The Instigator
cheyennebodie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InnovativeEphemera
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

All people walk by faith

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 6 votes the winner is...
InnovativeEphemera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,839 times Debate No: 61210
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (6)

 

cheyennebodie

Pro

I can prove that faith is born in all of us.We are faith beings. What determines our eternal destiny is what we have faith in.
InnovativeEphemera

Con

Thank you for the challenge. I accept. You have not provided a definition for faith, so I will do so here:

faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

You have the burden of demonstrating that we are all beings of faith. I will refute, and contend that 'faith' is the reason people give when they don't have a good reason.

Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
cheyennebodie

Pro

I will operate with the bible definition of faith. Hebrews 11:1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and it is the evidence of things not revealed to the five sense gates.Atheists have to have faith that God does not exist. Since I have never heard one of you claim to have peeked over past your own death and saw that God just was not there.I have faith that God indeed is there and I will hear, " enter into my joy , my son." What I would never want to hear is, " depart from me for I never knew you."
All of us have to exercise faith when dealing with others. An employer gives his word that on a certain date your paycheck will be there.If , even one time, it is not there. you would lose faith in his word. My overwhelming faith is in Gods word I believe that when he says something it will come true.There are those out there that have no confidence in his word.I believe most of them have never read and lived on it.Just mimic what others say about it. That is alright. But something that important I would think would bear some interest .
InnovativeEphemera

Con

I thank my opponent for their round.

While I reject your definition, I believe that we have reached an operational understanding of how to address the topic of faith. I will first deconstruct your argumentation.

Atheists do not have to have faith because atheism is not the assertion that there is no god. It is the dismissal of god-claims, not the argumentation against a god's existence. There are many varieties of atheist, and the only thing they have in common is that they do not believe in a god. Note, that the absence of belief is not the presence of belief against.
Saying atheists have faith (or that atheism is a type of religion, etc) is akin to saying that bald is a hair colour or unemployment is a profession.

You then cite bible passages ineffectively in a laboured attempt to illustrate your point. Unfortunately, the bible cannot be taken as an authority on this topic because the bible cannot assert that we are all beings of faith while simultaneously explaining the punishment for atheists and apostates; this is an inherent contradiction. Further, it is circular to use the bible to prove the existence of something claimed by the bible. This type of reasoning is as unsound as saying "everything in my book is true. We know this because the book says it's true. And if you removed from the first premise, everything the book says is true". It is not the word of God that I don't have confidence in; it's the word of man pretending to be God that I don't have confidence in.

You then make an argument after constructing a different definition of faith. You have changed the definition mid-Argument. I thought your definition was the biblical one? Regardless, I am happy to use your analogy as an example.

Firstly, god has never appeared or answered your prayers. This is the same as you not receiving a paycheck. Why would you continue to have faith? Further, I assert that this is not faith as we have defined it. Instead, you are describing the separate concept of 'trust', which is a useful term. Trust is confidence in a person, process or object which is earned through experience. If my employer didn't pay me for my first week, I would not have confidence in him. However, if he paid me fairly for three years, then forgot one week, I would maintain my trust that he made an error and will do the right thing and rectify it. Trust and confidence are useful because they are earned through experience. Faith is different because it persists without being earned. That is, God cannot earn your trust, so you ascribe Him faith. Faith is not meaningful or useful.

Faith is the reason people give when they don't have a good reason. If there's so much proof for your God, why do you require faith?

Fundamentally, Pro has yet to uphold their burden that all people are beings of faith. Formally:

P1) if all people are beings of faith, then there is no person who does not have faith.
P2) I do not have faith.
C) We are not all beings of faith.

Best of luck in your concluding round.
Debate Round No. 2
cheyennebodie

Pro

First I never said God has never answered my prayers.He has many times given exactly what I asked for. I do have a personal relationship with the Father. We talk all the time. But I do not have to see him to know and understand him. I have received many of Gods promises. Healing, the baptism of the holy spirit, deliverance from calamity.Prosperty . I have much confidence when God promises something that he will fulfill it.So, my life is such as that when I die I am extremely confident that all I will do is simply change locations. Move from this temporary body to an eternal environment.
Your problem is that you ascribe a religious definition of faith. What is wrong with the definition that the bible gives?And you said that if you had 3 years of paychecks and he missed one, you would not lose faith. Because you have 3 years of evidence that it would be corrected.Now if all you had was 3 weeks, that would be a different story.I have had 40 years of experience with people looking through the lens of the word of God and am light years in confidence that what God says is exactly the truth about man. The word of God is a discerner of the thought and intent of the heart. He has made people easy to read.
InnovativeEphemera

Con

Thank you for the debate.

My opponent has demonstrated their faith in God, which is lovely, but has nothing to do with this debate. The topic in question is whether all people walk with faith. I do not need to defend my contrary position because Pro has made no arguments in favour of the resolution.

My opponent also uses poor reasoning, first claiming that it's my fault for using a religious definition, then proposing the solution as the biblical definition. The biblical definition is religious, so I'm confused as to my opponent's thought process here. Further, why is your holy book the only authority? Why shouldn't I believe the Quran or Torah or any other holy book? All people claim that they have the real truth and every other god is fake and they know this to be true because they have a personal relationship with their god. How do I pick the correct one?

My opponent has not affirmed their position, and the resolution is negated.

It is not the case that all people walk by faith.
Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Damn. My troll radar must have been in standby mode. Took me a while haha. Well played mate!
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Sorry, I was interrupted,
AGAIN.
For IE:
I never said that Bibles should be burned.
Where do you get those Delusions of yours, anyway?
Your statement that my Christ "story" is older than I as Christ was doesn't make sense.
ONCE AGAIN: STOP CALLING ME JESUS!
THAT WASN'T MY NAME!
Your "evidence" isn't anything of the kind
Who we were discussing is "Yahweh" , who, I've already proved, couldn't have been God.
According to the Bible, he (his body) was walking around & being heard & talking with Adam & Eve in The Garden of Eden.
That was apparently about 4000 B.C.
He wasn't "invented" , nor was it around 2000 B.C.
His name, as I've already proved, wasn't Yahweh. His name was apparently in Ancient Hebrew, & PRONOUNCED Yahweh.
If you want to claim that Aboriginals & Indians had Gods, prove it.
Your implication that Gods are supposed to have "origin stories" Is Gibberish.
How could Gods have origins?
I've already TOLD you, & PROVED to you, that proof of one God's existence is easily available.
So why should I send you ONE link?
Thousands are available.
My Emails are Proof.
I AM VAJRASATTVA, FOOL.
Or, to be more accurate , I'm the Incarnation, the Avatar.
It's obviously Impossible for a human to have a real, accurate concept of God,
& why you keep using a small g I really don't know.
Why should I care what "concepts" of me people have?
Only a Total Lunatic like you would insist that I don't exist.
Who's sending you these messages, Fool?
Your question about why I believe in Yahweh is, again, a Delusion of yours.
As I've already proved to you, their names weren't
Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Odin, etc.
The Greeks weren't Gods, anyway-
Thor, for example, was a blacksmith & a warrior.
His so-called "Magic Hammer" was neither "Magic" nor a "Hammer" .
Your statement that peoples' or Gods' true names depend on the time & place where one's body is born doesn't make sense.
So is your statement that when & where your body' s born has no bea
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
For IE:
You invite me to diagnose you.
So I will.
I trust that that isn't a violation of the rules.
You're a Crazy, Lying, Stupid, Damned, Fool.
Feel Better now?

Yes.
I've already shown that Pro is wrong.
You haven't given me any real reason to reconsider my position.
Christianity doesn't claim that Lust is a sin.
The Bible says that Lusting for a person who's married to somebody else is a sin.
There are no thought crimes in Christianity.
People don't think with their hearts.
Thinking about killing somebody obviously isn't murder.
Unless you're a Telepath, there's no way you could detect what you call thought crimes.
Using Insane Sarcasm is no way to Debate.
I never claimed to be able to speak fluent Aramaic, Greek Hebrew, etc.
That isn't necessary.
I never said that people who don't speak Ancient languages fluently aren't Christians.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
This was literally the least cogent brain-vomit of tripe I've ever had the displeasure of acknowledging. I will respond, you'll have the last word and I'm done after this because your pseudo-arguments have reached the zenith of absurdity.

- I have problems. Alright. Care to diagnose, doctor deceit?
- Or, perhaps it is you and Pro who are wrong. Ever considered that?
- Lust is a sin. Thinking about killing someone means you have committed murder in your heart (according to Christianity). This is thought crime. Also, faith, belief, etc
- So you speak fluent Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek, and anybody who doesn't speak those languages isn't a Christian and the King James translation, New International translation etc should just be burned?
- You asserting that it wasn't a copy doesn't make it true. The Jesus story is older than Jesus. I have supplied my evidence and all you have done is stamped your foot like a petulant tantruming infant. Try to construct an argument instead of appeals to emotion.
- We're abviously talking about the Abrahamic god Yahweh. He was invented about 2000 BCE. Aboriginal and Native American gods are much older, although the Aboriginal god-concept is slightly different. Their Dreamtime stories explain the origins of the earth instead of deities.
- did I say that statues don't exist? I think I asked for photos, videos etc because you told me that their is direct evidence of god and I asked you to link me a photo of god and you didn't.
- the difference matters because everyone has a different concept of god. Ever Christians don't agree. Then you say we're stupid for not believing but you all have a god-concept which is widely divergent from anyone else's and there's no way to distinguish between any of them. Why do you believe in Yahweh instead of Allah? Or Vishnu or Zeus or Thor or Odin? It's just a product of the time and place you were born. This had no bearing on what is true.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
For Con:
I'm not surprised that you find the truth & logic Bizarre, or Funny.
Like I said, you have problems.
Winning a debate against Cheyennebrodie isn't anything for you to brag about!
There's no way that anybody with any brains could vote for you!
ONCE AGAIN: PLEASE STOP CALLING ME JESUS- THAT WASN"T MY NAME!
Looking with, or feeling, lust is an Emotion, a Feeling, not a Thought, an Idea, at all.
There aren't any thought crimes in Christianity.
It doesn't matter what language people READ the Bible in.
It was originally WRITTEN in languages like Hebrew, Greek, & Aramaic, not English.
English didn't exist back then, so your quoting people in the Bible in modern English is improper.
My story WASN'T just a copy of older stories.
(If all great minds think alike, you'd claim that most of them are just copies? )
You stated that god was invented.
So why claim that you never said that no statues of God exist?
When do you believe that god was invented?
I think you'll find that Australian Aboriginals, Native Americans, etc. , had their God/ Gods, too.
What difference does it make who/ what made pictures, statues, etc. , of God?
As I wrote before, check me out.
VAJRASATTVA
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
P.s. I'd like you to expand on your words hypothesis. Which language? What about communities who communicate through a click language? Words have no meaning except for that which we ascribe to them. They are tools for communication. What about pre-language humans? Did they all go to hell?
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
@Cheyenne I am a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater. Will that come true now? Will Jesus turn me into one?
That's funny, because I put my trust into doctors with medical degrees. And guess what? Even if I didn't believe the treatment worked, it'd still work. That's the beauty of science; it's true whether or not you believe it.
@LeRoy good lord this is a bizarre post. Ok, I'll bite.
- I know you were addressing Pro.
- I'm well aware, thank you.
- No. Instead I'm claiming every god is equally true.
- You are correct. Hence I am, at the present time, winning this debate.
- You are absolutely right that faith and belief are different. Please read the debate and vote for me because that's exactly what my argument was.
- Now you're being pedantic. Bet you're fun at parties. Luck does not exist. I also don't believe in god. I still say "bless you" when someone sneezes because it's a polite social nicety. There is nothing wrong with being polite. In the same way I don't believe in any Buddhist or Hindu gods but I still take my shoes off before entering a temple in Asia out of respect for other people's cultures. In the same why I great churches and synagogues and mosques with respect. Saying "good luck" is a figurative sentiment attempting a friendly social gesture. Why are you making a big deal about it?
- Are you serious? Have you even read your bible? "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28. This is thought crime.
- Oh ok chief, which language do you read it in?
- Your story is a copy of older stories, what do you mean it doesn't make sense? http://youtu.be...
- Of course Jesus didn't teach the truth mate.
- Please post a photo of god for me then! Ps when did I say there were no statues? Unless you can prove god built the statue I don't care, a human did it. A photo of god
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
For Con:
My question about why post a debate if you're sure you'll win it was meant for Pro, not you.
The idea that all Religionists believe in God doesn't make sense.
Are you claiming that the God of every religion in the world is the same?
Even if all Religionists believe in God the idea that you should Debate the existence of God instead of what the Debate is supposed to be about -faith- doesn't make sense.
The idea that faith & belief are the same, or automatically go together, doesn't make sense.
Your question "Who mentioned luck?" is interesting.
You did, when you accepted the Debate.
There are no "thought crimes" in Christianity.
(Are you claiming that Christian leaders are Telepaths? )
You really should stop quoting the people in the Bible in modern English.
The English language didn't exist back then.
Your claim that my story is just a knock off or a myth doesn't make sense, & is false.
So is your statement that the Bible is ridiculous.
So is your claim that only Christ taught the truth.
So is your claim that no pictures, statues, images, of a God exist.
Check out VAJRASATTVA.

For Pro:
If there were a thousand people around when Christ-whose name wasn't Jesus-
told the storm to subside,
why would you or anybody else claim that it had to be Christ that controlled the weather & calmed the storm?
The fact that we're creative & have free will proves that we can't be creations.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
You seem to be upset about nothing. You may have a better grasp on grammar, which was never my strong suit,But not the importance of words.You said that my bad grammar will give you a stroke. That is what I am talking about.You are very careless about the words you speak. Jesus said, that negative words will come to pass. Don't tell me you never meant it. Then why did you say it? You are not alone. Even most Christians I have met are just as careless about their words. Jesus said, by your words are you justified, and by your words are you condemned.

You said that faith is believeing something without a reason. That may be how you do faith. When I believe Gopd for healing and have faith in his promise in psalms 103:3, the reason I believe healing is because I do not want to be sick. And it works, when it is put to work.In fact the bible is chock full of healing promises.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
http://youtu.be...

This is part one. You can find part two nearby.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Mister_Man
cheyennebodieInnovativeEphemeraTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: "Atheists have to have faith that God does not exist." Pretty much sums up the incredible lack of argument presented by Pro. Con annihlated Pro's argument easily. ...No offense.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
cheyennebodieInnovativeEphemeraTied
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: Athiests no have faith.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 3 years ago
Codedlogic
cheyennebodieInnovativeEphemeraTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Was hoping to get more out of this debate. Pro has exceedingly weak logical skills and made false equivocations in their statements twice.
Vote Placed by Hlinnerooth 3 years ago
Hlinnerooth
cheyennebodieInnovativeEphemeraTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: There is a difference between faith and belief, which con clearly stated. He also gave a clear cut definition which pro then decided to change.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
cheyennebodieInnovativeEphemeraTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro made lots of spelling errors, and he failed to make the jump that people's faith in god makes them able to walk,
Vote Placed by Terridax 3 years ago
Terridax
cheyennebodieInnovativeEphemeraTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was good on both sides, each person presented their arguements with good behavior. Con had better structure and punctuation, which is why I'm rewarding points for that. In the end the Pro did not meet the BoP, and most of their arguements were ungrounded.