The Instigator
dbgb1986
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MrJK
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Faith in a god or gods is a bad thing.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 40051
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

dbgb1986

Pro

Faith in a god or gods is a bad thing. It stunts intellectual growth and allows people to say and do things for bad reasons. As Sam Harris has pointed out, beliefs have consequences, and some of the consequences of faith in a god or gods include narrow-mindedness, closed-mindedness, arrogance, ignorance, delusion, unjustified hatred of others, and unjustified violence toward others.
MrJK

Con

OK...


I accept the challenge and look forward to Pro's arguments.

I hope that Pro establishes what is meant by 'bad' sooner rather than later.
Debate Round No. 1
dbgb1986

Pro

So far, the con side has done nothing to disagree with me. He even asked me to lift the word limit for this debate, and yet, for his first round, he has written fewer than the minimal 500 character limit, so I'm a bit confused... As to what I mean by "bad," it is not my responsibility to look in the dictionary for my opponent. But, in the spirit of getting along, and because I feel bad for my opponent's inability to debate me thus far, I've found various definitions of the term so that my opponent does not have to do so. After finding these definitions, I've realized that I'm willing to use any and all of the first six found in Webster's online dictionary:

1: "falling short of a standard"
2: "not conforming to a high moral standard; morally unacceptable"
3: "causing or capable of causing harm"
4: "engaging in or marked by childish misbehavior"
5: "feeling unhappiness"
6: "having a fault"

So far, I have asserted that faith in a god or gods is a bad thing, according to any and all of these six definitions, and so far, the con side has failed to challenge even a single one of those claims. Unless/until those claims are challenged, I win.

So please, for round two, I beg you to give me a challenge.
MrJK

Con





"So please, for round two, I beg you to give me a challenge."



Unfortunately the instigator has offered very little for me to challenge!


The instigator claims that faith in a god or gods is a bad thing, he has not yet made an argument for his claim.

I suggest that before he continues he familiarises himself with the concept of the burden of proof. To aid my opponent I provide a link to text that provides a fair explanation of the BoP, I hope it helps:

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...



Having discovered 'BoP' it is hoped that my opponent will provide an argument in support of his assertion.


It is also hoped that my opponent clarifies his definition of 'bad'. Although I appreciate his undertaking the arduous journey to Merriam Webster's domain, I feel that he has returned with little of value.

1: "falling short of a standard"
2: "not conforming to a high moral standard; morally unacceptable"

By what authority or method does the instigator set his standard in this case?


3: "causing or capable of causing harm"
4: "engaging in or marked by childish misbehavior"
5: "feeling unhappiness"
6: "having a fault"

BoP is on the instigator.




I hold that it is imperative that the instigator provide a comprehensive explanation of his stance on 'bad'.

I offer some reference to aid my opponent and the debate:

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://people.wku.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
dbgb1986

Pro

Once again, I am winning by default. I have made my claim and offered proof for it, yet my opponent has failed to challenge me.

As for looking up "bad," that in itself was sufficient. By what authority? Well, let's see, WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY. If that's not authority enough, then I'm confused as to what I'm supposed to do right now.

As mentioned earlier, faith in a god or gods is a bad thing BECAUSE it causes unjustified hatred, unjustified violence, and other BAD things.

If the con side wants examples, then here they are:
The Inquisitions (of which there were three; see Jonathan Kirsch);
The Holocaust (based on Christian dogmatism and myths of an Aryan race, both instances of faith in a god or gods);
Slavery (which was upheld in the U.S. for hundreds of years because of faith in a god or gods);
The stunting of intellectual growth (which occurs BY DEFINITION as a part of faith, since faith is belief without evidence and causes people to stop seeking the truth through the intellectual pursuit of the scientific method -- or, if they don't stop altogether, to do so a lot less than they would have absent such faith);
The molestation of thousands of kids (which never would have happened without the Catholic Church, which in turn would have never come into existence absent faith);
And many, many other examples.

These things are all bad.

Checkmate.
MrJK

Con

The instigator has failed to offer much at all in terms of a case for his condemning of 'faith in god or gods'.

He has also offered little by way of a definition for that which he condemns this faith with.

I must repeat myself:

1: "falling short of a standard"
2: "not conforming to a high moral standard; morally unacceptable"

By what authority or method does the instigator set his standard in this case?

I'm sure I do not need to explain in any great depth the complexity of study which has gone and continues to go into 'good/bad'.
I also am (almost) sure that I don't have to point out to my opponent that "WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY" is generally not considered as a moral authority (it isn't even that well thought of as a dictionary!)

My opponent claims "faith in god or gods is bad". By what means did he come to this conclusion? To which standard does he hold his claim to?

http://web.utk.edu...

"...unjustified hatred, unjustified violence, and other BAD things."

So, the inquisitions.

My opponent needs to explain what was 'bad' about the inquisitions, why the hatred and violence it perpetuated was unjustified. None of us like war, none of us like death, but for the most part we accept it as a necessary evil in face of a significant threat.
My opponent also has to explain why the inquisitions could only have been carried out by those with faith.

The holocaust.

The Nazis had various elements of religiosity, but few people would describe deity faith as a core factor of their decimation of Jewish peoples. My opponent would do well to consider the many philosophical, political, social and economical factors which tend to considerably outweigh religiosity for most historians.
http://library.thinkquest.org...




Unfortunately I am hindered my the set character limit, my opponent has so far shown no causal relationship between a faith in a god and... anything.











PS: Should I point to all the clever and nice things that religious people get up to?!







Debate Round No. 3
dbgb1986

Pro

dbgb1986 forfeited this round.
MrJK

Con

My opponent forfeits the round, rather than take the opportunity to fortify my arguments I'll leave it for the final round.
Debate Round No. 4
dbgb1986

Pro

dbgb1986 forfeited this round.
MrJK

Con

I'm going to choose not to offer a closing statement given my opponent's forfeiture.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dbgb1986 3 years ago
dbgb1986
I changed it from 500 to 2,000.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
I would be happy to accept the challenge if the character count is changed, 500 characters per round does not seem sufficient.
No votes have been placed for this debate.