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

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  
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: 3/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 87744
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
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.


There are two interpretations of your question, I will answer both:

1) "Given a written statement, how do we decide whether it is true or false?"
That one is simple. We compare the statement with our existing knowledge. If it is strongly supported, we consider it true. If it conflicts, we consider it false. If it cannot be decided with our existing knowledge, we simply don't decide.

More technically, we can use the principles of rationality and our existing knowledge to compute a probability that this statement is true. Our maximum permitted confidence in our answer can now be calculated by checking how close this probability is to 0 or 1.

2) "Given a written statement, how do we decide if its author wrote this as a fact or if he invented it?"
This is easy if you can use rationality properly. For that, we just need to find a couple of probabilities:
- How likely is it that this statement would have been written by someone who knew it?
- How likely is it that this statement would have been written by someone who didn't know it?
- How likely is it that the author can know this if it is true?
- How likely is it that the statement is true in the first place?
Then we can simply apply Bayes' Theorem to find out the probability that the statement is fact rather than fiction.

PS: By the way, we can use Bayes' Theorem in the other direction to update our knowledge of reality! Here's how:
Again, we need some probabilities.
- How likely did I think it is that I see this statement written down if it is true?
- How likely did I think it is that I see this statement written down if it is false?
- How likely did I think this statement was before I saw it written down?
Apply Bayes' Theorem, and we get the new probability that the statement is true, considering the new evidence of seeing this statement. This is how all second-hand knowledge can be upgraded into first-hand knowledge.
Debate Round No. 1


Wow, so much irrationality, it is hard to know where to begin. I will start with this is the second time this fool has posted to my debate with this silly answer. That makes him in violation of the rules making him automatically lose the debate.

Next, he says he knows what is true or false based on existing knowledge. But this just begs the question of how he got the "existing knowledge" in the first place. Indeed, if the only way he knows something is true or false is by comparing it to existing knowledge, he cannot grow in his knowledge for whatever new information he is presented will be outside of his old information he already knows, leaving him without the ability to know if it Is true or not. Since he does not decide under the circumstances, he cannot ever acquire new knowledge, which means he can never have existing knowledge. His view leaves him ignorant and irrational

And he did not tell me how he knows is "existing knowledge" is true. He simply assumes it is, which is, again, begging the question.

And he still has the same problem as I pointed out in the R1 post: how does he know what a written statement says or how it compares to his "existing knowledge" without use of his senses and reason? If he does not, he must show how he knows his senses and reason are valid without resort to his senses and reason, which he cannot do. Thus, he is guilty of irrational circular reasoning, which means he loses the debate again.

The rest of his post is simply nonsense given the failure of his first approach.

He loses.


It has been brought to my attention by a particularly nice commenter that you are in fact a far greater moron than your two posts already demonstrate. This is my first debate on this board, and it is at least nice to know that there are other people on this site that are able give an answer similar to mine.

There is no point in trying to educate you as you will clearly purposefully misrepresent my arguments at any opportunity instead of even attempting to understand them. There is also no point in trying to convince the audience of my superiority, just as there is no glory in punching a baby.

I forfeit this debate. Have a good life, and may you one day ever actually want to learn anything again.

Oh and by the way, you asked a question. I answered your question correctly. It's your own fault if you don't understand it. I win ;)
Debate Round No. 2


As I said, I win. Irrationally always loses to rationality.


If it makes you feel better
Debate Round No. 3


That is what truth does. Try it some time.


Fiction does that too
Debate Round No. 4


No doubt you are an expert on that. Listen, tool, go away and come up with something rational.


Nobody thinks you're delusional.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 2 years ago
I love hiw these theist form societies worshipping a being they cant even know if it actually exists.
Posted by annoyinglycorrect 2 years ago
When I grow up, I want to become a broken record, just like you.
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
I love how these fools form mutual admiration societies for the mentally ill to support each other in their irrationality.
Posted by annoyinglycorrect 2 years ago
Thanks for the heads-up, dude.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 2 years ago
Have you seen sime of vices other stuff annouingly correct?
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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided no arguments the entire debate, so arguments goes to Pro. Con provided no sources for sources goes to Pro.