DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Nothing is for certain in science. NOTHING. Their are always uncertainty. Their is a reason they are called theory's. I believe things when they have the best of evidence. Yes their is a chance that I am wrong. Their always is. As Einstein said you should go with the simplest answer. If their is a 99.99999% chance I am right. Well then I treat it normally as if it were true. I am not necessarily an atheist but I can act like one. I can't prove god does not exist so I won't say he does not exist. But with no evidence to prove he exist I don't bother with him. To say he exits would be to jump to a huge conclusion for no reason. Their are many things you can't prove are not real. But with no reason to say they are I don't bother with them. : )
I only know two things: 1. that I can think and 2. that I can perceive. Since the only collection of objects I can perceive is the world, I assume (though do not know) that truths and falsities are determined soley by it. My perceptions and thoughts make up propositions. I check the validity of those propositions with logic (a process which is inherently knowable to me and is impossible to imagine not existing), and I check their continual soundness by perceiving the world. With these propositions and this process, I can determine what is "fact" and what is "fiction".
(Sorry if this response is confusing, as this is the first time I have thoroughly thought about this matter.)
I did not ask what you know, but how you know what you claim to know. You seem to answer with your perceptions, but how do you know they are not the product of your being delusional?
I did not ask what you know, but how you know what you claim to know. You seem to answer with your perceptions, but how do you know they are not the product of your being delusional?
Ah, I reread your original question.
My rational basis for "knowing" (I would say that it is more of an assumption) what is truth and fiction is that I can not possibly imagine the nonexistence of my process of distinguishing between the two. I can not imagine a world where logic isn't valid (e.g. where the law of contradiction is false); I can not imagine not thinking; and I can not imagine not being able to perceive anything. I thusly must rationally assume that all these things exist and are reliable.
"You seem to answer with your perceptions, but how do you know they are
not the product of your being delusional?" The world that I perceive seems to be continuous so there is no actual way for me to distinguish between it being an "actual" or "delusional" world, and since the world does appear to be continuous, it is the world regardless if it is the "actual" or "delusional" world. There is no reason to assume that either is more "real" than the other because the only way they would be different from one another is if I was aware of one being a delusion.
(Again, sorry. My thoughts are starting to become very hard to convey.)
So your basis for your knowledge claims is your poor imagination?!?!?! And your poor imagination not withstanding, one does not have to question logic or perceptions, to question your logic and your perceptions. I am sorry, but as expected, you have failed to provide me a rational way an atheist can tell truth from fiction. Sorry.
So your basis for your knowledge claims is your poor imagination?!?!?! And your poor imagination not withstanding, one does not have to question logic or perceptions, to question your logic and your perceptions. I am sorry, but as expected, you have failed to provide me a rational way an atheist can tell truth from fiction. Sorry.
I at least expected some refutation.
It appears I have wasted my time. Since you have provided no adequate rebuttal, I will take it upon myself to refute my own argument. I will then come back to provide a better answer.
Can anyone know truth from fiction? I don't anyone can. If I think something is true with rationality, then that's all that matters to me. It doesn't matter if it is actually true or not. This is only to the extent of where the human brain can't comprehend things, so I'm not saying this applies to everything.
@ViceRegent How so? I'm simply saying that no one can truly prove that God exists, or God doesn't exist, or we live in a simulation. It is beyond my comprehension just like it is beyond any human's comprehension. If I think I exist, then I exist. That's all that matters to me. It doesn't matter if I don't exist in reality and it's all just a simulation.
@ViceRegent This is ad hominem. No need for insults. How do you expect to convince me with insults? This is a civilized debate site. If you want to insult people then go to the youtube comment section.
In my argument I stated that: "This is only to the extent of where the human brain can't comprehend things, so I'm not saying this applies to everything. " My argument only applies to a certain extent.
How funny that a who admits he cannot fact from fiction makes truth claims he expects me to take seriously. Did I not say mentally ill?
Your statement that I admitted to not be able to separate fact from fiction is true, but only in a certain extent. My truth claims are not incomprehensible to the human brain, therefore I can say them without contradiction.
If we taught children logic in government schools, there would be fewer atheists, but then again, the last thing the state wants is an educated population.
This OP is asking a Q, not making an argument. And did you really just say the ability to know truth from fiction does not matter? Yep, that is atheism for you: irrational and ignorant to the core.
This OP is asking a Q, not making an argument. And did you really just say the ability to know truth from fiction does not matter? Yep, that is atheism for you: irrational and ignorant to the core.
If "the truth" is something that is undetectable to all senses, reason, logic, emotion, etc, etc then by definition it is something that has no impact on me.
Either my observable reality is real or my observable reality is not real but in every conceivable way that relates to me works as if it were real. Either way I would be foolish to treat it as fake.
Counter question: Can you provide a rational basis for why you aren't a five year old black Kenyan girl, providing utter certainty that what you believe you experience is not a delusion?
How can I explain logic to someone who is ignorant of it but so arrogant as to think they know all about it. Answer the OP, or move on.
I might be ignorant and arrogant, but if you at least try to explain it to me then you can at least show others that you know what you're talking about. As of now all you're doing is spamming ad hominem, without any explanation. In other people's eyes you lost the argument and are just insulting me. Also, quote the statement which I made which convinces you that I am arrogant and ignorant.
No wonder this hates the freedom that is capitalism.
This is a completely different argument. Go and argue in my debate about fascism if you actually have a sound argument. This has nothing to do with the current argument.
It is as per the definition you seem to be working by. You are insinuating that there is a reality that we may be completely unable to detect through our senses, logic, reasoning, etc, etc yes?
So from my perspective, what would be the functional difference between a 'real' reality and a 'fake' reality which despite being 'fake' is 100% indistinguishable to every single one of my senses from something that is real?
Also you didn't answer my question for you: Can you provide a rational basis for why you aren't a five year old black Kenyan girl, providing utter certainty that what you believe you experience is not a delusion?
I did in my previous post. If you feel they aren't adequate responses for some reason, please feel free to explain why so I can either respond in more detail or point our the flaw in your criticism and explain why my original reply was adequate.
Meanwhile, I already asked you a question before you asked your latest set and you still haven't answered that so please respond in your next reply as this is the third time I have asked it. Can you provide a rational basis for why you aren't a five year old black Kenyan girl, providing utter certainty that what you believe you experience is not a delusion?
You stated "How do you know it works? Or is this claim the product of your deluded thinking?" As the latter half is just a baseless insinuation, it can be ignored as it isn't an actual argument.
I gave my understanding of the point you are trying to make; "You are insinuating that there is a reality that we may be completely unable to detect through our senses, logic, reasoning, etc, etc yes?".
I then explained how that fit my definition of working: "So from my perspective, what would be the functional difference between a 'real' reality and a 'fake' reality which despite being 'fake' is 100% indistinguishable to every single one of my senses from something that is real?". The answer - not outright stated but implied enough that I feel it doesn't need to me- is that from the perspective of any individual there would have to be no difference. After all, the entire point you are trying to make centres around the conceit that there would be no discernible difference.
Hence based on your definition, we know it is works for my definition of works because it is essentially tautological - just two different ways of saying the same thing.
Now for the fourth time: Can you provide a rational basis for why you aren't a five year old black Kenyan girl, providing utter certainty that what you believe you experience is not a delusion and not just ignore this question?
Let me rephrase the Q: how do you know you are not delusional?
Let me rephrase my answer as it basically undermines the basis of why your question matters: If the delusion is in every single way indistinguishable from not being delusional, why should anyone care?
Also let me rephrase my question: It's clear that you can't offer a response to my question. You can't offer proof that you are not a five year old Kenyan girl and everything you observe is a delusion. However, you still act like you are who you are. Similarily you can't absolutely prove the computer screen in front of you and the conversation in front of you that you are reading right now is real - yet you type and reply and react to it as if it is anyway.
I've already won the argument because by engaging with reality you have implicitly accepted my argument.
In the strictest sense, I'd say no. Atheists and theists are in the same epistemological boat. At some point we have to simply accept that our memories, senses, and cognitive abilities are giving us at least a semi-accurate picture of the world. Atheists and theists alike could be wrong. Atheists and theists alike could be brains in vats. Atheists and theists alike could be in the hospital, in a coma, imagining we're posting on an Internet site.
Some atheists and theists would like to argue that some outside thing is delivering an accurate picture of reality to them ("the universe" for the former, and "God" for the latter) but this "accurate information" is being filtered through faculties (senses, memory, cognition) which we have demonstrated many times to be unreliable, so ultimately we can't Know (as in know absolutely) that we're receiving accurate information.
How funny. This admits he cannot know fact from fiction, but then immediately makes a fact claim he expects me to take as true. How does he know atheists and theists are in the same epistemological boat? Ho does he know that accurate information must be filter through our faculties that must necessarily be unreliable? Hint: he has admitted he does not. Thus, no need to take his claims seriously.
First, I reject the categories of "atheist" and "theist". I hold to Christian and pagan. And I know they are not in the same boat the same way I know all things: because God says so.
ViceRegent is a troll, ViceRegent likes to have his ego stroked, ViceRegent has never answered his own questions. ViceRegent does not seem to be intelligent or courteous. ViceRegent is not a debater, ViceRegent is a Troll, do not feed the trolls. Ignore the trolls and they eventually go away. Here is an example of his work....................http://www.debate.org/ViceRegent/debates/
ViceRegent is a troll, ViceRegent likes to have his ego stroked, ViceRegent has never answered his own questions. ViceRegent does not seem to be intelligent or courteous. ViceRegent is not a debater, ViceRegent is a Troll, do not feed the trolls. Ignore the trolls and they eventually go away. Here is an example of his work....................http://www.debate.org/ViceRegent/debates/
ViceRegent is a troll, ViceRegent likes to have his ego stroked, ViceRegent has never answered his own questions. ViceRegent does not seem to be intelligent or courteous. ViceRegent is not a debater, ViceRegent is a Troll, do not feed the trolls. Ignore the trolls and they eventually go away. Here is an example of his work....................http://www.debate.org/ViceRegent/debates/
ViceRegent is a troll, ViceRegent likes to have his ego stroked, ViceRegent has never answered his own questions. ViceRegent does not seem to be intelligent or courteous. ViceRegent is not a debater, ViceRegent is a Troll, do not feed the trolls. Ignore the trolls and they eventually go away. Here is an example of his work....................http://www.debate.org/ViceRegent/debates/
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 8%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 8%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
No irrational red herrings. Answer the OP or move on. Thanks.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
I only know two things: 1. that I can think and 2. that I can perceive. Since the only collection of objects I can perceive is the world, I assume (though do not know) that truths and falsities are determined soley by it. My perceptions and thoughts make up propositions. I check the validity of those propositions with logic (a process which is inherently knowable to me and is impossible to imagine not existing), and I check their continual soundness by perceiving the world. With these propositions and this process, I can determine what is "fact" and what is "fiction".
(Sorry if this response is confusing, as this is the first time I have thoroughly thought about this matter.)
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I did not ask what you know, but how you know what you claim to know. You seem to answer with your perceptions, but how do you know they are not the product of your being delusional?
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
My rational basis for "knowing" (I would say that it is more of an assumption) what is truth and fiction is that I can not possibly imagine the nonexistence of my process of distinguishing between the two. I can not imagine a world where logic isn't valid (e.g. where the law of contradiction is false); I can not imagine not thinking; and I can not imagine not being able to perceive anything. I thusly must rationally assume that all these things exist and are reliable.
"You seem to answer with your perceptions, but how do you know they are not the product of your being delusional?"
The world that I perceive seems to be continuous so there is no actual way for me to distinguish between it being an "actual" or "delusional" world, and since the world does appear to be continuous, it is the world regardless if it is the "actual" or "delusional" world. There is no reason to assume that either is more "real" than the other because the only way they would be different from one another is if I was aware of one being a delusion.
(Again, sorry. My thoughts are starting to become very hard to convey.)
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
So your basis for your knowledge claims is your poor imagination?!?!?! And your poor imagination not withstanding, one does not have to question logic or perceptions, to question your logic and your perceptions. I am sorry, but as expected, you have failed to provide me a rational way an atheist can tell truth from fiction. Sorry.
  Considerate: 40%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
It appears I have wasted my time.
Since you have provided no adequate rebuttal, I will take it upon myself to refute my own argument. I will then come back to provide a better answer.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am delusional? Is this true? How do you know?
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
How so? I'm simply saying that no one can truly prove that God exists, or God doesn't exist, or we live in a simulation. It is beyond my comprehension just like it is beyond any human's comprehension. If I think I exist, then I exist. That's all that matters to me. It doesn't matter if I don't exist in reality and it's all just a simulation.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is ad hominem. No need for insults. How do you expect to convince me with insults? This is a civilized debate site. If you want to insult people then go to the youtube comment section.
In my argument I stated that:
"This is only to the extent of where the human brain can't comprehend things, so I'm not saying this applies to everything. "
My argument only applies to a certain extent.
Your statement that I admitted to not be able to separate fact from fiction is true, but only in a certain extent. My truth claims are not incomprehensible to the human brain, therefore I can say them without contradiction.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
And now come the non-sequiturs.
If we taught children logic in government schools, there would be fewer atheists, but then again, the last thing the state wants is an educated population.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It can't be disproven, but at the same time by every observable metric it also doesn't matter.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Care to explain how it is a non-sequitur instead of just saying it is?
Once again, an ad hominem implying that atheists aren't properly educated.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
This OP is asking a Q, not making an argument. And did you really just say the ability to know truth from fiction does not matter? Yep, that is atheism for you: irrational and ignorant to the core.
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
How can I explain logic to someone who is ignorant of it but so arrogant as to think they know all about it. Answer the OP, or move on.
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Either my observable reality is real or my observable reality is not real but in every conceivable way that relates to me works as if it were real. Either way I would be foolish to treat it as fake.
Counter question: Can you provide a rational basis for why you aren't a five year old black Kenyan girl, providing utter certainty that what you believe you experience is not a delusion?
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I might be ignorant and arrogant, but if you at least try to explain it to me then you can at least show others that you know what you're talking about. As of now all you're doing is spamming ad hominem, without any explanation. In other people's eyes you lost the argument and are just insulting me.
Also, quote the statement which I made which convinces you that I am arrogant and ignorant.
This is a completely different argument. Go and argue in my debate about fascism if you actually have a sound argument. This has nothing to do with the current argument.
  Considerate: 36%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
How do you know it works? Or is this claim the product of your deluded thinking?
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is as per the definition you seem to be working by. You are insinuating that there is a reality that we may be completely unable to detect through our senses, logic, reasoning, etc, etc yes?
So from my perspective, what would be the functional difference between a 'real' reality and a 'fake' reality which despite being 'fake' is 100% indistinguishable to every single one of my senses from something that is real?
Also you didn't answer my question for you: Can you provide a rational basis for why you aren't a five year old black Kenyan girl, providing utter certainty that what you believe you experience is not a delusion?
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
I did in my previous post. If you feel they aren't adequate responses for some reason, please feel free to explain why so I can either respond in more detail or point our the flaw in your criticism and explain why my original reply was adequate.
Meanwhile, I already asked you a question before you asked your latest set and you still haven't answered that so please respond in your next reply as this is the third time I have asked it. Can you provide a rational basis for why you aren't a five year old black Kenyan girl, providing utter certainty that what you believe you experience is not a delusion?
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
You stated "How do you know it works? Or is this claim the product of your deluded thinking?" As the latter half is just a baseless insinuation, it can be ignored as it isn't an actual argument.
I gave my understanding of the point you are trying to make; "You are insinuating that there is a reality that we may be completely unable to detect through our senses, logic, reasoning, etc, etc yes?".
I then explained how that fit my definition of working: "So from my perspective, what would be the functional difference between a 'real' reality and a 'fake' reality which despite being 'fake' is 100% indistinguishable to every single one of my senses from something that is real?". The answer - not outright stated but implied enough that I feel it doesn't need to me- is that from the perspective of any individual there would have to be no difference. After all, the entire point you are trying to make centres around the conceit that there would be no discernible difference.
Hence based on your definition, we know it is works for my definition of works because it is essentially tautological - just two different ways of saying the same thing.
Now for the fourth time: Can you provide a rational basis for why you aren't a five year old black Kenyan girl, providing utter certainty that what you believe you experience is not a delusion and not just ignore this question?
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also let me rephrase my question: It's clear that you can't offer a response to my question. You can't offer proof that you are not a five year old Kenyan girl and everything you observe is a delusion. However, you still act like you are who you are. Similarily you can't absolutely prove the computer screen in front of you and the conversation in front of you that you are reading right now is real - yet you type and reply and react to it as if it is anyway.
I've already won the argument because by engaging with reality you have implicitly accepted my argument.
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 41%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 33%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your definition of delusional has no functional difference with "completely and totally rational and non-delusional".
Also, by your logic can you rationally prove you are not a paedophile?
  Considerate: 36%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
So by your own metrics, you cannot outright deny that you are a pedophile? Hmmmm, makes you think....
  Considerate: 19%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've seen you ask the question a million times, but I still haven't seen you answer it.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
Can you respond to my most recent argument then?
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
In the strictest sense, I'd say no. Atheists and theists are in the same epistemological boat. At some point we have to simply accept that our memories, senses, and cognitive abilities are giving us at least a semi-accurate picture of the world. Atheists and theists alike could be wrong. Atheists and theists alike could be brains in vats. Atheists and theists alike could be in the hospital, in a coma, imagining we're posting on an Internet site.
Some atheists and theists would like to argue that some outside thing is delivering an accurate picture of reality to them ("the universe" for the former, and "God" for the latter) but this "accurate information" is being filtered through faculties (senses, memory, cognition) which we have demonstrated many times to be unreliable, so ultimately we can't Know (as in know absolutely) that we're receiving accurate information.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
How funny. This admits he cannot know fact from fiction, but then immediately makes a fact claim he expects me to take as true. How does he know atheists and theists are in the same epistemological boat? Ho does he know that accurate information must be filter through our faculties that must necessarily be unreliable? Hint: he has admitted he does not. Thus, no need to take his claims seriously.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
@DrCereal
ViceRegent is a troll, ViceRegent likes to have his ego stroked, ViceRegent has never answered his own questions. ViceRegent does not seem to be intelligent or courteous. ViceRegent is not a debater, ViceRegent is a Troll, do not feed the trolls. Ignore the trolls and they eventually go away. Here is an example of his work....................http://www.debate.org/ViceRegent/debates/
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 72%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Fascism
ViceRegent is a troll, ViceRegent likes to have his ego stroked, ViceRegent has never answered his own questions. ViceRegent does not seem to be intelligent or courteous. ViceRegent is not a debater, ViceRegent is a Troll, do not feed the trolls. Ignore the trolls and they eventually go away. Here is an example of his work....................http://www.debate.org/ViceRegent/debates/
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 72%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Ampersand
ViceRegent is a troll, ViceRegent likes to have his ego stroked, ViceRegent has never answered his own questions. ViceRegent does not seem to be intelligent or courteous. ViceRegent is not a debater, ViceRegent is a Troll, do not feed the trolls. Ignore the trolls and they eventually go away. Here is an example of his work....................http://www.debate.org/ViceRegent/debates/
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 72%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.3  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
@NonCredenti
ViceRegent is a troll, ViceRegent likes to have his ego stroked, ViceRegent has never answered his own questions. ViceRegent does not seem to be intelligent or courteous. ViceRegent is not a debater, ViceRegent is a Troll, do not feed the trolls. Ignore the trolls and they eventually go away. Here is an example of his work....................http://www.debate.org/ViceRegent/debates/
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 72%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra