be more specific and actually establish an argument.

No one knows what you're asking. You're just shouting "HOW DO ATHEISTS KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?" without describing what this actually means.

It's like me asking "HOW DO THEISTS KNOW HOW TO TELL A DOG FROM A CAT?" but then not expanding on what I actually want answered. You've asked a vague question which is almost rhetorical, and whenever someone attempts to answer it rationally you scream at them.

End of debate. I suggest that anyone reading this ignores the instigator's inevitable reposts.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SirBadgerLock 1 year ago
Posted my vote
Posted by Debatortron 1 year ago
Solid argument bro. You're pretty much on the right track. This guy needs to answer his own question before he can pass judgement on others.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirBadgerLock 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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used insults and high restrictions, pro had better arguments, he won. period.