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+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: 2/15/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 626 times Debate No: 86609
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
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 atheist know truth from fiction?

And please do not respond if you have responded before or if all you have is "science", 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 circular reasoning is not rational.


Our reality is defined by the information which we take in on a daily basis. It is no more (and no less) than a reflection of our psyche in the mirror of perception. It is therefore impossible for any being to define his world with proof attained through these senses, and at the same time be completely free of uncertainty. I believe a very wise man once said "There are more thing on heaven and earth than exist in our philosophy."

Shakespeare had a point. Which is, shortly put; we who derive our perceptions of reality from that selfsame existence, can with no factual basis prove the existence or nonexistence of anything whatsoever.

That being said, what does religion do that magically makes you immune to this? Any person who believes in God, or really any other metaphysical entity, removing all physical proof, which relies upon the senses, has only faith to justify that belief.

I say unto all those who would look away from the truth, in favor of the comforting lie which we hold so dear; there is nothing. There has never been anything. Reality is as we define it, and no other. 'Cogito Est, Ergo Est.'

I think it is, therefore it is.

If reality is subjective to perception, and perception is subjective to the human mind, than to tell a lie is merely to amend reality. Thus, a believer of God in the metaphysical sense is no different than an atheist; both are captured in the illusion of reality.

I believe Jesus once said, "If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you would command that tree to be uprooted, and so it would be."

Mind over matter. There is no spoon. We define our own reality.

This is the only truth that matters. What most of us know to be the truth is, in fact, fiction.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok, so this dude admits that he has no way of rationally knowing truth from fiction and then says that he creates his own reality.

People I know atheists are mentally ill. I do not need confirmation from atheists. This dude loses the debate. Moving on.


Sir, I object. This is a debate, and if you wish to state your opinion, you must back it up. As you provide no evidence for your generalized statement that atheists are mentally impaired, I take your response to be derogatory, (and frankly bigoted) and I would also like to point out that, while you assume my spiritual Identity to be atheist, I am, in fact, Agnostic. Due to my belief that the truth is relative, I believe that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, or any other metaphysical entity.

Seeing as you would rather bluster about my argument's 'insanity' than refute it, I must conclude therefore that you cannot.

And seeing as the fact that you have not refuted (and therefore cannot refute) my argument would make me the winner of this debate, I do hereby claim this victory by the accorded rules by which you have agreed to abide.

Furthermore, I would state that any individual who lacks the self control to construct a logical argument is not morally fit to refute the argument of an unbiased source. Seeing as I am Agnostic, I am therefore not biased for or against the existence of god, but rather I choose to believe that our reality is subjective to human choice. Make no mistake; I am not agreeing with you. I am simply stating that not only are atheists unable to know what is or is not the truth, but that also any individual who is bound by the structures of our reality cannot decisively prove anything. It does not matter what you believe; it is impossible to know the 'truth' from 'fiction.'
Debate Round No. 2


How funny that a dude who admits to have no rational way to know truth from fiction objecting to facts. ROFL


Yet, is it not infinitely more amusing that one such as you, who cannot refute my claim, would resort to meaningless statements as to the humerous nature of my words? Such statements cannot possibly engender more support than mine, which are structured logically.

Either you will logically refute my claim, or the debate is mine.

If you continue to proceed in this illogical manner, you will, as they say, 'dig your own grave.'
Debate Round No. 3


Is it not funny that a dude who claims to know nothing claims to know his claim has not been refuted? Is it not self-refuted?


That argument is ridiculous. I do not 'know nothing,' I simply know that it is impossible to prove anything. I do, however, know that according to the rules devised and affirmed by elements of our reality, you have not refuted my claim.

While we can recognize that our reality is subjective, we are not exempt from it. We have both chosen to heed these rules, and by the rules of structured debate, you have not refuted my claim.

I sustain my earlier objection; do not concern yourself with my assertions before your own. Before you can refute my claims, please support yours.

Or if you so choose, please. By all means. Do attempt to refute my claims. I have not yet seen any evidence against them.

You are quibbling over semantics, not debating. Please debate.
Debate Round No. 4


"That argument is ridiculous. I do not 'know nothing,' I simply know that it is impossible to prove anything."



What, pray tell, does 'ROFL' mean?

Not knowing this, of your response I can only observe a restatement of my own.

I take this as an invitation to move on.

Thus, I state; In conclusion, because our perceptions of reality are not admissible evidence as to the nature of that reality, then it is impossible to tell fact from fiction. Yes, it is impossible for atheists. No, it does not matter if you are or are not an atheist, as spiritual preference is merely a factor within, and not exempt from, human perception, and thus God may be either spiritual or factual.

And in summation, to restate my thesis; It is impossible to tell fact from fiction, no matter to which religion you pay homage.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Godgirl 2 years ago
ROFL means Rolling On the Floor Laughing.
Posted by Huitzilopochtli 2 years ago
Missmedic, I would state that consciousness in not axiomatic, for it is fluid, rather than unchanging.

Consciousness, while always remaining constant in function, is relative to the truths that It portrays.

"Cogito, Ergo Sum."

I think, therefore I am. We know that consciousness in a constant, for by consciousness we may prove our existence. I revise my earlier claim; there is one thing which I can prove, and that is my existence.

"Cogito Est, Ergo Est."

I think it is, therefore it is. In short, "I think, therefore you are." Or, "you think, therefore I am."

Thus, I can prove the existence of everything, and the nonexistence of everything, with the notable exception of the indisputable existence of myself.

Does everything exist because of me? No. If that were so, then the world would have sprung into existence when I was born, and would collapse when I die. Because of the linear nature of time, I know that this is rather impossible.

However, it does beg the question; what about metaphysical phenomena? If metaphysical beings only exist because we believe them to, then if one person believes that something does not exist, but another believes that is does, what then? This paradox tells me that reality (in the metaphysical sense, at least) must be personal in nature. And thus, we shape our own reality.
Posted by Huitzilopochtli 2 years ago
I have not made a single grammatical or syntactical error, and I have not demeaned or otherwise pointlessly insulted the opposition. The opposition, however, has in fact resorted to insulting and demeaning behavior, and has made several grammatical errors. Furthermore, he has neglected to refute my claims effectively.

I encourage the voter(s) to consider this when choosing whom they would support.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. Since our senses and reason are the means of our consciousness, their validity is also axiomatic. VR you should look that word up so you can understand what axiomatic means.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
stay on topic, answer the question and refute the claims, do not engage the fool, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton, doofus, clod, dunderhead, ditz, lummox, knuckle-dragger, dipstick, thickhead, meathead, meatball, wooden-head, airhead, pinhead, lamer, lamebrain, peabrain, birdbrain, mouth-breather, scissorbill, jerk, nerd, donkey, nitwit, twit, twerp, hoser, schmuck, bozo, turkey, chowderhead, dingbat, mook, loser (did I say idiot, no), and idiot.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
but you don't move on, you liar
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by matt8800 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 has BOP and did not once provide the rationale for his argument. Nobody knows why he believes his assertion to be true.