The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 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: 2/29/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 87400
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
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, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. 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


Science is not our senses and reason, rather it is tests, observations and data. With the data scientists collect, a conclusion is made and then you have a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not the same thing as an idea, it's a well-substantiated explanation and has solid data to back it up. Your terms are so narrow it's hard to debate you. You clearly want to hear "We don't have anything". myself along with many others use data, facts, and observations of our world and its functions in order to base my viewpoints, what about you?

So how do we know truth from fiction?
We have facts and data to back up our views. Can we prove there is no god? No, we can't because it's not currently possible. I don't like that you are saying I can't use reason and science to respond to this. That's like me saying, prove your god exists without using emotion, personal experiences, text, speeches or stories.

It is your responsibility to prove your god is true, atheists simply reject religion because this IS no proof. Unless, do you have proof? By proof, I mean data that is testable.
Debate Round No. 1


Putting aside this tool's ignorance of what science is and how it is done, did he actually say he knows truth from fiction based on "facts"? ROFL. I guess he is also ignorant of the begging the question fallacy. So he knows what is truth and what is fiction based on facts? Ok, how does he know what is fact and what is fiction? Are there no adult atheists on this site?


OpenSesame forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I just didn't log on. sorry.
You have not responded to my question. How do you know facts from fiction? Do you have your 2000-year-old book and dreams? It's rather pathetic how theists disagrees with you in the comments. Stop rigging your debates, it's not about winning it's about learning other people's ideas. I have never talked to an atheist who thinks of themselves as "defenders of rationality". If an atheist has ever said that to you they don't represent the majority. You limit your debate so much it's directed at the individual, not the group. No one thinks the EXACT same.

If you don't have proof, I can reject what you believe. I have data and studies to back up why I reject that belief.
You are mixing up knowing and reasoning. I don't know if there is a god and I don't if my reasoning is correct. We reject it because there is no proof. We have to accept reality. However, as someone said in the comments, some people don't accept other versions of reality. In some cases, reality is not set in stone. All your doing is resulting to insults in order to intimidate, you are a "great" Christian. Your calling me ignorant and saying I am irrational for questioning a 2000 book that says there is a guy who made everything and sent down his son to die for our "sins". You clearly don't know what ignorant means, what science is, or how to present an argument. You rigged your debate. I don't think you get it so I will put it simply for the selective mind of yourself and your peers.

My reasoning = no god. I don't find it rational to believe in one because there is no proof. I base that viewpoint off of scientific studies.

Your belief = yes god. That's OK as well. You can go ahead and believe in a god, no one is oppressing you. Atheists and Agnostics simply reject it because there is no proof. However, if you don't require proof for what you believe in, that's your choice.

Please, at least, provide me with what makes you say "yes, this religion is real"
Debate Round No. 3


I am still waiting for this atheist tool to tell me how he knows facts from fictions? Instead, he admits that realty is very much subjective, which means under the rules of the debate, he loses.

Where on earth do these fools get the idea that I must answer their Qs when they have no idea how to evaluate the answers. Only a fool would try to explain calculus to a child who cannot tell me they know number line exists.


Its obviously up for debate. That's why we are debating it. Well I'm debating, your rejecting. This is a debate. You need to give your side too.
Debate Round No. 4


My side is that atheists have no way to rationally know truth from fiction. You are my evidence to establish that claim. Now answer my W of how you know fact from fiction or lose the debate.


OpenSesame forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: flash7221// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Joke of a debate. Pro was being professional while you treat it like a classroom with your friends. Only for the forfeit do I give Con a point.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't explain S&G or arguments. The voter cannot just make general statements that he was upset with how Con handled the debate, and must assess specific arguments made by each side.
Posted by JaanVahl 2 years ago
I salute you for being the wiser in recognizing an infinite argument, OpenSesame.
Posted by OpenSesame 2 years ago
I gave up. Way to ignorant to debate.
Posted by JaanVahl 2 years ago
It is not that ViceRegent asked a simple question, it is that he cannot comprehend a complicated answer, and a simple one is one he can turn around.
Posted by klaralein 2 years ago
Freezra, you're right, but it's still funny to read his debates.
Posted by FreezraTheFrostDracolich 2 years ago
Guys this is how pointless this is, an example of this is :
-Juggernaut meeting an immovable object.
-this is as pointless as Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the mountain only to have it fall back down again
-can anyone else see how Einstein's definition of madness applies here

First off guys this debate is RIGGED so that the only person who should win is _open_sesame_ because it is based around the classifying a CATEGORY of PEOPLE by the defense and limited knowledge of one INDIVIDUAL all of this being based on the rationality of that one person, that it self is IRRATIONAL.

So if your reading this right your seeing that this is classifying an entire belief by the actions and beliefs OF ONE PERSON. People DO NOT ALL BELIEVE the SAME THING so why are the implying this.

If we all believed one thing then why do we debate. Why is the statement we will AGREE TO DISAGREE around.


Why is that so hard to explain guys the only one who should win is the atheist which by the way IS AGAINST MY BELIEF ENTIRELY.
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
Another atheist admits that he has no idea if anything he holds to be true actually corresponds to reality. Just like I said.
Posted by Policydebaterspydir 2 years ago
Look, I don't know how to define reality, nor do I know if the data my senses recieve accuratly reflects reality. I cannot. That is the point! we have to accept reailty. There are some, however, who don't accept our version of reality. In some cases, reality is subjective. I know that this isn't a correct definition of reality, but it is better than nothing.

Are you happy? now you can "let me go" as if you owend me in the first place. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, so, can you define it for me as well? What do you think? I just want to arrive at the truth, which is really the point of debate.

All i'm trying to do is get you to ask questions which are not intended to harm you, but to strengthen your arguments. I don't want to debate you, it is your job to debate Open Sesame.

I'm not cross examining you, I am just trying to help.
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
I am not interested in the slightest of your characterizations of my questions or me. I asked you a very simple Q: how do you know the date your senses provide you accurate reflects reality? Again, if you do not know what reality is, just say so, and I will let you go.
Posted by Policydebaterspydir 2 years ago
Okay Vice Regent, this is your debate and you have to define what reality is! you also used equivocation when you said: "Science always observe that which is real? There has never been a fiction put forth as truth in science?"

I never said that Scientists lie, nor did I ever say that they never put fiction forth as truth. I am talking about observable science. Science that requires the scientist to actually see and feel the object which they are studying. That is what the scientific method follows. That science is based in reality. Historical science, which you are referring to, takes deductions and inferences from the evidence. its really biology vs. anthropology.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

I was merely proposing an example for your debate. I never wanted to start a debate with you. If you want to debate me, then start a debate with me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by klaralein 2 years 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct points due to the forfeiture of pro. I gave spelling and grammar to Pro because Con used informal speech such as "ROFL" that do not belong in a professional debate. Arguments go to Pro because Con provided none. None had a source so that stays tied.